sign in sign up
<<
Home , Anthony Cekada, Bernard Fellay, Canon 1324, Clarence Kelly, David Bawden, Dimissorial letters

THE ENEMY IS STILL HERE!

A REORGANIZED SYNTHESIS OF

The War Is Now! November 1994—March 2003

Edited & Published by

Hutton Gibson

for the

Alliance for Tradition

Cover by Michael Gibson

The Enemy Is Still Here! Copyright © 2003 by Publisher

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any way by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher, except as provided by USA copyright law. Table of Contents

This book is a minimally edited compilation of The War Is Now! # 35 to 57, plus a few pages from #58 (not issued at time of printing). It has been largely re- arranged by subject matter, and the rest in mostly chronological order. Evolution Wildcats Darwinist Lament 1 SSPX — Another Split 81 Genocide 3 From Confused non-Catholic 81 JP2 to 4 Aust-NZ SSPX Letter 82 Quarterly Review of Biology 5 Perils from False Brethren 84 Evolutionary Fiction 7 Ever Fragmenting SSPX 85 From the Slime of the Earth 8 Reaction to Fragmentation 88 B. D’Abrera to A. Fraser 9 Lienart & 93 : Human Nature 10 Mme de Boismenu 94 Book of Origins 13 Circular Philosophy 96 Knee Jerk Wars 17 Piverunas Pontificates 97 Errors, Zanini De Solcia 19 Cricket Law 98 Letter to a 19 Cummins’ Replacements 100 Einstein Theory 20 Canadian Capers 101 Geocentrism Marriage 103 Inspiration of Scripture 21 SSPX Masonic 104 Redmond O’Hanlon 22 Hour’s Drive from 108 Evolution & Geocentrism Equal 26 No Catholic Can Tolerate 108 Further Objections, Difficulties 28 Objections Answered 110 Bellarmine, , Galileo 32 Argument Corner 117 Neutrality of Facts 35 Brian & Laura Kasbar 119 Objections 38 Ngo Dinh Thuc Defense 122 Authority 41 Guest Argument Corner 124 Reiteration of Inapplicable 43 No Outside the Church Space Probe Charts 45 ’s Innovation 129 Function of Revelation 50 Desire & Deception 141 Theological Status, Heliocentrism 50 Objections 148 Michael Davies en masse Crying in the Wilderness 152 New Mass & Indefectibility 52 Exurge Michaël 155 Interview 59 Unbaptized 159 Versus Brian Harrison 60 Richard Ibranyi, Charges 162 Comparison with O’Connor 62 Letter to Ibranyi 165 Cooke’s Tour Perils of Private Correction 167 Ultra-traditionalist? 65 Ibranyidiocy #13 170 Cooke Unhappy 71 St. Benedict Center Article 171 Misapplication of Laws 73 Expurge Ibranyi 172 77 Finis Feeney 173 Letters 78 Peter Dimond 174 Lay Cardinals 175 The War Is Now! # 44 The War Is Now! # 35 Rip Van Winkle Returns 241 Standard of Unity 176 Salesmen of Change 241 Another Vacuum Filled 176 Argument Corner Ordinariate 177 No More War Is Now 242 Anti-Semitism, History & Causes 179 Marian Wojciechowski 243 Robert Bergin’s Authority 182 Evasion of 245 The War Is Now! # 36 Wergild 247 Christian Apologetics 184 Episcopal Conferences–Zimmerman 248 Reply to two Papal Electors 186 The War Is Now! # 45 Catechism, 188 Introducing Nexus article (next) 250 The War Is Now! #38 Hidden History, , Holy Grail 251 Ordination of Women 201 In Murky Waters of Vatican II 256 Jesus the Jew – Zannoni 202 Modernism is Ancient 259 Argument Corner 208 The War Is Now! # 46 Gillies Wach, The Remnant 208 260 Heather’s Guidelines 209 Ratzinger’s Further Analysis 263 The Noble Savage? 209 Letter to Chief Usurper 264 Veto in Papal Elections 210 2316 264 & Modernism 210 Lutheran Agreement 265 The War Is Now! # 39 Aquinas Academy Programme 265 Paul VI’s Courage 211 Thoughts on our Mass 268 The War Is Now! # 40 Thoughts on 270 For Clarity & Truth – Pintonello 212 St. Athanasius on Incarnation, Death The War Is Now! # 41 of Christ, Refutation of Santamaria Defense of “” 215 272 The War Is Now! # 42 St. – Jealousy & Envy 279 Olympics for Sydney 223 The Lord’s Prayer 279 The Day of the Sermon 224 Idols are not Gods 279 Plumbing the Depths 225 St. Ignatius–Martyrdom, 280 Argument Corner 228 –Apparel, Spectacles 280 Grand Orient Award Refused 229 St. Paul–I Thess. ii, 14-16 281 Pope on Path to Reconcile Sects 229 Pell-mell to Perdition 281 Vatican, New Line on Sins 231 The War Is Now! # 36 The War Is Now! # 43 Nopery 283 On Ursula Oxfort 232 The War Is Now! # 47 Dear Miss Oxfort 235 A Non-Catholic Cannot Be Pope 285 The Year of Jesus 236 Cum ex Apostolatus Officio 287 Cardinal Siri on Latin Liturgy 238 East Timor Continued Betrayal 293 Petitions in the Mass 294 Search for Truth & Unity 297 Robber Church – Omlor 299

The War Is Now! # 48 The War Is Now! # 53 Discussion on Execrabilis 300 Brian Harrison 331 Canon Law – Cicognani 302 Antipapal Authority 338 Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue 303 From Government to Help You 340 U.N. Invades Confessional 303 The War Is Now! # 54 The War Is Now! # 49 Alter Boy – X = WKQ 342 Question Time 305 The War Is Now! # 49 The War Is Now! # 50 Golden 353 Statement – N. M. Hettinga 307 The War Is Now! # 55 Hilaire Belloc–The Great 308 Messianic Prophecies 357 St. Patrick to Judge Irish? 308 Pontius Pilate Acquitted 362 Hilaire Belloc–The Great Heresies 309 The War Is Now! # 56 African Animal 309 Literary Converts 363 Nostra Culpa ad Nauseam 310 Rebellion Against Tyranny 366 Miracles 311 Sermon 13th After 367 The War Is Now! # 51 From a Self-Acknowledged Seer 370 Broken for you 311 Clerical Pedophilia 371 The Mystery of Iniquity 312 Divorce Stop – GKKK 372 Argument Corner 317 Friday Abstinence (#58) 373 Nobel Peace Prize 318 New Abstinence (#58) 376 The War Is Now! # 52 Another NOM Argument Blown 377 From 2 1930 Sermons – Coughlin 319 The War Is Now! # 57 Tradition in Religion & Science 320 Sermon, St. Jude’s, 2/10/02 377 Dominus Jesus 324 Sermon (excerpts) 6/30/02 380 Hermeneutics of Suspicion 327 Mothers’ Watch 381 We Resist You to the Face 327 Hebrew People, Holy Scriptures in Christian Bible 382

In the Catholic view of the Eucharistic rite, the perpetual offering of the real blood of the Lamb of God is an act of worship which is a fitting and natural realization of the types embodied in the shedding of the blood of inferior victims under the old dispensation. The type should not be more real or in any sense greater than the thing typified. The sacrificial worship of the Old Law, which was a type of the worship of the New, should not be followed by a form of worship which is inferior as such to its type. No mere service can follow that which was the most perfect form of worship, namely, sacrifice. – M. P. Hill, S.J. The Catholic’s Ready Answer, p. 290, Benziger Bros., N.Y., 1915 * * * * * * Catholicism, which is as rich and complex as life itself, differs from the academic over-simplification of the great heresies much as Sussex differs from a map of Sussex. The universal Church is the home of all mankind, whereas every heresy is an artificial simplification with a limited and particular appeal to a particular mentality. —Arnold Lunn * * * * * * We hear so often that if these last four are not legitimate then the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church. This notion is obviously directly contrary to truth and reason. Manifestly, if a public heretic were legitimate head of Christ’s Church, as His vicar, then would the gates of hell have prevailed. What greatly helps forestall them prevailing is refusal to grant legitimacy to interlopers or to heretics.

Preface My religious views are set. Nothing except proof that I err can change them. If I err the Church erred in teaching me, which turns the exercise into futility. I believe exactly what the Catholic Church, unchangeable by nature, taught me. I accept no innovation from authority whose primary purpose is preservation, from authority incompetent to innovate in matters of doctrine, morals, and . Every change in these necessarily introduces doubt. This is self- evident, even to the innovators, whose motives must be immediately challenged. Doubt in these matters is not permitted. It breeds heresy even where it has not already (as in the new rite of “mass”) introduced and proclaimed heresy. In the presence of doubt the safer (pars tutior) course must be taken. The safe course is always the traditional. No one, pope or not, can teach us anything we do not already know, nor oblige us to, nor excuse us from, any worship to which the Church had not previously obliged us. Salvation’s requisites are changeless. No stones have been left unturned. Most, if privy to my campaigns, would have been astounded by the hatred encountered from those charitable and . They attack me—not my arguments. They hate tradition! The few who argue line up immediately against the , to the doctrines of which at ordination they took most solemn oaths from which no one can dispense them. This stance places them deeper in heresy. They back all these moral, doctrinal, and sacramental innovations with papal infallibility, which cannot cover such. They all pretend, and some believe, that what came forth from Vatican II, a self-designated “pastoral, non-dogmatic council,” bears the stamp of papal and conciliar infallibility, though it often diametrically opposed Catholic doctrine as infallibly taught by genuine popes and councils from St. Peter to Pius XII, from Jerusalem to Vatican I. When Vatican II was convoked its John-given charter empowered it to re- examine every Catholic doctrine except papal infallibility. That was needed as a bluff. That justified all change. That was the sword held to the neck of the obedient faithful. That is a most convenient, because so poorly understood, doctrine. Without that there would have been open refusal (not rebellion). Four usurpers have used the papal chair to promulgate heresy. They have deliberately and illegally replaced our ageless worship with a new, defective rite, while forbidding the traditional Mass guaranteed by the Council of Trent and by Pope St. Pius V and all his legitimate successors. They have innovated bishops’ conferences to divide responsibility. They have innovated retirement of bishops and clergy further to separate the young from tradition. They have eased the almost unheard-of process of laicization, to shatter discipline and to remove priests who cannot brook change. These last two innovations provide the excuse of acute shortage of priests, so that they may shut down (and sell) churches and monasteries, and/or bring in laymen to administer parishes and , and to assume even sacramental priestly duties as “” and “.” We hear that the bishops conspire behind the pope’s back—that the poor fellow, probably the world’s best-informed man, doesn’t know what goes on. This argument cannot cover Luciani or Wojtyla, who must have conspired with the rest until elected. Paul VI, it is too often said, insufficiently educated in the Catholic religion, wandered into his errors (even promulgated to the world) by mistake. He never realized what he was doing. I grant that he had formed a habit of publicly embracing heresy and teaching multiple heresy while of Milan. Passing over the logical and canonical necessity that a public heretic is not Catholic, therefore ineligible for any and all office in the Catholic Church, we know that the dogma of papal infallibility includes its Guarantor, the Holy Ghost. No pope may wander accidentally into heresy in fulfilment of his papal functions. The and its promulgations were anything but infallible. But everyone was penalized for nonconformity as though they had been. So the Holy Ghost guided this council and this pope into Self- contradiction? The only alternative? Paul VI was not pope, or he would have been protected from public error. Even had he been a genuine pope, he would, by his first of error as Catholic doctrine, removed himself into heresy, automatically ending his papacy. The JP1 and JP2, eager implementers of the same heretic council, shapers of some of its errors, can lay no more claim than Paul to either orthodoxy or authority. They both continued change in Canon Law, to accommodate Vatican II and the modern world, and continued utterly unjustifiable proscription of the undeniably true Mass to favor the new idolatry. They have (had) no authority either to forbid or to permit the true Mass. The only possible approval is that which also obliterates new rites for “mass” and “sacraments,” as well as the Second Vatican Council itself, which was falsely cited as authority to introduce them. All innovations must go, even those which could have been legitimate if introduced by genuine popes, for these provided the cover for the deliberate “auto(?)-demolition” of the Church. A genuine pope could accomplish all this in half an hour by executive fiat. Probable resultant turmoil is no excuse. No one scrupled over the chaos which followed the innovations. Catholics born before 1950 may dismiss me as a nut, thereby dismissing themselves three to four decades ago as equally crazy, or pursue the matter to the bitter end. Bitter it is, but the facts are incontrovertible. If we lose our souls, let not the cause be disbelief in ascertainable facts. No cleric answers me, though all have this duty. Let them document and condemn my heresies. Only absolute certainty would embroil me in such a vital controversy. I know exactly what the Catholic Church taught me. I cannot accept those who try to impose variation as Catholics, never mind as priests, as bishops, as popes. No one had any right to bring in even the first change. Not only inconsistent and illogical, it violated the law of God and His Church. Hutton Gibson

Evolution (First things first) Genocide ..... is merely a shocking name for the process of natural selection by which one gene pool replaces another. Darwin himself explained this in The Descent of Man, when he had to deal with the absence of “missing links” between ape and human. Such gaps were to be expected, he wrote, in view of the extinctions that necessarily accompany evolution. He coolly predicted that evolution would make the gaps wider in the future, because the most civilized (that is, European) humans would soon exterminate the rest of the human species and go on from there to kill off our nearest kin in the ape world. – Reason in the Balance, by Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois Note the plurality. The entire evolutionary system is rife with missing links. Whether we seek ancestors in with or transitions from other species, the record shows none. Ducks have not evolved into geese or bluebirds into bluejays; cheetahs have not changed into leopards or hyenas; moose has not lengthened into mongoose or giraffe; baboons have not merged into orang- utans, chimpanzees, or gorillas; moray eels have not derived from barracudas, nor sharks from carp. There are as many missing links as species. But Darwin concentrates on one issue: Whence came we? Imagine this primeval village with its integrated population. As dusk approaches, and each mighty hunter returns to his palm-thatched, wickerwork dwelling, he is greeted with: “Why can’t you come home at a reasonable hour? Your father and mother dropped in today, and scratched and grunted for hours!” “Your father helped with the hunt. He wouldn’t drop in; he stayed up in the trees and kept scaring off the deer.” After dinner the men gathered at the pub, and discussed the common problem, the generation gap. “They’re downright embarrassing. And they won’t go to the old folks’ home.” “Yeah, we know! You can’t even talk to them. And most of them aren’t house-broken.” “And on top of that, none of them are married!” “They’re not?” “Can they take vows if they can’t speak?” “Stick to the subject! Something’s gotta be done! They can’t keep dropping in every day like this!” “Suppose we get rid of the trees.” “Are you mad? Think of the ecology! Besides, that’s too much work.” “They’ll all be here for the barbecue this Sunday.” “Have you ever noticed how scared they are of fire?” “You’d be scared, too, if you were that hairy.”

9 So the following Sunday afternoon the older generation, to the last whatever, went up in smoke. Our riddle is solved, but what about the sheep?

JP2 to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 22/10/96 (L’Osservatore Romano, 30/10/96) straddles an irrelevant issue, and clearly suggests treatment and outcome. Scientists cannot reach conclusions unaided? “2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since Revelation ..... contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of Revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution?” ..... [“My direction is forward.” – JP2. How silly can questions get?] “During this plenary session, you are undertaking a ‘reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium’ starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity’s future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of ..... nature, the evolution of science and its applications gives rise to new questions.” [like what was science before it evolved?] “The better the Church’s knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.” [No doubt he refers to the Ten Commandments.] [He then quotes himself—to demonstrate his consistency?] “In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.” – to Pontifical Biblical Commission, 23/4/93 “4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the Humani Generis considered the doctrine of ‘evolutionism’ a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in- depth study equal to that of the opposite hypothesis.” [He demotes Creation to hypothetical status which needs investigation—on par with a laughable theory which abolishes , its necessity of Redemption, and the reason for his (vacant) office.] ..... “Today ..... new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable” [and perhaps credible] “that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries” [like DNA?] “in various fields of knowledge...... convergence, neither sought nor fabricated,” [of course not!] “of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.” [Such a scientific argument, too.]..... “6. With man ..... we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological ..... leap ..... does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that

10 physical continuity which seems ..... the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry?” [Until some instance of continuity from one species into another can be established, despite obvious universal discontinuity, no evolutionary hypothesis is worth the breath to laugh.] So why the fuss? Further division? Examination of the “papal” message to members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (22 Oct. 1996) reveals no competence in the subjects it raises. Reference is made to “new knowledge” leading to “recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution.” What new knowledge? What facts has it established? Why has it led only to more guesses? These were inevitable anyway, since evolution of one species into another has never been established, and the assumption that it must have taken place demands more and more explanations of its lack not only of proof but increasingly of its likelihood. With each new species found likelihood decreases. Even co-existence of two or more species needs explanation how if one sprang from another both continue to propagate? Why has the parent species not vanished into its improvement with its survival skills? Indeed, the higher the form of life, the greater the need for parents. Parents beget children of their own species. Experience is our invariable witness. Hybrids don’t reproduce. Like begets like. A child cannot survive on its own. Infinite regression is absurd. So the first humans were created adults— required for responsibility for original sin. The “missing link” is common to all species. Establishment of the existence of this “missing link” is absolutely essential to acceptance of these theories. But such acceptance is absolutely essential to acceptance of the unwarranted and impossible changes to the Catholic Church at and since the Second Vatican Council; for these are all based on our evolved mental superiority over our less evolved forefathers—incapable of the required comprehension. The “pontiff” pontificates to the Pontifical Academy. He cites proliferation of theories (guesses) as greater substantiation of their impossible likelihood. He speaks as an expert in a field devoid of experience. He stands before the Academy as the expert on doctrine—as the authority behind doctrine, for that is his excuse for putting in his appearance. The Catholic creationist is twitted with the fact that his “pope” will not back him, as though that inconvenient fact made a difference to the truth of his own position. But John Paul II is incompetent even in his own field. He is a public heretic of long standing who maintains his authority by a new code of canon law and a new catechism which could not have been written before the Second Vatican Council because both were based on that criminal council. We have submitted twenty-four pages of delation of this man for heresy to the Roman congregation (also under heretical control) responsible for Catholic doctrine. If further confirmation were needed, it comes from four evolutionists who have contributed to the article in the December issue of The Quarterly Review of Biology, The Pope’s Message on Evolution and Four Commentaries.

11 Commentary 1 (Edmund D. Pellegrino) plumps for sustained dialogue, “taken by the Church since the first appearance of The Origin of Species...... What the Pope said, what he did not say, and the implications of both for the future relationships between science and religion is significant for scientists, theologians, and the general public.” But evolution is no science, nor has the Church ever granted it such status. Nor is John Paul II a disinterested party. Without evolution he cannot pretend to be Catholic, much less pope. Popes must first be Catholic. Vatican II and its whole Renewal are based on Evolution, that absurd theory dependent for its shadow existence on its usefulness to militant atheism. Its use to current ecclesiastical authority was emphasized in Paul VI’s words to theologians and scientists at a Symposium on Original Sin(!) July 11, 1966: “But even the theory of ‘Evolutionism’ favored today by many scientists and not a few theologians owing to its probability, will not seem acceptable to you where it is not decidedly in accord with the immediate creation of each and every human soul by God, and where it does not regard as decisively important for the fate of mankind the disobedience of Adam, universal protoparent.” Having introduced evolution, he tried to maintain a mask of orthodoxy. The mask had slipped six months earlier when he voiced subtle approval of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s wonderful insights into creation. All these things clearly implied universal progress in the human brain, now well enough evolved to understand immense realities previously unappreciated. Now the current apostate has come forward to vindicate Darwin’s impossible dream. John Paul II was reported in The New York Times as having “put the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church firmly behind the view that the human body may not have been the immediate creation of God, but is the product of a process of evolution. “In a statement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences Wednesday (Oct. 23) the pope said ‘fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis.’ He did not elaborate .... did not address the apparent conflict with Biblical versions in Genesis of the creation of the universe and human beings. But he called it ‘remarkable’ that the views first espoused by Darwin in the last century had ‘progressively taken root in the minds of researchers, following a series of discoveries made in diverse spheres of knowledge.’ ” The article mentioned Pius XII’s Humani Generis, which “strongly cautioned that while evolution might not be objectionable, it played into the hands of materialists and atheists, who sought to remove the hand of God from the act of creation.” What must it do to those who believe John Paul II pope, when he admits to simian ancestry? Too bad he’s wrong. Most monkeys are infallible, since they can’t lie. Non-Catholics will assume that we must now follow this anti-religious opinion because voiced by a pope. We know that we’d lie under no such obligation, even if he were pope. If a blind chance process could create a species we would have little need for a Creator. Godless, we would lack all moral responsibility 12 except minimally to other members of a soulless species which could not have committed original sin, hence would need no redemption, hence no religion to preach and apply it. So John Paul II represents whom? Commentary II (Michael Ruse) is well worth ignoring. Commentary III (Richard Darwin) about halfway admits irrelevance of all written to that point, but continues into further irrelevance. Its only point: John Paul II has opposed Creationism. In view of his dedication of his pontificate to further implementation of the and documents of the Second Vatican Council, what other course could have been expected? Commentary IV (Eugenie C. Scott) assumes the truth of Evolutionary theory and welcomes John Paul II’s support. The support itself is established—and entirely consistent with the disruptive policies of Vatican II’s Great Renewal as opposed to Catholic doctrine.

Evolutionary Fiction The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is true God and true man; that He took His human nature from the Mary, who descended by genetic inheritance from a first man and a first woman, created primordially, to wit, Adam and Eve, the first of their kind, descended from no other creature; that He assumed human nature to redeem us from the spiritual consequences of original sin. Necessarily, then, whoever should maintain that Jesus Christ inherited His human nature from non-primordial human first parents would ipso facto exclude himself from the Church. If after the canonical six months he failed to recant, to submit to the doctrine of the Church, to redress the damage, he would be formally excommunicated. Garrulous Karolus Wojtyla, Koran Kisser, pope of the postconciliar “Church,” has publicly stated that “Evolution is more than a hypothesis” (= Genesis is less than objectively true). Thus he denies the existence of Adam as a primordial being. He denies the truly human nature of Christ, as genetically descended from Adam and Eve, and takes up residence among the great monophysite heretics. In denying his own biological Species Fixism, Wojtyla denies a central teaching of the Catholic Church, and consequently excludes himself from the Church. His bogus science betrays his bogus religion. What an irony that genuine science (the Fixism of Biological Species) has finally been used to expose his fraudulent church! He needs not even deposition; as St. writes, a non-Catholic cannot be pope. Not being pope, he cannot lose the job. It follows that all who adhere to (una cum) Wojtyla are, together with him, under the same exclusion. Ratzinger recently said: “We cannot talk about Creation vs. Evolution, but rather about Creation and Evolution.” Yet all the Catholic Creationists adhere to Wojtyla and Vatican II—which is predicated on Evolution. None mentions Wojtyla’s astonishing denial! Why not? The foregoing is paraphrased from Bernard d’Abrera’s unofficial introduction of his newest book, The Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World, Hill 13 House Publishers, c/o Bernard D'Abrera, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Rd, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom, £75, $100 (U.S.) This book features one hundred fifty (150) pages of butterflies photographed in all their glorious colors at 65% size, as well as a few remarks on the religion of Evolution. At a function held in the British Museum of Natural History on the eve of the book’s release, an over-enthusiastic waiter knocked a leg off the eight-foot statue of Charles Darwin, whereupon Mr. D’Abrera called attention to the fact that Darwin hadn’t a leg to stand on. This provoked no laughter; no one laughs at his own religion. Let us return to the ghastly predictable result of the Koran Kisser’s evolutionary stance. Doctrinally there would seem to be no reason for Christ to have come. If humanity springs from an evolutionary process, whence original sin? So man needs no Redemption. Or else he really needs Redemption from original sin— but against whom? Who was to be propitiated by the Sacrifice of the Cross, a Creator or a process? At what stage of the process was original sin committed? We shall yet see at least gibbons, orang utans, chimpanzees, and gorillas included in the postconciliar “Church” and objects of the universal apologies rendered to all whom the Church has ignored or injured down through the millennia. And why draw the line there? If Jesus Christ originated from this process, why is not the entire process redeemed? So it eventually makes sense to save not merely the whale but the hyena and the cockroach! Our species will be redeemed by tree-hugging! A plague on these trivialities! Let’s get back to the butterflies, which, as has been sung, are free. Free for what? Propagation of their own species. No viceroy has yet produced a swallowtail, never mind a cabbage moth. “In this book,” writes Mr. d’Abrera, “in those chapters devoted to Biology, Classification, Philosophical Argument, and Mimicry, the does not simply receive the same regurgitated pseudo-scientific gibberish that is mindlessly trotted out by each and every author of modern books or films on the lepidoptera. He has instead the compliment paid to him, of recognition of his intellect and a free will that may still be unencumbered by the ‘party line’ of the dogmatic evolutionistic propagandists, now in totalitarian control of every aspect of human endeavour, and so dependent on voluntary human gullibility for their success!” Genesis 2:7. And the Lord God formed man from the slime of the earth— possibly containing micro-organisms. Genesis 2:18. And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. 2:22. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. Had there been another human, would Adam have been alone? What need then to build Eve, mother of all the living (Gen 3:20)? Pius XII’s Encyclical Humani Generis left the door ajar for evolutionary theory?

14 Denzinger 2326: “Not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion give as much consideration as possible to these disciplines. Surely, this is praiseworthy when it is a case of actually proven facts, but caution must be exercised when the question concerns ‘hypotheses,’ although in some manner based on human knowledge, in which hypotheses doctrine is discussed which is contained in Sacred Scriptures or in ‘tradition.’ When such conjectural opinions are opposed directly or indirectly to the doctrine revealed by God, then their demand can in no way be admitted.” Evolutionary theory stands condemned. Denzinger 2327: “..... the Church does not forbid that the teaching of ‘evolution’ be treated in accord with the present status of human disciplines and of theology ..... insofar ..... as the inquiry is concerned with the origin of the human body arising from already existing and living matter;” [Gen 2:7 & 22] “and in such a way that the reasonings of both theories, ..... in favor and ..... in opposition, are weighed and judged with due seriousness, moderation, and temperance; and provided that all are ready to yield to the judgment of the Church, to which Christ has entrusted the duty of interpreting Sacred Scriptures authentically, and of preserving the dogmas of the faith.” Double checkmate to evolution. One may wonder why Pius XII brought it up. Denzinger 2328: “..... When there is a question of another conjectural opinion, namely, of polygenism so-called, then the sons of the Church enjoy no such freedom.” Both conjectural hypotheses directly oppose Scripture.

Bernard D’Abrera to Anthony Fraser (Apropos) 4 Nov 96 Your Pope Wojtyla has just said that “Evolution is more than hypothesis”. This means automatically and by inference, that the Book of Genesis is less than fact. When he made this utterance he was speaking ‘as pope’ —not as ‘private doctor’. He was not speaking as ‘private doctor’—because as a ‘private doctor’ he is neither qualified by training, by vocation, or profession to make statements on scientific matters. Therefore his only justification for getting involved in the matter is as ‘Supreme Pastor’ teaching the world about a matter of Faith (and by association and extrapolation, Morals). Hence he was—though not solemnly defining—still teaching from the Ordinary Magisterium, as Christ’s Vicar. Dom Grea tells us that as ‘pope’, the pontiff is “..... with Jesus Christ—a single hierarchical person—above the episcopate, one and the same pontiff and legislator of the universal Church”. Or more precisely, “Jesus Christ Himself is the sole Head, rendering visible, speaking and acting in the Church through the instrument whom He provided for Himself. Christ proclaims Himself through His Vicar, He speaks through him, acts, and governs through him.” (Dom Grea, The Church and its Divine Constitution) Thus it is obvious that if you really acknowledge Wojtyla as pope, you have no choice but to humbly bow your head, give your full assent and obey him—and accept his teaching that the Theory of Evolution is “more than hypothesis”— 15 and equally, you must now reject the doctrine of the Inerrancy of the Bible (particularly Genesis) as taught by the Catholic Church. This will of course, be the course taken by millions of the Vatican II faithful, as they now have ‘the pope’ telling them that they are descended by evolution, from primitive hominids (apes). Now, either man has a soul (and so did his hominid ancestors—because it would not be reasonable or safe to set a point at which he stopped being a soulless animal and started being ‘man’ with an immortal soul), or he has not. If he has a soul then his hominid ancestors also did—and thus so do all animals have souls (as preached by animal liberationists and some environmentalists). Therefore it becomes a ‘sin’ to take any life, no matter how lowly in the Created Order—and it is now possible to see how the goddess Gaia and her devotees will soon be rising out of the respectability conferred in Christ’s name, upon Religious Environmentalism by this knavish ‘pope’ of the robber church of Vatican II. Will you now come to your senses?

MAGISTERIUM ON HUMAN NATURE [Several years ago a fine article on human origins came into my hands for editing. It should have been published, but it disagrees with the Ecumafia, whose entire Renewal is built on Evolution.] In the following texts issued from the twelfth century to the Council of Trent, every characteristic feature of modern evolutionary hypothesis on human origins, except of Adam himself, is condemned. Innocent III (Gaudeamus in Domino, 1201, to the of Tiberias): Polygamy is forbidden by the ; monogamy is of the very nature of marriage, because of the manner in which the Creator formed the first woman, Eve, from the side of the first man. The narrative in the literal sense pertains to the truths of salvation, as the 1909 Biblical Commission stated of the same verse. Innocent III’s letter, if not a solemn definition, yet clearly reflects the Church’s consistent mind on this verse from her foundation, an understanding dependent not on philosophical or scientific analysis but on theological tradition stemming from Christ. At the (1311) ancient condemnations of Apollinarianism (in the Incarnation the divinity of the Word replaces the rational part of the soul) were repeated and so formulated as to exclude the errors of Peter of John Olivi. The Council declared that, as in every other human being, the one intellectual soul is the form of Christ’s Body conceived in the Virgin’s womb. To hold that the soul informs the body through some non-intellectual power can lead to denial of the essential difference between the human body and the brute’s. The Council insisted that Christ’s soul is individual, not that common entity (dear to thirteenth-century ) which reduces to divinity in all forms of Apollinarianism.

16 Vienne’s doctrine on the human soul and its relation to the body rests ultimately on the Church’s traditional understanding of the origin of the first man’s body and soul. Each was made directly by the Creator, then united by Him to form a single man, a creature different from any other in his special likeness to his Maker. Against the errors of the Renaissance Neo-Aristotelians the Fifth Lateran Council (1513) defined the immortality of each human soul, the possibility of natural demonstration thereof, and the direct creation of the souls of not only the first pair but each and all of their descendants. The Council of Trent, Session V (1546) in its on original sin, defined (1) the unity of the entire human family as of descent from one man and one woman made directly by God; (2) only in virtue of that descent by procreation is one a human being; (3) in virtue of that descent original sin is inherited, not imitated. This can be reconciled with no theory of Polygenism, in principle a denial of facts, known on God’s indisputable authority, which cannot be disproven. Throughout the first half of the thirteenth century the popes issued a series of Warnings or Prohibitions Against Use of Aristotle’s works as a basic textbook of philosophy in the school of arts of the University of Paris, and against the danger of new terminology and concepts drawn from philosophy used to determine and interpret the sense of Revelation in preference to criteria based on and Scripture. St. Bonaventure discusses theological method and the dangers attendant upon use of merely natural knowledge apart from a divinely appointed authority as a primary criterion for resolution of theological questions, of which interpretation of the Bible is one. These warnings neither condemn Aristotle nor deny possible utility of his philosophical or scientific knowledge within theology, much less attempt to control and manipulate philosophical and scientific research and reflexion. They indicate rather that when Aristotle’s or any other scholar’s valid insights are not detached from a secular bias placing no limits on man’s freedom and prowess to know all naturally, their application to questions touching origins of the world or of man, and of the nature of the Incarnation is dangerous to faith. The Church has consistently applied this approach to questions involving both theology and other intellectual disciplines. Statements directly contrary to revealed truth are condemned in principle. Hypotheses are rated safe and sound, or unsafe in terms of what is known by faith to be beyond question. Like his modern counterpart, the medieval secular intellectual considered this policy obscurantist, a term applicable only on assumption that Revelation and theology can contribute nothing to understanding the subject matter of philosophy and science. Church policy assumed: (1) Truth is objectively one. Contradictories cannot simultaneously be true. Revelation and reason cannot be at odds. Apparent contradictions arise from the thinker’s abuse of either faith or reason. (2) Methods or procedures for use of human intelligence in grasping truth are 17 multiple. A single method, philosophical or scientific, cannot comprehend all knowledge, even concerning one object. Because Truth is one, methods are co-ordinated one to another and subordinated to that one science providing the straightest access to Truth itself, study of Revelation and theology. Both assumptions were widely denied during the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. During the , those who adopted the secular stance but wished to retain their link with Catholicism rationalized their stance with the Two Truths Theory. To avoid choosing between contradictory statements it was stated that theological truth could be simultaneously false philosophically, historically, or scientifically, and vice versa. Such a position entails an intellectual relativism incompatible with the Catholic view of truth, especially dogma. Between this theory and the “reason” of Christian proponents of evolution trying to reconcile the “fact” of evolution with Genesis lies a curious similarity. They grant the facts of Genesis true as theological symbols, a kind of code for transcendent religious truths, but historically and scientifically false. But the Church has consistently denied just this claim throughout her history. Consistency will not permit either side the compromise represented by “theistic evolution.” One must choose between the dogma of creation and the all-embracing evolutionary perspective on matters of cosmic and human origins. Characteristic of Nominalism was refusal to concede universal concepts more than generalization (a purely mental construct) status. Concepts never rise above the mental tags and symbols level, hence of themselves provide no sure road to understanding of the extra-mental real. The concept of a species tells the thinker nothing absolutely certain and unchanging about human nature outside the mind. Implications of such a position for certainty and objectivity of human understanding reduce to two: either certainty concerning reality and stability of the outer world is imposed by authority (Fideism); or the only certainty is that nothing is certain — reality is an unending flux. Any attempt to reason on such an assumption tends to identify the real with the objects of the senses, always in flux, since the essences of things (even material things), not distinctly and directly perceived by the senses, are but mental constructs. Access to truth, then, insofar as truth designates the extra- mental real, is the exclusive prerogative of the “scientific method,” by definition the method appropriate to study of the sensible. Thus any theory of science radically nominalistic will also be evolutionary, because the objects of the senses constantly change. Change or evolution rather than form or substance as the fundamental characteristic of the real will conversely be described in such a context as scientific and reasonable, whereas Creationism, however presented, cannot appear, a priori, as anything but fideistic, authoritarian, and unscientific. But this theory of science is as unscientific as it is anti-Christian and anti- creationist. The support which nominalism has always provided for theories 18 of legal Positivism and arbitrary Voluntarism confirms the radically arbitrary character of any theory based on nominalistic assumptions. So it is important from a Catholic viewpoint to question whether evolutionary thought has ever been scientific in any sense but as part of a philosophical theory whose root assumptions are incompatible with an integral part of Catholic belief — the human mind’s ability to form universal concepts by which objective knowledge of the essences of things is derived. Once rejection of the Magisterium’s authority and traditional policies had spread, technical advances were seen as confirmation of the new theory of science and as proof of the obscurantism and childishness of faith. The Galileo Case has become a landmark illustration. Despite the popular “scientific” accounts, which devote too much space to personalities, the Church acted consistently and reasonably in silencing Galileo and placing his works on the Roman Index. She did not thereby condemn scientific theorizing, but insisted that his particular theory be held merely as hypothesis till the exegetical questions should be settled; to publish it as though proven could harm the faith of the uninformed. The Church’s immediate concern was not justification of astronomical theory but guardianship of the deposit of faith and of its correct interpretation. She has no need to choose between heliocentric and geocentric theories. Book of Origins, Damien Mackey This 33-page article arrived in the mail. For several pages I looked askance at it, but it began to grow on me. I would not presume to impose it, but it seems to solve a few problems without creating others. If it opposes traditional exegesis or Catholic doctrine some one will doubtless point out where. Please remember that Holy Scripture is inspired in only its original languages. Translators, even the best, often phrase inconsistently or ambiguously. Ignorant of Hebrew, I must rely largely on concordances. Where the Bible is quoted I have inserted what I am told is the original Hebrew word in our alphabetical equivalent, with the Greek word used in the Septuagint, and the Latin word from the . Over the last couple of centuries, archaeology has supplied much pertinent light, even on ancient scribal practices. Babylonians had a legend of the first man’s divine instruction over six days, recorded on six tablets. Possibly the Hebrews had the same view and parallel tablets. Mackey documents at great length, but depends mainly on P. J. Wiseman in his Clues to Creation in Genesis. Wiseman, however, drew from his studies a conclusion remarkably in agreement with St. Augustine (“Beyond all doubt the world was not made in time, but with time .... God, therefore, in His unchangeable eternity created simultaneously all things whence times were to flow ....”); with Ecclesiasticus 18:1. “He that liveth for ever created (eκτισεν, creavit) all things together (κοινη, simul)”; with , St. Athanasius, St. Clement of Alexandria, and Philo. St. assessed St. Augustine’s aforesaid view as “more conformed to reason and better adapted to preserve Sacred Scripture from the mockery of infidels.” (Summa Theologiae Ia, Q. 65-74) No instructed Catholic 19 would dream of limiting God’s power. He could easily have created everything in one instant. Why should He have protracted it—done it “the hard way?” However He accomplished it, the action would take longer to describe than to perform. Wiseman concluded (1) The six days cannot refer to time occupied by God in acts and processes of Creation; (2) The six days refer to time occupied in revealing to man the account of Creation; (3) God ceased on the seventh day for man’s sake (“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” – Mark 2:27) not for His own, nor because on that day Creation was completed. Exo. 20:8. Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. 20:9. Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do (yasah, asah, ποιησεις, facies) all thy works. 20:10. But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work (yasah, asah, ποιησεις, facies) on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates. 20:11. For in six days the Lord made (yasah, asah, εποιησεν, fecit) heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested (nuach, κατεπαυσεν, requievit) on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. Genesis 2:2. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (yasah, asah, εποιησεν, fecerat): and he rested (shabath, κατεπαυσεν, requievit,) on the seventh day from all his work which he had done (yasah, asah, εποιησεν, patrarat). Genesis 2:3. And he blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because in it he had rested (shabath, κατεπαυσεν, cessaverat) from all his work which God created (bara) and made (yasah, asah, ποιησαι). Exodus 20:11 refers back to Genesis 2:3. Shabath and nuach are synonymous enough to have been translated into Greek by the same word, κατεπαυσεν, which means he stopped, hindered, put to rest. Why was it translated from the Septuagint into the Vulgate by two different words, one meaning he rested, the other he stopped? How did these two Latin words come into the Douai as rested? Wiseman’s question: What did God stop doing? His answer: Six days of instruction and exposition, after which Adam needed a day off. Wiseman noted also that God had said Remember, because the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt without a day off in centuries. And that this Exodus passage conveys the impression of ordinary 24-hour days in an ordinary week—which no one doubts. Please note also the two Hebrew words, bara (create) and (y)asah (make, do). According to Young’s Analytical Concordance, bara occurs in 55 verses, in 48 of which creation is signified. (Y)asah is an all-purpose word, like make, do, facere, or ποιειν. It is translated by 95 English words in over 2500 uses, 1292 times as do, 631 as make, 79 as work, 54 as be done, 50 as deal, 47 each as 20 execute and offer, 45 as commit, 44 as show, 43 as keep, 38 as prepare, 18 as perform, 13 as get, and once even as trim, as one might do one’s hair. How is the meaning determined? Context! In Genesis the context itself is anything but definite. Wiseman devoted several pages to yasah, convinced that “the precise significance of this word .... must be understood, because the meaning of the passage which has caused so much difficulty is dependent upon the sense in which it is used in this verse” (Exodus 20:11). If translated as in Genesis 19:19, 20:13, 24:12 & 14, 32:10, 40:14, and Exodus 14:13, and 20:6, this verse would read “For in six days the Lord showed heaven and earth, ....” Since the sabbath was made for man, Wiseman reasoned that the other six days were also made for man; therefore, he must have been present, though supposedly created on the sixth day. Certainly God never needed six days for creation, nor would the night stop Him from working. So at least the night gave man time to sleep; lessons were not continuous. Genesis 1:1. In the beginning God created (bara, εποιησεν, creavit) heaven, and earth. The job was done. The rest is detail, put so man can understand to some minor degree the immensity of the accomplishment. Yasah does not mean create; it signifies merely that God did something for six days. What? In Genesis 32:10 the same Hebrew and Greek words are made in Latin explevisti (Thou hast fulfilled) veritate tua (by Thy truth), απο πασης αληϑειας (by all truths). 1:2-31. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said: Be light made (γενηϑητω, fiat). And light was made (εγενετο, facta est). And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day. And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made (yasah, asah, εποιησεν, fecit) a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. God also said; Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And he said: let the earth bring forth green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said: Let there be lights made (Γενηϑητωσαν, fiant) in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth, and it was so done. And God made (yasah, 21 asah, εποιησεν, fecit) two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the fourth day. God also said: let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven. And God created (bara, εποιησεν, creavit) the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. And the evening and morning were the fifth day. And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. And God made (yasah, asah, εποιησεν, fecit) the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good. And he said: Let us make (yasah, asah, ποιησωμεν, faciamus) man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created (bara, εποιησεν, creavit) man to his own image: to the image of God he created (bara, εποιησεν, creavit) him: male and female he created (bara, εποιησεν, creavit) them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. And God saw all the things that he had made (yasah, asah, εποιησεν, fecerat) and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day. Genesis 2:1. So the heavens and the earth were finished (kalah, συνετελεσϑησαν, perfecti sunt), and all the furniture of them. Please note that every day God said something. To whom? On the first three days He called something this or that. Why? He knew what they were; He had created them. Again, He named these things so man could refer to them. So He spoke to orient man in his environment. “A name to identify a thing is not necessary to God, but it is necessary for man.” If raised on the Baltimore Catechisms, you were taught from a first book with short definitions, and progressed to second, third, and fourth books encompassing ever more elaborate amplifications. The account of these days should strike a reminiscent chord. For here is also a system of instruction. The first day’s lesson is elaborated on the fourth day; the second day’s on the fifth; the third day’s on the sixth.

22 Genesis 2:4. These are the generations (Αυτη η βιβλος γενεσεως) of the heaven and the earth, when they were created (bara, εγενετο, creata sunt), in the day that the Lord God made (yasah, asah, εποιησεν, fecit) the heaven and the earth: We have returned to words (in the day) which appear to mean that all was created in one day. Wiseman details many features in the account, including the present tense of the Hebrew amar (said, ειπεν, dixit), the serial numbering of the days, and the uniform end of each day, which indicate that the original record was made on six stone or clay tablets. Possibly his best argument is the Septuagint version of this last verse, not fully quoted in the Vulgate or Douai versions. The Greek words shown above translate: “This is the book of the generation of the heaven and the earth, when they were created ....” “Whether creation was gradual or instantaneous, the revelation of that creative work could be made only according to a temporal succession, as St. Augustine had perceived. And this temporal succession of revelation to man lasted apparently for six days.” – Damien Mackey * * * * * Knee Jerk Wars In 1898 the battleship Maine blew up from undetermined causes in Havana harbor, where it had no excuse for parking. “Remember the Maine!” propelled us headlong into war with Spain, which won for us Puerto Rico, the , Fidel Castro, and Theodore Roosevelt. He split the vote with his Bull Moose party and Wilson was elected. Woodrow Wilson inflicted on us the Federal Reserve, the 18th Amendment, and entry into World War I. This last brought on the draft of more than four million voters, and assured passage of the aforesaid 18th Amendment. We declared war with the sinking of the Lusitania, though the German government had advertized that it would sink the boat because it carried munitions to Britain and , and urged not to sail on her. When the boat was sunk— sinker unidentified—we were stampeded into a war, which killed over 53,000 servicemen, and permanently incapacitated thousands more of our best men. December 7, 1941 another outrage triggered us into World War II, though no one in his right mind would have concentrated most of our Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor in the circumstances. Franklin D. Roosevelt had backed the Japanese into a corner from which their traditions would allow them to escape only by violence, given them a target, and forestalled its defense by keeping its Army and Navy commanders ignorant of the planned attack, known in Washington at least four days earlier. A repelled attack would have sufficed. Shouting “Remember Pearl Harbor!” we rushed into war—and let the Japanese take the Philippines, Singapore, and the Dutch East Indies while we concentrated on the Germans and Italians who had done nothing to us. Indeed we had made war on Germany not only by contributing our “over age” war vessels to Britain and supplying the Soviet Union with convoy after convoy with the sinews of war, but by the overtly hostile act of relieving British troops 23 in Iceland with our 5th Infantry Division. The day after the bombing of Pearl Harbor his 1st Sergeant tossed a Silver Star on my ’s bunk. “What’s that for?” “That German plane you shot down six weeks ago. We couldn’t give you anything; we weren’t at war.” Our president had declared war on his own! But he could not make it official without a disaster. He prolonged the European war six months by demanding unconditional surrender—generously contributing daily to our 405,000 killed. We were backed into three more wars (two of which we were not allowed to win) disguised as police actions in the name of the United Nations, to by-pass the Congressional prerogative to declare war. We lost another 112,000 killed in Korea and Vietnam. We have too long been governed by “emergencies” and “disasters.” Another featured the demolition of a government building in Oklahoma City with no casualties among the work forces, all of whom had the day off, but with 100% elimination of the children in the day-care center. This was accomplished by a fertilizer bomb exploding in a vehicle parked in the street—though the explosion had little effect on the other side of the street. But the “incident”—like those catalogued earlier—had a purpose, restriction of private gun ownership, a declared target of President Clinton, whose Near East policies and actions, in one way or another, influenced and provoked this latest multiple disaster. We rise again in righteous rage to declare war on not only the criminals who have perpetrated this mass destruction in New York and the Washington area but the countries which “harbor them”—and on all terrorists!—an endless task even without such obvious targets as the I.R.S. and the F.B.I. Who benefits? Our president intends, he says, to pursue or inflict “infinite justice.” He has either arrogated to himself divine power or demonstrated surpassing ignorance. But will he address the injustice of abortion? The U.S. cannot stand infinite justice! What may result from belief in immediate answers to Who committed this crime? has seldom united. Moslems have often warred on each other. But if we wage war on Afghanistan we risk uniting all Islam against us— including the vast numbers who have immigrated to this country and to much of western . If we provoke a jihad we shall be up to our necks in saboteurs who believe they will go straight to Paradise if they die killing Christians. Their homicidal tendencies have been dampened of recent centuries by the British and French Empires, which are now history. But this outrage makes little sense. The greatest thorn in the Moslem side is the state of Israel. Would Moslems go so far out of their way to draw on themselves the wrath of a nation with limitless war-making capacity when they could accomplish far more with far less risk without leaving home? Why must we declare war and kill more millions of young men? What benefit have we derived from the century of conflicts listed above? If a boxer is kicked in the groin must he adhere to the Marquis of Queensberry Rules? If so, he will lose badly, especially if (as in the current case) there is no referee. To fight

24 assassins and terrorists, you counter with assassins and terrorists. Don’t exhaust the entire country for whose benefit? Incidentally, Afghanistan has not been colonized, defeated, or overrun in centuries. ERRORS OF ZANINI DE SOLCIA [Condemned in the letter “Cum sicut,” Nov. 14, 1459] Denzinger #: 717a That the world should be naturally destroyed and ended by the heat of the sun consuming the humidity of the land and the air in such a way that the elements are set on fire. [Global warming?] 717b That all Christians are to be saved. [Incorporated into most Protestant sects. What is a Christian?] 717c That God created a world other than this, and that in its time many other men and women existed and that consequently Adam was not the first man. [Is this why Darwin couldn’t find that missing link? He was buried in another world?] 717d ..... that Jesus Christ suffered and died not for the redemption because of His love of the human race, but by the law of the stars. [It appears that “God’s good time” was sidereal. Where is this law recorded?] 717e ..... that Jesus Christ, Moses, and Mohammed ruled the world by the pleasure of their wills. [Next?] 717f .... that the same Lord our Jesus is illegitimate, and that He exists in the consecrated hosts not with respect to His [tainted?] humanity but with respect to His divinity only. 717g That wantonness outside of marriage is not a sin, unless by the prohibition of positive laws, and that these have not disposed of the matter well, and are checked by ecclesiastical prohibition only from following the opinion of Epicurus [Who he?] as true. 717h ..... that the taking away of another’s property is not a mortal sin, even though against the will of the master. 717i ..... that the Christian law through the succession of another law is about to have an end, just as the law of Moses has been terminated by the law of Christ. Zanini recanted. But currently the last proposition is in danger of adherence from the charismatics, who preach the era of the Holy Spirit, and from JP2, who seems hellbent on restoring Mosaic, or at least Talmudic law.

1996 Letter to a priest The very fact that Paul VI imposed this “experiment” worldwide and used it to replace and forbid what was always known as true divine worship convicts him of malice. Even if he could have instituted a mass or , he had no right to take away what we had. He drove millions out of the Church, by his clear implication that it could be improved, and was therefore not the true road to salvation. Always he looked to the future for new truths and revelations, despite the well-established truth that we already had all that we need for

25 salvation right from Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and that the Deposit of Faith was complete, and could not be augmented. If what Vatican II and its four “popes” have added is necessary to salvation, all Catholics until our time have surely gone to hell. These same innovators have replaced law, both divine and natural, and clearly defined doctrine, as well as Mass and Sacraments. If they are correct, then you were wrong thirty-five years ago, along with all our teachers and authorities, back to and including our Divine Founder and His Apostles. If you resent mention of the destruction of the Eternal Sacrifice, you just may comprehend our resentment over the destruction itself. You mention the “old ,” that determined the intention of the Mass, the offertory without which unless present we could not fulfil our Sunday Mass obligation. It has been replaced (like all the essentials of our true Mass) with an Old Testament type sacrifice of fruits of the earth and work of human hands—valueless for salvation—which Jesus Christ had replaced with His own Sacrifice of Calvary. Why didn’t you clerics rise up? You couldn’t have missed the point! You could see, even before we had the opportunity, that translators had “improved” Christ’s Consecratory words, thus invalidating them and procuring idolatry. What held you down? You let some jerk tell you that Christ died for all men? Didn’t He know that? But He did not say it at His ! Not even a single Protestant or schismatic rite has ever turned many into all, because everyone wanted it to work, even if only symbolically. All knew that no one can consecrate with some one else’s words. And you didn’t?!

LETTER FROM FLORIDA The family relished your comment on Einstein and his theory. (I had included one of my stock arguments—that what only I can see is immediately suspect, just as Einstein’s theory, comprehensible to Einstein alone, is more than likely wrong.) I remember when it came out and everybody was talking about it. I realized that it wasn’t even comprehensible. Did you read about the high school kid who discovered a basic mathematical error in Einstein’s computations which demolished the whole theory? Not much publicity for that discovery. When Einstein read the boy’s computations, he acknowledged his error and admitted the boy was correct. Your remarks recalled to mind an incident in my school days. We were freshman science (physics) students. Our teacher was a brilliant Dominican who (we were told) had actually written a chemistry textbook. This was especially impressive for girls (girls’ school). Sister explained the theory of Light. As I listened I said to myself: “It doesn’t make sense.” But I kept my thirteen-year-old thoughts to myself. But a girlish voice cried out: “I don’t believe it!” General murmuring—no one else believed it either. And our great Science teacher genius responded: “You don’t have to believe it. It’s only a theory, not a fact. And maybe in ten years or so they’ll come up with another theory. When you are asked in the exams for the theory of light you tell

26 them what the theory is. You don’t have to believe anything scientists say if it doesn’t make sense or if you can’t comprehend it.”

GEOCENTRISM? Inspiration of Scripture [A Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, fifteenth edition, 1954] ..... an inspired writer has received the impulse to write, and is directed from above in his work, but it is not necessary that any new truths should be communicated to him. There is no reason to suppose that the author of the book ..... received any revelation. In an inspired book there are evidently two factors—the natural powers of the writer ..... and the impulse of the Holy Ghost ..... The Church has not decided where the one factor ceases and the other begins to operate...... In the Encyclical “Providentissimus Deus” (Nov. 18, 1893), Leo XIII ..... declared that it “would never be lawful to restrict inspiration to certain parts of the Holy Scriptures, or to admit that the sacred writer himself could have made a mistake. Nor may the opinion of those be tolerated who, in order to get out of difficulties, do not hesitate to suppose that divine inspiration extends only to what touches faith and morals, on the false plea that the true meaning is to be sought for less in what God has said than in the motive for which He has said it.” On the other hand, the sacred writer must adapt himself to the circumstances of those whom he is addressing. As St. says: “many things are related in the Scriptures according to the opinion of the day in which the facts occurred, and not according to what in reality took place (et non juxta quod rei veritas continebat).” (“In Jerem. Proph.” xxviii., PL, xxiv. 855). And St. Thomas (1a, q. 70, a. 1) tells us that Moses, talking down to the rude intelligence of the people, “went by appearances”..... Further, “we have to consider that the sacred writers, or more accurately the Holy Ghost Who spake by them, did not intend to teach men those things (i.e. the essential nature of the things of the visible universe)—things in no way profitable to salvation” (Leo XIII, ib., quoting St. Augustine, “De Genesi ad Lit.” ii. 9, PL, xxxiv. 270). The important Encyclical “Divino Afflante” (1943) stresses the need of studying the literary forms of the East, such as hyperbole and paradox. “In many cases in which the sacred authors are accused of some historical inaccuracy . . . it is found to be a question of nothing more than those customary and characteristic forms of expression or style of narrative which were current in human intercourse among the ancients, and which were in fact quite legitimately employed. . . . They should no more be stigmatized as error than when similar expressions are employed in daily usage.” Nor should they assume the status of literal truth, as the sole alternative to imputation of error. A universal mode of expression such as a rising or setting 27 sun can hardly be termed a mistake. These expressions have survived to the present day, when no doctrinal significance accrues to them. Must we assume that such a doctrinal significance ever existed? No one has ever defined this. varies because it depended on Passover as set by the Jewish lunar calendar. The year began with the new moon following the spring equinox, and ran twelve lunar months, or 354 days. The calendar depended upon the sun’s course, since its festivals were in part agricultural. [What causes an equinox or a season?] So an extra month was thrown in whenever discrepancies became too noticeable. Both ritual and civil day began about half an hour after sunset. Subdivisions were indeterminate; daylight was divided into twelve equal parts, which varied with the season from 49 to 71 minutes. It is conceivable that since the inspired writers had no set temporal reference points they would have used sunrises and sunsets as normal indications of the passage of time, without involving the physical production of these phenomena. Else much more time could have passed in description of the daily rotation of the scene of the action into and out of the light of the sun. Of this daily rotation few of the inspired writers would have been aware. Astronomy appears to have been more within the compass of the Magi, those three strangers from the East. Had they been aware, would they have taken greater pains to clarify this paramount issue than our contemporary heliocentrists, as they jam their maniacal heliocentricism down our throats with such cogent phrases as the sun rose or the sun set? The Melbourne Catholic for January-February carried a full-page letter from Redmond O’Hanlon. He begged the question of the Scriptural and papal corroboration of geocentricity. To counteract this assumption I have resorted to genuine authority. Tales of the Longbow, G. K. Chesterton, The Unthinkable Theory of Professor Green: “Reversing the usual mathematical formula, it’s possible to reach the same results in reality by treating motion as a fixed point and stability as a form of motion. You were told that the earth goes round the sun, and the moon goes round the earth. Well, in my formula, we first treat it as if the sun went round the earth—” “I always thought it looked like that!” “And you will, of course, see for yourself that by the same logical inversion we must suppose the earth to be going round the moon.” As you can see, this problem has received serious consideration in the earlier decades of this century. I begrudge time for side issues which tend to divide traditionalists and distract from genuine problems. People who can be convinced of the error of Vatican II citations will refuse to believe us if we digress into star-gazing. And the geocentrism advocates tell us that neither geocentrism nor heliocentrism can be proven. If so, what is the point in choosing sides? From one point of view

28 the earth goes around the sun; from another, the sun around the earth. We raise an irrelevant issue to no perceptible advantage. But I wish only to demonstrate the uselessness of insisting on either position, when the issue lies outside the scope of infallibility in irrelevance to the Deposit of Faith. Nor can St. Robert Bellarmine’s opinion, theological or not, true or not, bind anyone. It is no argument to quote anyone, particularly out of his field. A superb linguist may flunk trigonometry. Only the pope is infallible, and in only a very narrow field. I don’t really care whether heliocentricity or geocentricity is true. Neither may be imposed upon us as necessary to salvation. They lie outside the scope of the Church’s competence, similarly to prognostication. The entire issue remains an unnecessary exercise in division of an endangered species, traditional Catholics. Scriptural inerrancy is not involved. The Holy Ghost inspired the writers, but they wrote from their own earthbound viewpoint. Probably most thought the earth flat. Even today, when most educated men subscribe to heliocentrism, they still say the sun rises in the east or sets in the west. Everyone, even inspired, writes from his own position. “The Bible must be understood according to the language ... in which it was written, but also according to the point of view adopted by the sacred writer; [such effort] has resulted in the solution or disappearance of a large number of so-called difficulties in the Bible.”–What is the Bible?, Henri Daniel-Rops, Hawthorn, p. 50 From many years as a railroad brakeman I know that in riding the top of a boxcar at any speed whatsoever if I jump up I come down in the same place on the running board because I move at the speed of the boxcar. But if the car comes to an abrupt stop (bumping block or a stationary string of cars) while I am in the air, I come down several feet ahead in relation to the boxcar. (Standard practise—if the brakeman is in the air he avoids the shock, which might throw him ahead off the car. If the brakeman wishes to alight from a moving car or engine, he must continue to move in the same direction at the same speed or he will fall on his face. He can immediately slow his pace if he can keep his feet under him, but initially he moves at the speed of the car or engine from which he alighted. The New York Central Hudson Division runs practically due north and south between New York City and Albany. Year after year the west rails wear out faster than the east rails. Why? The east rails tend to recede from wheel pressure, while the earth pushes from the west against the same set of wheels on a fixed axle. But suppose that the earth is the center and everything in the heavens goes around it. Immediately we can show that at least three heavenly bodies never in five thousand years have gone around the earth, viz., Mercury, Venus, and Polaris— the North Star.

29 Even geocentrists agree that the other planets in our solar system orbit the sun. Can they explain how, as the sun orbits the earth daily (at over 365 times the speed of the earth if it orbits the sun) constantly jumping up and down 47° in relation to the earth’s equator so that it lights the North Pole and South Pole each half the year, all these planets, which regularly orbit the sun as it dances, remain night after night in constant and hardly noticeable variation as we view them? Men have gazed at and mapped the stars since man began. Seafarers have used them as guides nearly as long. So we know the constellations are in the same relation to each other and to us for at least five thousand years. Now we see the equatorial constellations in the same order annually and nightly year after year. We can tell time by them. But we never see all of them in any season; they lie in turn behind the sun, and we won’t see them until we go further around the sun in our orbit. Else all these constellations whirl around our geocentric position nightly at unimaginable speed—many times the speed of light. If so, why do we not see them all every night instead of each in its according to season? The entire earth experiences the same phases of the moon at the same time, because the sun’s light hits from the same angle. If the sun orbits the earth it must also orbit the moon. If the sun goes around the earth daily, how account for the slow phases of the moon? Would not each phase occur daily? Whether or not the earth orbits the sun, the sun is thus proven not to orbit the earth daily. If we rotate on our axis at about a thousand miles an hour at the equator, our motion is sufficient reason for the rising and setting of all those constellations, some of which have not gone around us in five thousand years because they are too far north or south, some of which (along the zodiac) disappear annually for a month behind the sun. But if we are the center of the universe, and it all goes around our stationary earth each twenty-four hours, instead of a reasonable 365 days (= rotations) to orbit 584,000,000 miles around the sun, a distance of about 52.2 light minutes, we find the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, something over four light years distant, in a daily orbit of more than 25 light years at 394 times the speed of light. We find Beta Centauri, in the same constellation, maintaining its position relative to Alpha these five millennia, 130 light years distant, in a daily orbit around us of 408 light years at a speed of 6,200 times the speed of light. We find Sirius, eight light years distant, traveling at 788 times the speed of light in a daily orbit of 50 light years around us, and another, Epsilon Canis Majoris, in the same constellation, maintaining its position relative to Sirius these five millennia, 325 light years distant, traveling 15,500 times the speed of light in a daily orbit of 1020 light years. We find other bright stars in zodiacal constellations as much as 650 light years distant, whizzing around us at 31,000 times the speed of light in a daily orbit of 2,040 light years. Even barring escape velocities, I have a little trouble with these figures. It’s good that the Magellanic Clouds are so far out of the way. Imagine the figures if they were behind Taurus or Aquarius! Even if we allow the earth some

30 rotation, say once a day, these astronomical figures are divided by only 24. And then what happens to the sun’s daily trip around the earth? It would be exactly compensated. Were it not for the prevailing westerly winds and the equatorial ocean currents, the earth could turn backwards. I cannot advance the idea that God cannot reconcile these figures with reality. He has Creator’s rights over all. But the relative positions of earth and moon and their mutual shadows show that the sun does not orbit the earth daily. April 1, 1996 I consulted a sun-gazer, a retired astronomer in Coonabarabran, who had specialized in movement (if any) of the sun. He may have thought that my call was an April Fool joke, but he deigned to comment professionally on my “proofs.” He agreed that within fifteen hours or less of a total eclipse of the sun would necessarily occur a total eclipse of the moon, which, he said, would not have had time to leave the plane. He agreed also that in a geocentric system we would see all phases of the moon daily instead of about once a month. How can this contradict faith? The observable phenomena would obviously not be the same as now if the geocentric theory were correct. The geocentric theory is thus shown absurd. Is heliocentrism equally improbable, as the geocentrists maintain? I can compile a list several yards long of statements from inspired Scripture which cannot be proven literally correct. Geocentrists construe the sun rose or the sun set literally, or else there is no argument. But when the geocentrist reads Genesis iv, 10 & 11, why does he not ask how blood can cry, and where is the earth's mouth? At Genesis v, 31 does he insist that Sem, Cham, and Japheth were triplets? According to xi, 10, Noe would have been 502 when he begat Sem. Must we take Scripture literally? 500 = 502? What of vi, 6, wherein God changed His mind? Anthropomorphism? But the geocentrist must call it a lie. The same could be said of viii, 1, in which He remembers, 21, wherein He smells, and xi, 5, which brings Him to Babel. In xiii, 8 & 11 Abram and Lot are called brothers, whereas xi, 27 & 31 establish that they were uncle and nephew. I would call it ordinary usage (as in the sun rose) which persists in that area even today, but the geocentrist must call two of these texts lies. This would, of course, carry over into the , in which we read (Matt. xii, 47; Mark iii, 31-32; Luke viii, 19-20) that Christ’s mother and brethren wait outside. Four are named (Matt. xiii, 55) and the following verse throws in sisters for good measure. Yet these same men spring from different mothers and fathers, as recorded elsewhere in the , , and Acts. What is said of these texts? They must be interpreted to conform with known facts and doctrines. What limits are placed on this method? Geocentrist bias? Even if it were true that Galileo had undermined the authority of Scripture and thereby advanced the Protestant revolt, it would be hard to demonstrate that he had any such effect on the rebels, who unanimously held to the authority of Scripture alone and refused to allow anything not mentioned therein. Though we find tradition in St. Paul’s second to the Thessalonians, all Protestants have successfully misinterpreted it. 31 This particular controversy typically follows the pattern of non-Catholic literalism and dogmatism. If this is what interests the traditionalists, it will be said, all would be crazier than they to accord them any notice. Relevant issues abound. There is a real war. Let’s get to it!

I stand accused of treating evolutionary and geocentric theory inconsistently, though they are equally relevant. Evolution contradicts reason so as to wipe out religion. Vatican II is based largely on evolution. The geocentrism controversy concerns salvation in no way, and is beyond the scope of religious dogma. I sink evolution on the basis of Scripture? Not directly! First hearing this theory I thought it utterly ridiculous. Examples? When schools began teaching it as fact I discovered it in contradiction to dogmas like original sin and redemption. The Scriptural account of creation is to be accepted as revelation from the only living Witness, Who may have used day in whatever sense pleased Him; its length concerns no one. I lean to the literal 24 hour type—“evening and morning.” Geocentrism is based on a universal manner of speech; whoever “interprets” it however, he cannot impose it as in any way necessary for salvation, or as revealed. Revelation ordinarily deals with matters nearly impossible for man to determine for himself. It is not a crutch for incompetence or ignorance. Even papal interpretation is not necessarily true, as shown in the case of Sixtus V’s edition of the Bible. When he died his Bible was withdrawn and corrected; Bellarmine had a major part in the correction. So we had matter which belonged to religion falsified by a pope who could have imposed the falsification only because he was pope. What would keep two other popes from misunderstanding this problem on which absolutely nothing depends? Scriptural “authority” upon which the papal interpretations were based is the daily rising and setting of the sun as recorded so many times in Scripture, a universal manner of speaking based on appearances from the human vantage point but having no effect on or relation to fact—not matter for inspiration or revelation, neither of which is concerned with triviality. Scripture inter- pretation is not directly concerned with grammar, figures of speech, or modes of expression. The Scriptural writers were inspired, but there is no reason to believe that they were granted any special revelation, or even that they knew of the inspiration. Long centuries later the Church declared which writings were inspired and which were not, largely on internal evidence. It is generally agreed that the writers used their own phraseology; there is no question of the Holy Ghost dictating a single word. He is literally not responsible for modes of expression. I never set up Science to judge anything. I set up my own proofs, and in one case consulted a qualified astronomer to validate them. If the sun orbits the earth it orbits the moon at the same time, and we would necessarily see all 32 four phases of the moon each orbit. Whenever a full eclipse of sun or moon happened there would necessarily be an eclipse of the other within the same daily orbit. This proves impossibility of daily orbit of sun around earth. The relative positions of sun, earth, and moon tell quite a lot by their frequency and circumstances. I detailed these positions and shadows earlier, and later dug up that retired astronomer to support my proofs. That point about the invisibility of equatorial constellations for a month each behind the sun could be forced into consistency with the idea that the sun orbits the earth, but only once a year. Then the earth would necessarily rotate daily so that the sun could rise and set daily. In that case the rising and setting would have nothing whatsoever to do with the sun orbiting the earth. So how can this rising and setting prove that the sun orbits the earth? At no point does the Bible declare such an orbit. The greater rate of wear on a north-south railroad’s west rail is more conclusive than you admit. Pressure comes from one side, as the earth rotates. If the earth stood still outer gravity pressures would be equal; any wear from the orbiting sun would wear on the east rail till noon and the west rail till sunset, and be even during the night. Similarly, the moon would exercise whatever gravitational effect in equal time from either side. I omitted the idiotic objection that caused me to include that brakeman. The argument goes that if the earth rotated, a man leaping into the air would come down a few inches west. If he threw a ball a hundred feet straight up he would step westward to catch it. If an aeroplane wanted to go from New York to London it could merely go up a few miles and wait for London to rotate beneath, instead of flying eastward. This idiot comes down in the same place because he moves with the earth at the same velocity, as illustrated by my jumping brakeman—an apter analogy than a baby in a moving vehicle that hits a tree. My Chesterton quotation was intended only to mock the whole question, the question geocentrists beg when they declaim ad nauseam that neither view can be proven (empirically) but that they accept the infallible word of the Bible. Such humility! Such piety! Such a sorry argument! No Church teaching on this subject exists. Nor a way in which either view could affect salvation. Official catechisms taught matters affecting salvation, like definitions of God, man, creation, original sin, and the like—all fairy tale if Evolution is fact. I never saw a catechism that hinted at heliocentrism or geocentrism. If a pope condemned Copernicanism for heresy it should have controverted some truth in the Deposit of Faith. If so he should have specified this truth and its relevance to the message of Jesus Christ. Evidently this was never done, or it would have been listed, like all condemnations of heresy, in Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum. Such a matter, based on a universal, subjective mode of expression, can bind no one, and the Church has no inherent right to impose anything more than what everyone means by it: solar appearance or disappearance over the horizon. 33 The Church, of course, has charge of Scripture, and its notes and interpretations of doctrine must be accepted. Neither fact nor doctrine is involved in a universal mode of expression based on the universal tendency to view everything from one’s own position. Everyone is geocentrist in his outlook because he is geo-resident. He sees from the earth. When NASA shoots at the moon it shoots from this earth, not from the sun or the moon, and must figure accordingly. Evolution differs entirely. I remember during the 1932-33 school year being given in class “the Church’s position”: “Whether or not Science could prove that the human body evolved from some other creature, the human soul is an immediate creation of God.” This was half-adulterated nonsense. I suspected that Rome had developed a Galileo complex. So when I found it necessary to attack evolution I seldom tied arguments to Scripture or an “official” view of weaseling Church spokesmen (popes included). Most of my argument addresses atheists, to whom it wastes time to quote Scripture. One bases argument on authority accepted by his opponent. Evolution, a howling heresy, must be condemned for its disastrous consequences, not least its elimination of sin, personal responsibility, and our Creator. Should geocentrism, a harmless opinion, become a problem, we may safely ignore it; it has no theological consequences. Replies to further objections and difficulties The moon casts its shadow eastward during an eclipse because it travels that way —like everything else not tied down: weather patterns, prevailing winds, equatorial ocean currents. Even the new ozone layer is thickest at the equator and thinnest in polar regions. Everything spins in the same direction as the main mass. Surely a geocentrist will not object to the moon orbiting the earth? Actually it is more a binary system, as observed in some pairs of stars which have a common center of gravity and appear to go around each other. Our own little binary gravity center is supposed to be 2,900 miles from the earth’s center. A moon-bound rocket never leaves this unit, and need clear only local gravity to escape its pull. If my brakeman jumps to the boxcar ahead, while the train may travel at fifty miles per hour, he already travels at train speed, and need travel less than an additional mile per hour to accomplish this amazing feat. But he travels in the direction of the train. If he were to jump sideways he would fall off at train speed in train direction. If the train went east it might pick up a little speed from the tail wind, but erosion of the tracks would be equal. A northbound train is subject to additional stress, from the left. No ordinary west wind could overcome it. Evolution owes its acceptance not to any celestial system but to the success of the secularist Ascendancy, which quickly appreciated its possibilities. The sacred writer has not erred; he has used a universal linguistic usage based on appearance, which geocentrists admit cannot be proven except through the sacred writer’s use. (vicious cycle!)

34 If two popes condemned Copernicus on the basis of Scriptural phraseology I cannot accept their word, any more than ’s successor and St. Robert Bellarmine accepted Sixtus’ equally papal interpretation of far more Scripture. Copernicus lies under no shadow. Had any pope since agreed officially with those two (as far outside their competence as Sixtus), or thought the matter of sufficient importance, some discussion of geocentrism would have been included in Denzinger and in all our catechisms. One of our best, Spirago’s, mentions Copernicus only once, to cite him as a Catholic scientist. Spirago lambastes Evolution for half a page, but wastes no single word on heliocentrism or geocentrism. Nor has either surfaced in any of my other catechisms. They are simply irrelevant. Nowhere in the Old Testament is the Holy taught. The literal, legalistic Pharisees who controlled Judaism during the Roman occupation would not accept this “foreign” addition to the Revelation. If God had not spelled out this central doctrine to His Chosen People in His inspired Scripture, is there some compulsion for Him to have mapped out the heavens for them? Is there greater reason to accuse Him of deceiving His people in either case? As St. Thomas said, Moses wrote for imbeciles. S.T. I, Q. 66 Art. 1: In reply to the second argument, we say that certain of the ancient natural philosophers maintained confusion devoid of all distinction; ..... But previous to the work of distinction Holy Scripture enumerates several kinds of differentiation, the first being that of heaven from earth, in which even a material distinction is expressed...... This is signified by the words, In the beginning God created heaven and earth. The second distinction mentioned is that of the elements according to their forms, since both earth and water are named. That air and fire are not mentioned by name is due to the fact that the corporeal nature of these would not be so evident as that of earth and water, to the ignorant people to whom Moses spoke. S.T. I, Q. 73, Art. 2, ad 5: According to Augustine, the order of days refers to the natural order of the works attributed to the days. [The days, then, were possibly an explanation to suit the minds of overworked slaves, who might have thought Creation too much work for one day, and who might have rejected also the suggestion that the earth moves, because they could not perceive the motion. Why agitate them needlessly? To satisfy literal minds God preceded these people as a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He even showed Moses (Exodus xxxiii, 23) His “back parts”—spirits have no parts.] The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 90c: But the hermeneutics of Augustine merit great praise, especially for their insistence upon the stern law of extreme prudence in determining the meaning of Scripture: We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers (De Genesi ad litteram, I, xix, xxi, especially n. 39). An admirable application of this well-ordered liberty appears in his thesis on the simultaneous creation of the universe, and the gradual development of the world under the actions of 35 the natural forces which were placed in it. Certainly the instantaneous act of the Creator did not produce an organized universe as we see it now. But, in the beginning, God created all the elements of the world in a confused and nebulous mass (the word is Augustine’s—Nebulosa species apparet; “De Genesi ad litt.”, I, n. 27), and in this mass were the mysterious germs (rationales seminales) of the future beings which were to develop themselves, when favorable circumstances should permit. Is Augustine therefore an Evolutionist? ..... if we mean that he admitted in matter a power of differentiation and of gradual transformation, passing from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, the most formal texts force us to recognize that Augustine proclaimed the fixity of species, and did not admit that “from one identical primitive principle, or from one germ, different realities can issue”...... “The elements of this corporeal world have also their well-defined force, and their proper quality, from which depends what each one of them can or cannot do, and what reality ought or ought not to issue from each one of them. Hence it is that from a grain of wheat a bean cannot issue, nor wheat from a bean, nor a man from a beast, nor a beast from a man” (De Genesi ad litt., IX, n. 32). [I could do well without this line, but it shows that the foremost Father and would not always accept the literal words and ideas in Scripture.] Josue’s long day was a miracle, by definition a of the laws of nature. So we can’t make rules or even suppositions to fit. You object that the earth can’t orbit the sun because the sun had not been created. Not only the earth but light itself preceded the sun, according to Genesis. But a jeweler can carry a diamond in his pocket until he makes a proper setting for it. I would hate to think that God has less power or providence than a jeweler. If He created the earth first, that fact(?) should give to the earth all the primacy and privilege the geocentrist thinks befitting. He did it all for man, whom He created last. Why not first if most important? I don’t care what Galileo would have us believe. None of my argument depends on him. We agree only by accident. Nor can it disparage my argument that it never occurred to Galileo. If Michelson-Morley bounced light beams off “equi-distant” celestial objects in different directions, why should they not return at the same time? How far would the earth have moved? How far and at what speed had the targets moved? Whether or not we would see all phases of the moon daily in a heliocentric system, we would necessarily see them daily in a geocentric system. We don’t see them daily. There can be no conflict between true science and Revelation. But geocentrists borrow a battle by attaching unwarranted significance to a universal figure of speech.

36 Last month I spoke of this mini-controversy to a highly intelligent and articulate man from northwest Iowa, who specialized in high altitude work when in the service. He has often seen the earth turning, from planes way up there beyond the winds. Please don’t suggest that he flew only east and west, and so could not have observed accurately. “Moses was certainly not trying to write a textbook in college physics or advanced astronomy when he wrote Genesis. Really the vast idea he wanted to get across ..... was that light, darkness, day, night, sky, earth, waters, trees, and swamps, sun, moon, birds, snakes, fishes, and fowls, and finally man himself, were created by God. They did not create themselves any more than a B-29 creates itself. Moses simply said that at the beginning of the process was God. In that fact lies the profoundest truth of all.” – A Closed Book Open, Theodore V. Purcell, S.J. as quoted in Catholic Digest Reader, Doubleday & Co, Garden City, N.Y., 1952 I slam geocentrism because (1) I believe it baseless if attributed solely to Scripture, (2) because it seems able to drive yet another unnecessary wedge between traditional Catholics, and (3) because heliocentrism is much harder to disprove. Of all the world I am the last to condemn “minority” opinion. I know a teacher who in his professional experience has often found only one in the class correct, and often enough it was himself. I can see no beneficial result from proof, even if possible, of geocentrism. I maintain, in agreement with Dom Bernard Orchard, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and the Haydock Bible, that Scripture in the texts at issue indicates nothing except the normal speech of a population that lived in tents and thought the earth flat. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Dom Bernard Orchard, p. 169: Characteristics of the Pentateuch—Several important facts tend to be overlooked which are essential for the formation of a judgement of the Pent. as a piece of literature. In the first place, its composition extended over some forty years. Such a long period of time quite apart from differences of subject- matter could hardly fail to introduce differences of language, style and viewpoint. Then, Moses was not young when he led Israel to Sinai and he was a very old man when he arrived with the people in the country opposite Jericho. Repetition and fullness of style were characteristic of his people, and such characteristics would be emphasized in the style of an old man. Thirdly, not only is the Pent. an ancient and an oriental book, which it is quite unscientific to judge by the standards applicable to modern and western literature, it is further, in its own line, pioneer work. The marvel is that it is as perfect a production as we find it to be. No ancient literature has an historical work of similar compass which can be compared to it. And of course through divine inspiration God made use of human instruments as He found them. He did not interfere with their natural modes of thought, of speech, of style. Considered, therefore, simply on the plane of human achievement Moses wrote a truly remarkable work, which must take pride of place in any history of world literature. 37 In this issue (#40) I enclose two more photocopied pages from the same source, and a photocopied excerpt from Josue x with its Haydock notes. You may perhaps condemn these as subsequent to your “papal condemnations,” but St. Thomas and St. Augustine preceded them, nor were they alone in their interpretations. And please note that Leo XIII quoted St. Augustine in Providentissimus Deus, a papal encyclical which deals with just these matters. [Here an objector tore up the encyclical. It was another disaster, and it wrested St. Augustine out of his known view. Popes are to be heeded only in agreement with geocentrism.] I cannot find where I have said that the sun does not move. I said that it does not orbit the earth daily, though I have ventured no opinion on whether it orbits the earth annually. I do not fight the Church on this matter because the Church teaches nothing on astronomy. Certain people in the Church profess to believe that a manner of speaking common to all can be hyped up into a dogma which I must believe to be saved. This is not, and cannot be counterfeited into, a question of faith or morals, to which papal infallibility is confined. About 11:30 a.m. Friday, August 30, 1996 I phoned the Deep Space Tracking Station at Tidbinbilla, near Canberra to check on rocket tracking. The station still tracked Pioneer Ten, fired off in Florida in 1972, and then some ten billion kilometers straight away. Rockets are fired straight up. If the earth is stationary Tidbinbilla would never see them. But Tidbinbilla tracks Pioneer Ten until this one-way, non orbital spacecraft “sets” and the tracking continues from Madrid, and then from the Mohave Desert, and in about sixteen hours again from Tidbinbilla, every day, week-in, week-out, by the month, year, and decade. The station currently tracks Galileo, sent out to observe Jupiter, about 1:26 p.m. Yesterday it was 1:22 p.m. The difference is accounted for by the earth’s progress along its orbit. Sidereal time takes over in the same manner as in calculation of the day as 23 hours and 56 minutes from the sun’s position straight overhead to its next occurrence—this four- minute variation is again due to the earth’s progress along its orbit. [To this an objector scoffed that any child could tell me that the time difference is due to Jupiter’s movement. But the amount of time coincides with earth’s orbital speed, not Jupiter’s, which amounts to about twenty seconds.] As I am buried beneath all those supposed condemnations in the Roman Index of Forbidden Books, let the undertaker consult The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Vol VII, p 722a: “A book is prohibited or put on the Index by decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Roman , of the Sacred Office, or of the Index, which decree though approved by the pope (in forma communi), always remains a purely congregational decree.” Some books have been Indexed merely for a tendency to confuse a current majority. Nor can I imagine a theologian basing his theology on which body (if either) orbits which. [in reply to a serious argument!] The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol II, page 412-3, Bellarmine article: “..... he sat on the final commission for revision of the Vulgate text. This revision had 38 been desired by the Council of Trent, and subsequent popes had laboured over the task and had almost brought it to completion. But Sixtus V, though unskilled in this branch of criticism, had introduced alterations of his own, all for the worse. He had even gone so far as to have an impression of this vitiated edition printed and partially distributed, together with the proposed Bull enforcing its use. He died, however, before its actual promulgation, and his immediate successors at once proceeded to remove the blunders and call in the defective impression. The difficulty was how to substitute a more correct edition without affixing a stigma to the name of Sixtus, and Bellarmine proposed that the new edition should continue in the name of Sixtus, with a prefatory explanation that, on account of aliqua vitia vel typographorum vel aliorum which had crept in, Sixtus had himself resolved that a new impression should be undertaken. The suggestion was accepted, and Bellarmine himself wrote the , still prefixed in the Clementine edition ever since in use. On the other hand, he has been accused of untruthfulness in stating that Sixtus had resolved on a new edition. But his testimony, as there is no evidence to the contrary, should be accepted as decisive, seeing how conscientious a man he was in the estimation of his contemporaries; and the more so since it cannot be impugned without casting a slur on the character of his fellow-commissioners who accepted his suggestion, and of Clement VIII who with full knowledge of the facts gave his sanction to Bellarmine’s preface being prefixed to the new edition...... “Bellarmine did not live to deal with the later and more serious stage of the Galileo case, but in 1615 he took part in its earlier stage. He had always shown great interest in the discoveries of that investigator, and was on terms of friendly correspondence with him. He took up too—as is witnessed by his letter to Galileo’s friend Foscarini—exactly the right attitude towards scientific theories in seeming contradiction with Scripture. If, as was undoubtedly the case then with Galileo’s heliocentric theory, a scientific theory is insufficiently proved, it should be advanced only as an hypothesis; but if, as is the case with this theory now, it is solidly demonstrated, care must be taken to interpret Scripture only in accordance with it. When the Holy Office condemned the heliocentric theory, by an excess in the opposite direction, it became Bellarmine’s official duty to signify the condemnation to Galileo, and receive his submission.” History of the Popes, Ludwig Pastor, Vol xxviii, pages 222 sqq. :“A year and a half had elapsed since the death of Sixtus V. and the strange and complicated position into which the Sixtine Bible had fallen had not yet been cleared up. The Louvain and Paris editions of the book of books could be freely republished, and in the time of Gregory XIV. care had been taken not to interfere with their further diffusion by any express prohibition, even after the definitive Roman version had been issued. The latter edition of the Vulgate, on the other hand, to which more care had been devoted than to any other, and in which the Pope had personally taken part, was left lying in the vaults of the Vatican Press like a dangerous book, in the expectation of its

39 being destroyed and forbidden by the Pope’s orders from being presented to the public. “For the new Pope it became one of his most pressing tasks to interest himself in this delicate question. Clement VIII. placed the matter in the hands of Cardinals Frederick, Borromeo and Valiero, to whom was added Toledo as a collaborator...... “Cardinal Carafa had died on January 14th, 1591; the text which had been drawn up under his direction, and which had been emended in many points by Sixtus V., was no longer accepted either by the Gregorian commission nor by that of Toledo. Whereas Carafa and his collaborators had been guided in their edition of the text only by scientific motives and by consideration of the best manuscripts, other points of view now became of decisive importance, and above all, following the example of Sixtus V., both under Gregory XIV. and Clement VIII. care was taken not to depart too widely from the wording hitherto in use. Certain things, which from the purely scientific point of view called for change, were for this reason left exactly as they were, in order to avoid scandal or surprise...... “Before, however, the completed work was handed over to the printers, another against the Sixtine Vulgate was issued. In order to avoid as far as possible the scandal which was feared from this, Clement VIII., following the suggestion of Bellarmine, gave orders for the acquisition of all the copies already issued...... The search went on until 1595; all the copies that were found were sent to Rome and burned, in accordance with the wishes of the Pope...... But with this all the difficulties had not been overcome. Already, in the time of Clement VIII. the doubt had been raised as to how the errors of the Sixtine Bible could be reconciled with the doctrine of Papal infallibility in questions of faith and morals. The question assumed an even greater importance in the time of Paul V., as early as 1600 the Protestants brought forward against that doctrine the differences between the Clementine and Sixtine Vulgates, although none of the divergent texts contained any difference as to faith and morals...... “Externally the Clementine Bible is altogether similar to the Sixtine; its format, and even the engravings on the frontispiece are the same, the number of pages conforms almost exactly. Clement VIII. was not named on the title page, but all the honour was left to Sixtus V. alone...... It is obvious that it did not occur to anyone, in spite of the dissatisfaction aroused by the errors in his edition, to compromise in any way the great dead Pope by the new Vulgate; the ill-luck of the Sixtine Bible is mentioned and excused in the preface of Clement VIII., almost exactly in the indulgent way suggested by Bellarmine. The haste with which the Vulgate of 1592 had been printed resulted in a number of typographical errors. In 1593 there appeared a new edition in quarto, and in 1598 another in octavo, which differ from each other and from the first in many points, but for the most part only of minor importance. Many therefore cherished the hope that the work of perfecting it would be continued in Rome, but it was only after the lapse of three centuries that this expectation 40 was realized in the time of Pius X. The Clementine text is thus sufficient ‘for the theological use of the Vulgate, while from the critical point of view, even though it is not perfect and free from errors, is nevertheless on the whole good; in a word a text of which the Church has no need to feel ashamed.’ (Reusch in Höpfl, 186)” It would seem, then, that popes can err in Scriptural phrases and modes of expression; infallibility seems not at risk as long as faith or morals remain uninvolved. Here again, the literal-minded Protestants objected, from their strong belief in their own terribly mutilated and mistranslated “scripture.” I like to stick to facts because of their appearance of neutrality. I need insult no one to observe and draw conclusions. My first fact is the truth of the Catholic religion, founded as it is on God’s revelation. The second fact is: The Catholic Church would still teach exactly the same doctrine had never a word been written. Christ commanded His Apostles to teach, not to write. The Bible itself depends entirely on the Church, which has decided which writings are inspired, and how they must be read. If some is to be taken literally and some not, there is room for judgment. If one pope says one thing and another something else on the same subject, there is reason to hold that the subject is not settled—even perhaps that it is not dogmatic or moral matter subject to infallible definition. Whenever the Church has dogmatically defined a matter—declared it a matter of faith on which salvation depends—it has placed this obligation with all such pronouncements in the book of creeds where anyone may discover what he must believe and what he must refuse. This is one way in which I can determine whether a man is pope or . But I find no trace of heliocentrism in this book, or in any other standard collection of religious instruction which the Church uses or recommends. If I consider the issue worth arguing I can find agreement for either side among popes, astronomers, or illiterates like myself. When I read in Genesis that the earth has a mouth I seldom rise to hunt for it; it might swallow me. I ascribe the usage to the background and capacity of the author. But when he mentions the rising or setting of the sun the geocentrist pins me to a literal interpretation of a means of keeping time. There are those who complain that God said “Let there be light” and then created the sun and moon a couple of days later. This is said to be contradictory. Nothing like a human mind trying to confine the divine to its own limitations. Given that the Reformers opposed heliocentrism so fanatically on Biblical grounds (subject to private judgment), and that they alienated so many from Catholic truth, I see no cogent argument in favor of the mass destruction of the faith, or even of Biblical authority, by looking at a phrase, universal even among heliocentrists, as not meant literally. I can’t appreciate why anyone would give a damn. Genuine determinable issues abound. But who rocks the boat? Who splits people, even traditional Catholics, with this triviality? The geocentrist! He generates unnecessary resistance to anything else he puts forth. He fondly imagines that he can reconvert the world to sanity. Let us grant that he can—what will he have accomplished? 41 Will he have even “re-established” Biblical authority? Faith does not depend on the Bible. Faith comes by hearing the Church. We accept the Bible on the authority of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches religion, not astronomy—nor Gaelic, algebra, geometry, geography, meteorology, engineering. If you say that something is settled because it appears in an inspired book, you run immediately into a number of statements which cannot be taken literally, and a well-founded body of opinion that your phrase can be otherwise understood by almost anyone, no matter how strong his faith. Even if you are correct you can’t prove it. It is one thing to be a fool for Christ, but quite another to be a fool for an indeterminable literalness of a universal phrase. Let’s track the moon. Start with the new moon, between us and the sun. In roughly a week it is found off to the side where we see it much better, at least the half that is subject to direct light from the sun. In about another week we see it full, reflecting back at us from opposite the sun. It continues another week or so to a point halfway back to the sun, opposite the point where we saw it two weeks ago. In another week or so it has returned to its new phase, where its pale light is reflected to it from earth. It has orbited the earth in about a month. If the earth stands still, from no point on it can the moon be seen, day or night, for about two weeks, after which the moon can be seen at all times for the same period. What is the effect on the tides? If the earth is stationary, the sun races around both earth and moon daily at 365 times that tremendous speed (which we can determine by triangulation) which attracts geocentrist derision when it involves the earth’s motion in orbit—all without the slightest suggestion of a fiery tail such as follows any old ordinary comet. So its light strikes the moon from every conceivable angle daily, thus necessarily creating the previously described four phases of the moon daily, to be seen daily (or nightly) from every point on that half of the earth from which it is visible at that time of the month. (This phenomenon would occur at any lunar orbital speed.) The sun also blocks our view of each constellation along the Zodiac for about two hours in each twenty-four, instead of a solid month each year. The geocentrist can explain this; he holds that neither theory can be proven, consequently this is not proof. Let him include some explanation of the necessity for three tracking stations scattered around the earth to monitor the straight flights, now far beyond any gravitational pull from our solar system, of various space probes. Without rotation of the earth only one, at the launching area, would suffice. Why, since it is necessary for the sun and stars to orbit the earth because the earth is the center, it is not necessary also for Mercury and Venus to orbit the earth for the same (Biblical?) reason. But they are satellites of the sun, he may argue. How in this do they differ from Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc.? As they all orbit the sun, which in turn orbits the earth, why do we never see the necessary variation in the planetary orbits that should accompany such solar motion? Otherwise for several months each year the sun would travel daily around Mars also, because, when on the same side of the sun and in the same quadrant as we,

42 Mars is closer to us than the sun. Indeed, they could hardly have avoided collision several times during the last few millennia. I don’t appreciate the problem? Why else have I consulted experts, who earn their living in astronomy. When seeking facts we do better to avoid theorists and listen to practical workers. They, too, have Biblical precedent: in the Magi. All should face the obvious universal individual perspective. To each man, however intelligent or stupid, wherever he is is the center of creation. This is his only vantage point, to which all else is related. What more natural than that he should speak (or write) as he observes? What nettles me is the time wasted and the friction generated over a triviality which the geocentrist insists cannot be proven either way—except by Scripture, of course. A Scripture Manual, John-Mary Simon, O.S.M., Vol I, pp. 5-6: “Just as the function of biblical infallibility is underrated by admitting the presence of propositional errors or of non-inspired obiter dicta in the Sacred Scriptures, so the action of revelation is exaggerated by extending it to every page or by identifying it with inspiration. For, revelation, in its strict sense, is necessary only for the communication of truths which transcend the natural powers of the human mind. Such are: events of the prehistoric past or the remote future, divine positive laws, supernatural mysteries like the Trinity. Its operation is not confined to hagiographers. Moreover, revealed truths are to be found also outside the Sacred Scriptures, and not at all indicated, or only barely suggested, therein, such as: that God is the primary author of the whole Bible, the of Our Lady...... a given book may contain revealed truths, yet not be inspired, that is, have God for its author and be privileged with infallibility. On the other hand, an inspired book need not be entirely, or even at all, revealed...... in their allusions, metaphors, and language the hagiographers unmistakably left upon their product the imprint of their own mentality, times, and associations, just as other authors do upon ordinary works of literature.” Nor does Scripture contain all truth. God inspired existing men in their own times, with their own linguistic styles and stock phrases, however these were meant. He put no pen to paper Himself. Objection—You believe a pilot who “often” sees the earth turn when flying. Why he didn’t always see it turn I can only guess at. Now such a man really does not grasp how to cope with relative motion. One must be able to fully understand the type of motion the cosmos presents. Reply—The man who “often” saw the sun standing still in the distance and the earth rotating much nearer at hand was not a pilot, but a specialist sent aloft to undertake observations for which his pilot had no training. He had noted this phenomenon often because he had flown up to observe—not merely once—often. His imputed ignorance of relative motion originates in geocentrist unprovable theory. Objection—In a geocentric model all celestial bodies, including the moon, have this 24 hour orbit ..... 43 Reply—which you refuse to apply to distant stars on the unlikely ground that Objection—they are much closer than they appear and therefore cannot be traveling at speeds so far exceeding that of light. I can claim that no stars are more than a light-day away, a genesis day, and nobody can empirically dispute my claim. [He quotes another theorist:] “In the nothingness ‘outside’ a finite rotating Cosmos, whatever its parameters, time and space as experienced ‘inside’ by us do not exist, and ‘speed’ on our terms is hence a meaningless concept. We cannot measure it.” – Walter van der Kamp. The Cosmos. Reply—Why should nothingness move, that anyone need measure its speed? What has this meaningless concept in common with clearly visible stars, whose impossible speed is imputed only by your unlikely geocentric concept that they all orbit the earth daily? Objection—Assumed stellar distances are also used to age the universe and the earth. These assumed ages are essential for evolutionary time. So, without Copernicanism, there would be no supposed evidence for evolutionary time. Reply—Each non sequitur is based firmly on God’s own lack of omnipotence. There seems some utterly unfounded belief that, though God created all those stars, men could see them only after light had had time to travel enormous distances. This resembles the argument that coal and oil deposits needed ages to compress from animal and vegetable matter, despite greater likelihood that they were created immediately in their present form, just as stars could well have been created with instant visibility. Are these properties more miraculous than their creation itself? Objection—.....this new threat to Catholicism...... Copernicanism caused Church leaders to destroy the very tradition they were elected to guard. Reply—Copernicanism could be a “new threat to Catholicism” only in the court of literal mind and weak faith. No Church leader was ever elected to guard an astronomical concept. When I suggest that popes who base cosmological judgments on doctrinal or moral grounds misapply those grounds and exceed their competence, I am a heretic for disagreeing with those popes. When I unearth a pope in agreement with my stance, which I never knew till this time-wasting argument arose, you scuttle this pope even though you quote him in Denzinger. You continue to imply that I believe God deliberately deceived us about stellar motion, but never consider whether I believe God deceived the entire population of the Old Testament on the Holy Trinity. Was God bound to reveal all truth? Objection—The Scriptures are written to convince the readers of geocentrism, for often it is qualified by an unmistakable analogy. Reply—Your first clause is untenable. The second is an utter irrelevancy. Any polemicist is likely to have employed many an analogy which may have appealed to his adversary, without regard to its essential truth. The pelican, e.g., has been used as a symbol of Christ, because it was thought to have torn open its own breast to feed its young. 44 I have dealt here with some of the saner objections. I believe I have demonstrated the uselessness of this controversy. The most prolific objector has given up on me. This indicates that he has presented all his best arguments; otherwise it is far too early to quit, because he is convinced of the accuracy and righteousness of his cause, upon which Scriptural authority and the Catholic faith depend. He is therefore bound in conscience to continue if he has any reasonable approach. “In a most able article ..... it is stated that both Galileo’s work and the book of Copernicus, ‘nisi corrigatur’ (for with the omission of certain passages, it was sanctioned) were still to be seen on the forbidden list of the Index at Rome, in 1828. I was, however, assured in the same year by Professor Scarpellini at Rome, that Pius VII, a pontiff distinguished by his love of science, had procured a repeal of the edicts against Galileo and the Copernican system. He had assembled the congregation; and the late Cardinal Torriozzi, assessor of the Sacred Office, proposed that they should wipe off this scandal from the face of the Church. The repeal was carried, with the dissentient voice of one ..... only. Long before that time the Newtonian theory had been taught in the Sapienza and in all the Catholic universities in Europe (with the exception, I am told, of Salamanca); but it was always required of Professors, in deference to the decrees of the Church, to use the term hypothesis instead of theory.” Thus wrote Sir Charles Lyell, long ago, in his epoch-making work “Principles of Geology.” (See 1st ed., 1830, p. 69). In his historical introduction he gives a minute account of the progress of this science in Italy and France, and how the interpretations of Catholic scientists had to contend against popular errors and partisan theologians,—but not against the true teachings of the Church. And he slyly hints that the theology of the Italians was far more liberal toward his beloved science than that of Protestant England. The repeal that he refers to must be concerned with Galileo’s book. The work of Copernicus was removed from the Index by Benedict XIV in 1758. — from a Catholic Truth Society 1935 pamphlet, Pitfalls in Science & History

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 6, pp. 345-6. Galilei: “Such in brief is the history of this famous conflict between ecclesiastical authority and science, to which special theological importance has been attached in connexion with the question of papal infallibility. Can it be said that either Paul V or Urban VIII so committed himself to the doctrine of geocentrism as to impose it upon the Church as an article of faith, and so to teach as pope what is now acknowledged to be untrue? That both these pontiffs were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex . This, it is clear, they never did. As to the decree of 1616, we have seen that it was issued by the Congregation of the Index, which can raise no difficulty in regard of infallibility, this tribunal being absolutely incompetent to make a dogmatic decree. Nor is the case altered by the fact that the pope 45 approved the Congregation’s decision in forma communi, that is to say, to the extent needful for the purpose intended, namely to prohibit the circulation of writings which were judged harmful. The pope and his assessors may have been wrong in such a judgment, but this does not alter the character of the pronouncement, or convert it into a decree ex cathedra. “As to the second trial in 1633, this was concerned not so much with the doctrine as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active propaganda of Copernican doctrines. The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature. Nor is this only an opinion of theologians; it is corroborated by writers whom none will accuse of any bias in favour of the papacy. Thus Professor Augustus De Morgan (Budget of Paradoxes) declares ‘It is clear that the absurdity was the act of the Italian Inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the pope—who knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope—and not of the body which calls itself the Church.’ And von Gebler (“Galileo Galilei”): ‘The Church never condemned it (the Copernican system) at all, for the Qualifiers of the Holy Office never mean the Church’. It may be added that Riccioli and other contemporaries of Galileo were permitted, after 1616, to declare that no anti-Copernican definition had issued from the supreme pontiff. …” – John Gerard, S.J. Another argument for geocentrism arises from piety and, if you will, the fitness of things. The earth, it is maintained, must be the hub of the universe because this is where Jesus Christ came to save us. He came here to save us because here is where we were and are. How would we have known of our salvation had he gone instead to Jupiter? Or Sirius? Or Betelgeuze? Or Cassiopeia’s Chair? He could have gone to any number of bright stars, but we couldn’t. But did He go to Babylon? Or Alexandria? Or Athens? Or Rome? He came to a stable in Bethlehem. He lived in obscurity in Nazareth till thirty. Then He wandered the least corner of the mighty Roman Empire for three years. Only His coming gave it meaning. Only His coming gave the earth its meaning. It would appear that He shunned the seats of power and the centers of commerce. If His presence makes a place important, let’s find out where He is. If He is everywhere, as our catechisms point out, why is the earth more important than the universe? If its importance derives from His presence, how does its postulated central position increase its worth? I recall a wartime motion picture, Wake Island. Two sailors ran for cover under Japanese bombardment. One speedster shouted: “They’re gonna blow up the whole island!” The other rejoined: “Whadda you care? It ain’t your island!” So let’s replay that scene at night. One sailor looks up at the sky and shouts: “I can’t believe all them stars and constellations go ’round the earth!” The other

46 shouts back over the continuous gunfire: “Whadda you care? It ain’t your earth!” The Catholic’s Ready Answer, M. P. Hill, S.J., Benziger Bros. 1915, pp. 420 ff. (edited): Authority is an element in human life without which life would not be worth living. From cradle to grave we continually lean upon authority of those who know more than ourselves, not only in social and private life but also in intellectual research. In science and history most depend on the authority of the specialist, who learns things at first hand. Authority is foreign to any who hold that unaided human intelligence can attain to all truth, and that nothing is truth but that to which it can attain. But suppose truths which cannot be reached except by divine revelation have been revealed: are not its claims, and those of its authority, at once manifest? Notwithstanding the high claims of the Catholic Church to pass sentence upon so-called scientific conclusions conflicting with revelation—nothing prevents a Catholic from following out any line of scientific research, or from drawing conclusions solidly supported by well-ascertained facts. He knows that what his telescope or microscope reveals cannot contradict any truth of the supernatural order. Truth cannot be at variance with truth. By truth he understands genuine, not supposed, truth. By scientific truth he understands scientifically demonstrated truth, not hypothesis. When the full truth is known it will accord with the teachings of faith. Objection—The Catholic Church condemned Galileo. Reply—If anything shows poverty of resource in our critics it is their constant citation of this case. If the worst possible case were made, is it not absurd to go back three centuries for evidence against the present attitude of the Church? Why revert to a period when not only Catholic but Protestant authorities naturally and justly suspected novelties in science which touched upon religion? Why make so much of a condemnation of propositions not really demonstrated—a condemnation withdrawn when the demonstration was forthcoming? The heliocentric theory did not admit of demonstration at the time. Had it been strictly demonstrated Galileo would have met different treatment. Not that the Holy Office had any direct concern with physical science, but the question seemed to have biblical bearing. Heliocentrism seemed to contradict the generally received interpretation of certain passages in Holy Writ, and the Holy Office was bound to take cognizance of novelties of interpretation. Catholic theologians are today agreed that where physical science has clearly demonstrated the nature or causes of purely natural phenomena mentioned in the Bible, interpreters cannot ignore any such demonstration, any more than they can ignore the science of philology in interpreting the words of a text or in determining the structure of a sentence. Did theologians of Galileo’s day hold a different view? There is nothing to prove they did, and no little reason to think they did not. Cardinal Bellarmine, for instance, wrote Galileo’s ally Foscarini: “If it were solidly demonstrated 47 that the sun was in the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that it is not the sun that revolves around the earth, but the earth that revolves around the sun, then we should have to behave with much circumspection in explaining those passages of Scripture which seem to say the contrary, and rather acknowledge that we do not understand those passages than assert that a thing can be false which is demonstrated to be true.” The Cardinal, did not consider the theory demonstrated; but it is important to know what so influential a member of the Roman court thought should be the attitude of the Church in case any such theory were demonstrated. Another aspect of the Galileo controversy must be noted. The new system had arrayed against it the bulk of contemporary scientific opinion. Not simply a case of science vs. theology, it was no less a case of scientists vs. scientists. Galileo’s chief opponents were eminent scientists who had themselves contributed heavily to scientific knowledge, among them Scheiner (sun spots), Clavius, the astronomer Magini, Grienberger, and Francis Bacon. Bacon regarded the Copernican system as a convenient mathematical fiction, useful in calculating and predicting. Were the cardinals of the Holy Office expected to be in advance of the science of their day? Objection—Catholic investigators must at once exclude hypotheses that exclude creation. Reply—Which physical science need be concerned with creation? Creation, the spirituality and immortality of the soul, and other such questions are quite beyond the limits of observation and experiment—the instruments of the physical sciences. When the physicist speculates on these subjects he should remember that he essays the role of philosopher. Philosophizing scientists often abandon the impartial, unemotional temper so characteristic of the scientific mind, and hazard statements about God, creation, or the human soul which have no foothold in any science known to them. A Companion to the Summa, Walter Farrell, O.P.: It is unjust to look for contradictions to modern science in an account that was avowedly non- scientific. The very nature and language of the account made it so evidently elastic that the earliest Christian commentators could find hardly a word that was not open to widely different interpretations in the factual field: thus “day” might have meant twenty-four hours, … an indefinite period, or even a stage in knowledge; … St. Thomas, approaching the account of creation from the vantage point of his faith, laid down some common sense principles. To him it was obvious that the truth of Holy Scripture must be held inviolate.; after all, it is the inspired word of God and so there is nothing of truth which can be more sure. It also seemed clear to him that when it is possible to expose the Scripture in many ways, no one position or interpretation should be so narrowly held to that, if it be certainly established that such a position be false, a man would nevertheless presume to maintain it. Such a man would justly be held in derision by the infidels and so block the infidels’ way to belief. Thomas saw 48 the necessity of remembering that Moses spoke to an unlettered people; condescending to their ignorance (imbecillitas is the word St. Thomas uses) he proposed only those things that were manifestly apparent to the senses. After all, man did not lose the knowledge of natural things by his sin, nor that science by which the necessities of the flesh are provided. In Scripture, then, man is not taught these things, but rather the science of the soul, which science he had lost by his sin. This geocentric insistence has degenerated into constant reiteration of inapplicable, unacceptable authority. Proper argument needs common ground. When my opponent refuses my proof I find another approach. My chief critic missed the point on relevance of distance of stars to endless ages needed for their light to reach us. But if God created them for us to see, why would we not see them instantly? He created also the beam and its speed. If we shine a light, or send a radio beam to measure distance, we are subject to His laws of motion. But is He? Subject to His own creation? Does not the whole argument for a young earth depend on practically instant creation? What can possibly limit the Creator, His power, His skill? If He can create a star, what can prevent Him making it visible? Even through creation of a beam to go with it? Which is harder to create, a star or a beam of light? When He said “Let there be light” presumably (according to the fundamentalists) before He created the sun and moon, was there not light? Theology as queen of sciences has little relevance in face of demonstrable facts. Geocentrism is non-factual for reasons which I have advanced. If popes or theologians contradict or condemn facts they evidently err. Since popes are infallible in dogma and morals, subjects on which they err cannot pertain to dogma or morals. Nor does exegesis, which has a major problem with the Apocalypse. Each book of the Bible reflects a style peculiar to its human author. Had God dictated the Bible verbatim, would not greater uniformity be likely?—not that we can confine Him, but the quality of writing is far from even. Why would it not be written in the language and usage of those for whom it was intended? I have never suggested that the Bible erred in reference to solar or lunar motion. I have said with reason that the writers used phrases familiar to them and to those for whom they wrote, and that the Bible bulges with phrases not to be taken literally. We can’t expect Josue to have asked for the earth to stand still if he knew nothing of its rotation. In any case, the inerrancy of Scripture is literally confined to its original writing in its original language(s)—usually without vowel points. The Church has no right to misinterpret Scripture by reading an unwarranted meaning into a phrase intended chiefly to designate passage of time. Since we find popes officially on both sides of this particular dispute, infallibility is not at issue—the subject concerns neither faith and morals nor the Deposit of Faith, to which infallibility is limited. In addition, I adduce enough official support to eliminate “personal opinion.” I would not take up the subject without some species of proof. The fact that no one has shown anything to 49 disprove it tends to confirm it. If it is, as I suspect, genuine proof, no rebuttal can hold water. I need not consult the Church in this matter because it lies outside the Church’s competence, and should never have arisen. While some members of the Church may have taught on the subject, it is not Church teaching. Neither geocentricity nor heliocentricity is heresy. Neither is a matter of faith or morals. Either could be relatively true, depending upon the point of view and the purpose. The were as likely to be ignorant of the shape or rotation of the earth as the original writers of Scripture. I feel no great need to be one with them in cosmological theory, nor to build this irrelevant issue into “proper interpretation of Scripture” and “infallible Church doctrine.” Geocentrists enlarge the importance of empirical proof, which no man can furnish. No man can adjust the sun, moon, stars, planets, or even meteorites. Pioneer Ten, being honest, went relatively straight, is far beyond influence of the solar system to divert it, and not far enough to have encountered stellar interference. There was certainly no reason for it to go into anything remotely resembling an orbit. It continues on its generally straight path and has the same unmoving stellar background. I conclude from this that the background is equally stationary. I phoned my star-gazer again Wednesday, 10/23/96. He faxed eight pages of statistics, status of tracking posted every four or five weeks this year and the last week of last year. I extracted figures which prove geocentrism currently non-existent, and enclose them on a separate sheet. Please note the three-month gap between this and last years’ entries. Please note also in the figures on Pioneer 10 and the Voyagers their steady recession from the sun in comparison with their both greater and less, even minus, recession from earth—the obvious and necessary result of a relatively fixed sun and an orbiting earth. I put it to the observer that heliocentric theory requires an annual blank spot on each probe as earth passes directly opposite with the sun between us and the probe. He even had a term for the blank spot, superior conjunction, and volunteered a near date for the next superior conjunction involving Galileo. I include figures on the orbiting probes for comparison to demonstrate that no one can have it both ways when attempting to argue geocentric theory. Astronomers locate objects in a celestial grid resembling latitude and longitude. Each star, planet, satellite, and space probe is fixed by use of these co-ordinates, declination and right ascension. These vary almost imperceptibly in the case of stars, constellations, and galaxies—the greater the radio-measured distance the less variation, which is partially accounted for by the semi-annual variation in orbit of the terrestrial base of observation by the diameter of the orbit. These figures are given in degrees, and the distances are given in millions of kilometers. I list first the three probes sent out in single direction; then, for contrast, several which have gone into solar orbit. You will note far greater variations in the latter.

50 Pioneer 10, 3/3/72; passed Jupiter 2/3/73, Voyager 1, 9/5/77; passed Jupiter escaped solar system 1986 3/79, Saturn 11/80, Uranus 86 wk dec. rt.asc. earthdst varies sundst varies wk decl rt.asc. earthdst varies sundist varies 39 25.8 75.2 9793.8 9844.6 39 11.5 251.6 9691 9633.8 35 25.8 75.2 9834.3 +40.5 9814.7 -29.9 35 12 251.5 9592.8 -98.2 9592.3 -41.5 31 25.7 75 9870.3 +36 9784.9 -29.8 31 12.1 251.6 9494.4 -98.4 9550.8 -41.5 26 25.7 74.6 9887.8 +17.5 9747.5 -37.4 26 12.4 251.9 9389.9 -104.5 9499 -51.8 22 25.6 74.1 9868.8 -19 9717.6 -29.9 22 12.4 252.3 9332.4 -57.5 9457.5 -41.5 17 25.6 73.5 9799.6 -69.2 9680.2 -37.4 17 12.3 252.8 9299.2 -33.2 9405.6 -51.9 13 25.5 73.2 9714 -85.6 9650.3 -29.9 13 12 253 9300 +0.8 9364.1 -41.5 52 25.7 73.6 9418.3 -295.7 9553.1 -97.2 52 11.4 252.4 9335.1 +35.1 9229.2 -134.9 Voyager 2, 9/20/77; Jup. 7/79, Sat. 8/81, Pioneer 6, 12/16/65; orbits sun between Uranus 1/86, Neptune 8/29/89 earth & Venus wk decl rt.asc. earthdst varies sundist varies wk decl rt.asc. earthdst varies sundist varies 39 -42.6 288.7 7444.4 7466.4 39 17.4 133.6 167.4 147.2 35 -42.7 288.9 7348 -96.4 7432.1 -34.3 35 22.6 106.1 166 -1.7 144.4 -2.8 31 -42.6 289.4 7270.3 -77.7 7397.9 -34.2 31 23 77.7 185.2 +19.2 159 +14.6 26 -42.4 290.3 7213.2 -57.1 7355.1 -42.8 26 16.6 42.9 141.7 -43.5 131.4 -27.6 22 -42.1 290.9 7202.8 -10.4 7320.9 -34.2 22 7.1 16.5 121.4 -20.3 126.4 -5 17 -41.7 291.3 7225.4 +22.6 7278.2 -42.7 17 -6.9 343.5 92.1 -29.3 124.8 -1.6 13 -41.3 291.3 7257.9 +32.5 7244.1 -34.1 13 -17.4 314.2 70.6 -21.5 128 +3.2 52 -40.7 289.3 7272 +14.1 7133.4 -110.7 52 25.7 73.6 47.9 -22.7 145.8 +17.8 Pioneer 7, 8/17/66, solar orbit Pioneer 8, 12/12/67, solar orbit wk decl rt.asc. earthdst varies sundist varies wk decl rt.asc. earthdst varies sundist varies 39 +19 127.7 175 165.7 39 6.5 163.9 277.8 152.6 35 +23 102.2 182 +7 162.6 -3.1 35 16.1 137.9 276.2 -1.6 150 -2.6 31 +22.5 25.7 185.2 +3.2 159 -3.6 31 22.1 109.6 274.3 -1.9 148.6 -1.4 26 +16.1 41.8 184.8 -0.4 154.6 -4.4 26 22.2 48.5 272.5 -1.8 149 +0.4 22 + 7.2 17 182.1 -2.7 152 -1.4 22 16.6 43.5 272.5 0 150.9 +1.9 17 +6.2 345.4 178.8 -3.3 151.1 -0.9 17 4.6 10.8 274.8 +2.3 154.6 +3.7 13 -16.1 318.4 178.3 -0.5 152.4 +1.3 13 -5.9 346 278.5 +3.7 157.8 +3.2 52 -16.5 233 201 -22.7 163.3 +11.1 52 -22.9 258.4 293.6 +15.1 162.5 +4.7 Galileo 10/18/89 launched from space; Ulysses, 10/6/90 at rt. angle to ecliptic, by Jupiter 12/7/95; still orbits Jupiter Jupiter to observe solar poles wk decl rt.asc. earthdst varies sundist varies wk decl rt.asc. earthdst varies sundist varies 39 -23.2 280.1 756.8 779.5 39 33.4 171.8 768.1 656.9 35 -23.2 278.9 690.2 -66.6 775.4 -4.1 35 36.6 166.5 768.7 +0.6 640.7 -16.2 31 -23.1 280.8 649.4 -58.8 782.3 +6.9 31 40.7 160.8 745.7 -23 623.6 -17.1 26 -22.8 284.5 626.5 -22.9 777.9 -4.4 26 47.4 154 688.2 -57.5 600.8 -22.8 22 -22.3 288.7 655.5 +29 783.9 +6 22 53.9 149.7 626 -62 581.4 -19.4 17 -22.1 290.1 727.6 +72.1 790.5 +6.6 17 63.6 149.3 542 -84 555.8 -25.6 13 -22.3 288.2 796.4 +68.8 794.1 +3.6 13 71.4 161.1 482.5 -59.5 534.1 -21.7 52 -23.2 269.4 941 +144.6 795.7 +1.6 52 59.4 225.3 422.1 -60.4 455 -79.1 51 All needed to abolish the entire problem is recognition that rising and setting of the sun or moon have always and everywhere been treated as subjective by everyone on earth. They remain so treated by a world of heliocentrists. But geocentrists borrow needless, purposeless trouble. Not only will they never prove their point, but their success would accomplish nothing. They defend what needs no defense! Please note that in the cases of Pioneer 10 and Voyagers 1 and 2 their increase in distance from the sun is constant, but their radio-beam-measured distance from earth increases and decreases in regular patterns. As Pioneer 10 receded all through the period covered, the earth began to catch up with the probe. The earth moves faster than the probe’s constant recession. The probe cannot back up, nor change course. Note also that Voyager 1, heading off in a different direction, came in Week 35 to an almost even distance from sun and earth, and over the next four weeks began to recede from the earth faster than from the sun. So the earth moved further around its orbit, back toward the probe’s superior conjunction. Or the probe travels at different speeds simultaneously? Let me again press the point that three tracking stations are needed to track down probes going in a nearly straight line away from the earth. These probes rise and set like the sun and the respective constellation always behind each. If the earth does not rotate, only one tracking station, located near the departure point, would suffice, because the probe would never “set.” If the sun orbited the earth (at 365 x earth-orbit speed) it could not avoid traveling also around the moon. At any point on the earth from which the moon was visible we would then see all phases of the moon each calendar day. On the occasion of each eclipse of the sun there would occur an eclipse of the moon on the opposite side of the earth within fifteen hours of the first eclipse. Unlike the space probe proof, this is undemonstrable because no man can move stars and planets. This entire controversy has been unnecessary. My first argument (Mercury and Venus have yet to orbit the earth) destroys the geocentric theory. A gentleman in Pennsylvania requested my proof, for $10,000. Were I to refuse to submit it, my inaction would be attributed to some species of fear. So I forwarded my figures and a copy of the fax from which I had extrapolated them. I quote the disappointing reply: The offer “insists that empirical scientific observation,” which is impossible, “not political bluffery, is the basis of the proof needed...... What you are suggesting is what I will term ‘space navigation’. I will take the lazy way out and accept all your data and assertions about how space probes are tracked and guided to their destinations, except for one thing. You have assumed that the earth is moving around the sun and rotating on its axis. If ..... correct, the distance variations and diurnal tracking of the probes would occur as you say they do. But exactly the same phenomena would be observed if the rest-of-the-universe, rather than the earth, were moving, that is, rotating around the earth daily and orbiting it annually (the combination motion leading to the precession of the equinoxes, etc). It is a clear case of the relative motion problem in

52 determining what is moving and what is not. Many, many people don’t ‘get it’ at first on relative motion and fail to see their basic assumption about what can move and what can not...... I am enclosing a Celestial Motion Illustrator Kit ..... to clarify this.” I had assumed that geocentrists had an argument of sorts. It’s no wonder they won’t accept proof. Their whole position is that the earth is stationary and everything else goes around it daily! So look back ten lines to the phrase I have italicized. Everything goes around us daily but only rotates. Or does it merely appear so to the uninformed astronomer? How will rotation (spinning on its axis) get sun, moon, or stars around us daily? Either all these bodies orbit the earth daily or the earth rotates. This relative motion which we don’t ‘get’ seems invented to slow everything down to possible speed so we can comprehend it. Is comprehension necessary? Perhaps we can adopt a sensible attitude from Scripture —as in the thirty-eighth chapter of the Book of Job. [Perhaps some geocentrist will defend the literal meaning of the earth’s bases, foundations, and corner-stones. (Verses 4-6). I hope not. I am likely to suggest that these are represented by the sun and certain laws of motion instituted by the Creator.] I assumed the earth’s motion from the established fact that it obviously catches these probes half the year and then loses them at the same rate the other half. The three single direction probes lie in different directions, and their superior conjunctions occur at different times. I included the figures on the orbiting probes (one of them, Galileo, orbiting Jupiter, the rest orbiting the sun, not the earth) to show how differently they are observed from our three tracking points. The professional astronomers time their orbits and measure their distances. It is all very well to say that the observed phenomena would be identical if the earth stood still and everything else moved, but this is impossible not only to prove but to be. The orbiting probes orbit, as they were intended. But the single direction probes continue in their original direction. They get no closer to each other. No force removes them from their straight courses. They recede from the sun at constant speeds toward the same respective constellations year after year. Do I hear a reproof that I assume that constellations are relatively fixed? Let us skip lightly past the annual superior conjunction of each zodiacal constellation, though it would seem to fit the annual orbit of the earth around the sun far more satisfactorily than the daily orbit of the sun around the earth, and concentrate on the movement of Pioneer 10. It recedes from the sun and on average from the earth at a weekly rate of more than seven million kilometers. Suppose the earth stationary and Pioneer 10 moves daily nearly 63,000,000,000 kilometers in orbit around the earth in addition to its undoubted radio-beam-measured distal motion. O.K. if you say so; I can go along with a gag. So in 1984, when it was a mere five billion kilometers away, its daily orbit was only 31,500,000,000 kilometers. In 1978 it did well to orbit 16 billion kilometers daily. But give it another two dozen years and it will double its present orbital speed to about 125,000,000,000 kilometers daily—nearly eight times the speed of light! It already goes nearly four times

53 light speed; can they really track it? What accelerates it? It makes me proud to be human. Or was the designer an ape? Bring on that perpetual motion machine. And a Star Trek manual! Bear in mind also the constant respective background of each probe. The geocentric implication that each probe’s course is governed by its “target” would involve us in helical (ηλιξ = screw) orbits for everything in the skies. Has NASA a staff of screwball pitchers to lay out probe paths? What a flock of geniuses! Makes me even prouder that I played baseball all those years ago. I furnished a proof, unavailable before the space probes and satellites, of geocentrism’s impossibility. Some have ignored or denied these figures, because two popes, out of their field, condemned Copernican theory which geocentrists insist cannot be proved empirically any more than geocentrism. These popes were doubly wrong, in the facts themselves and in their presumption to pronounce upon them. (Why were these “condemnations” buried?) I run no risk in withholding belief from a pope outside his narrow field of infallibility. I know my religious obligations. Nowhere in my instruction, or in my extensive research beyond its ordinary application, have I found that I must believe anything whatsoever of the cosmos beyond the fact that God created it. My main thrust: we waste time on such irrelevancies. We drive sane people away with bootless controversy, thus losing their attention to vital matters. Whichever is true, though it matters nothing to salvation, insistence upon it will put off people under the impression that it does matter. Our belief on such a subject concerns our salvation in no way. No one can pin us to a papal condemnation outside faith and morals, not only insufficiently informed but wrong, in presence (or absence) of proof to the contrary. Many will have seen diagrams of Tycho Brahe’s theory of the solar system, wherein the sun, in its daily orbit around the earth, intersects the orbit of Mars around what?. So his theory “needed modification”—it was wrong. For several periods each decade the sun would have gone daily beyond Mars (unless they collided) and during this ordinary and repeated proximity have melted the well-known Martian polar icecaps. So the theory was modified to keep Mars out of the way and let each planet, except earth, orbit the sun annually (according to its respective year). This reduced the almost insurmountable odds in favor of collisions of Mars or its moons with Mercury, Venus, or the sun. All’s well that ends well? Until NASA began to fire! It put up several solar satellites, slung another around Jupiter into crosswise solar orbit, launched another to orbit Jupiter itself, and dispatched three probes in different directions to leave the solar system. Three deep-space tracking stations follow them all daily, and lose contact only when each probe is behind the sun once a year in its turn. If geocentrism is true, how could any of these spacecraft have evaded the sun in its daily orbit? The probes were sent along the plane common to all planets but one, all extending in that same plane from its center, the sun. In the two shots involving Jupiter, not only had they to escape

54 the sun several times each but to find Jupiter as it maintained its distance (back and forth) and direction in moving, sun-based orbit (186 million miles daily variation), even though such movements have not been recorded. Their inescapable daily solar proximity would suffice to draw them into the sun, where no one could trace them for twenty minutes, let alone twenty-five years. To summarize: Minimum distance – earth to Jupiter 367,000,000 miles Minimum distance – earth to sun 91,342,000 miles Galileo satellite, which orbits Jupiter, left earth October 1989, and (six years later) arrived at Jupiter December 1995. Sun, earth, and Jupiter lie in the same plane, relative to each other and all planets but Pluto. All probes and satellites have left us in this roughly equatorial plane. Even Ulysses, which orbits the sun over its poles rather than equatorially like the rest, was slung around Jupiter into its current path. Pioneer 10, 3/3/72, passed Jupiter 12/3/73, and escaped the solar system in 1986. Voyager 1, 9/5/77, passed Jupiter 3/79, Saturn 11/80, Uranus 1986, and over Neptune. Voyager 2, 9/20/77, passed Jupiter 7/79, Saturn 8/81, Uranus 1/86, and under Neptune 8/29/89. Given geocentrism, which postulates the sun orbiting earth’s equatorial zone daily, all would have encountered the sun in repeated daily orbit between earth and Jupiter between four and six months en route—and could not have avoided its fatal attraction. All would have melted or vaporized. Against this argument the geocentrist can only pretend that all those probes and satellites, many dispatched on television and out there in plain sight, are figments of governmental propaganda. But for the dedicated geocentrist NASA never existed. Or all its rockets were figured geocentrically—whatever that means. Each was sent aloft from its earthly base, wherever it was at the time, toward its target area as it would be at its time of arrival, just as each hunter fires his rifle at the spot where he expects that kangaroo at the time his bullet arrives. But if, as the geocentrists argue, all would appear the same, whichever orbits which, what is the difference in figuring geocentrically as opposed to heliocentrically? We can’t fire the rocket from the sun. What of Scriptural inerrancy (in original language)? Moses necessarily talked down to tribal herdsmen who had just escaped grinding slavery and were silly enough to want to return. I wonder what welcome they expected? Why should this non-issue split us? Geocentrism is not, nor can it be—any more than heliocentrism—relevant to salvation. It is normally scorned, so we do well to ignore it. What makes star-gazing so important that we must let it put off likely (or unlikely) converts?

55 Function and Scope of Revelation De Ecclesia, Vatican Council, April 24, 1870, Denzinger 1787: These books of the Old and New Testament, whole with all their parts, just as they were enumerated in the decree of the same Council [of Trent], are contained in the older Vulgate Latin edition, and are to be accepted as sacred and canonical. But the Church holds these books as sacred and canonical, not because, having been put together by human industry alone, they were then approved by its authority; nor because they contain revelation without error; [It is not maintained here that every word is revealed, nor that every word is literally correct, but only that these books contain Revelation without error. Revelation is nearly all revealed because we have no other source for what is necessary to salvation. God has not wasted His time and ours revealing to us what we can discover for ourselves and is immaterial to salvation.] but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself. [The Church, then, understands it as it applies to the Church’s mission and competence. The Church pronounces on matters of faith and morals.] BOOKLET REVIEW—The Theological Status of Heliocentrism John S. Daly of Britons Catholic Library has issued 71 8½" x 11" pages under the above pretentious title. Britons never abbreviate. Having exhausted the issue in The War Is Now! # 38, 39, 40, & 41, all of which the Britons received, I shall not reopen it unless confronted with some fresh, relevant argument; I merely report logical and factual defects. Mr. Daly has apparently modified Britons’ earlier decree that in their condemnations of Galileo Popes Paul V and Urban VIII had defined infallibly. By the end of page 35 he has shown that formal conditions for an infallible statement had not been satisfied. (I had arrived at the same conclusion from the nature of their subject matter.) But all is not lost. In only another fourteen pages Mr. Daly tortuously perverts these non-doctrinal condemnations into binding status anyway. We who refuse geocentrism are no longer heretics—merely temerarious and ignorant. Having stated his case with maximum word count and minimum logic, Mr. Daly then attacks me, on the basis of my four The War Is Now! articles, for what never appeared in those articles: “Once again we are left with the conclusion that heliocentrism must be rejected unless it is ‘a proposition that is certain and evident by natural light.’ We submit that it is no such thing and that those who continue to think it are only demonstrating their ignorance after the recent example of Mr. Hutton Gibson of who in his The War Is Now! has chosen to wheel out the antiquated and exploded pro- heliocentric arguments of his distant childhood rather than inform himself objectively of the present state of scientific evidence and take comfort from the vindication of the effected in recent years.” [A 79-word sentence to match my age!]

56 If you lack proof you work from assumptions—you beg questions. When that fails you pretend that your adversary deals with half a deck (distant childhood = senility?), while you ignore the cards dealt. So let me return to the nineteen twenties for those damning space probe figures. Incidentally, I never claimed that these figures and the methods used to compile them prove heliocentrism, but only that they prove geocentrism impossible. If these two theories are the only possibilities, then heliocentrism has the field to itself. Page 53, Chapter 12, pgh. 4: “Now it is argued ..... that if heliocentrism be true, the repeated condemnations of it by the Holy See were neither safe nor credible; and that if the Holy See can repeatedly insist that Catholics espouse an unsafe doctrine” [Daly has just shown at great length that only silence was imposed] “on insufficient grounds on one topic, one cannot have the slightest assurance that she may not have been guilty of the same mis-guidance on countless other topics.” Pgh. 5: “It follows” [HOW?] “that one cannot embrace heliocentrism” [nor did I] “without effectively undermining the entire authority of the Church in her non-infallible doctrinal precepts” [What is doctrinal about physical motion?] “and without departing, at least implicitly, from a theologically certain truth: viz. the safety and credibility of all such decrees.” Page 54, pgh 1: “..... heliocentrism cannot properly be accepted unless its acceptance is genuinely necessary, i.e. unless it is a demonstrated truth of natural science...... we do not see how it is possible, when in possession of the evidence,” [the incontrovertible evidence of the space probes?] “to continue to take this view.” In view of the evidence, which Mr. Daly has ignored, I see no reason not to reject geocentrism. But in his next paragraph we find “a theological principle which in our view makes geocentrism obligatory” [though the Church has never taught it]...... “the principle of scriptural interpretation that the proper, or literal, meaning of any text is to be preferred to a metaphorical or symbolic interpretation whenever this is possible.” Why must I repeat the obvious? In the cases at issue, no matter how many, none of these terms is relevant. The words are used neither literally, nor symbolically, nor metaphorically. They are nothing more than universal usage common to all men of all times in all languages, based firmly on appearances. The only argument for geocentrism that these literal minds advance is that “movements of the sun and the stability of the earth are affirmed are asserted” (sic) “by a canonical writer.” What is this if not circular reasoning (vicious cycle)? The canonical writer was human; he wrote and expressed himself in the ordinary human way to those who also expressed themselves and understood the writer in this human way from their common universal viewpoint—essentially appearances. [If we are confined to appearances, what happens to the Holy ?] Ordinary usage of language is not matter for theological definition, or for scientific or astronomical conclusions. Infallibility of whatever kind is simply not involved. This entire subject is a waste of time and another occasion of unnecessary division among traditional Catholics.

57 Having long since consigned me to the Alzheimer's ward, Mr. Daly (top, page 57) demonstrates Pope Leo XIII’s agreement with my view—the obvious view—in an official teaching document of the Catholic Church, his encyclical Providentissimus Deus. He then supports Pope Leo with a fine example of impossibly literal text of the same nature as all those concerning which the geocentrist squabbles so endlessly (doubly meant: without finish, without purpose). These last occur in two pages of Retractions of opinions in which Mr. Gwynne had followed Walter van der Kamp in his criticisms of certain papal decisions and writings bearing on pretensions of modern science to have refuted the literal or proper sense of numerous Biblical texts. These criticisms had been directed at Popes Benedict XIV, Pius VIII, and especially Leo XIII. Had the retractions been written first, there would have arisen no need for the rest of the booklet. Despite these retractions, Britons continue to characterize the opponent of geocentrism as wrong and wrong-headed. No matter who may be conceded the Britannic “theological” approval, we merit no consideration. It seems never to have occurred to Britons or van der Kamp that when genuine popes differ, the subject matter of their difference cannot be doctrinal, or otherwise subject to infallible definition. Heliocentrism therefore, like geocentrism and the multiplication tables, has no theological status. But if time hangs heavy on your hands, and you enjoy tracking the wild non sequitur, this booklet is for you.

The New Mass and Indefectibility (by Michael Davies) fills nearly four columns in Catholic (Melbourne), October 1996 issue. The very juxtaposition of two such mutually exclusive concepts as if in concordance confirms our overwhelming suspicion of this author’s rational processes. He starts with his own definition: “The term ‘indefectible’ means, of course, ‘unable to fail’.” Compare the definition of Dr. Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 296): “In saying that the Church is indefectible we assert both her imperishableness, that is, her constant duration to the end of the world, and the essential immutability of her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy.” Then, Davies cites, presumably in support of his thesis, St. Matthew’s : “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Mt. 28:18-20) He omits Bishop Richard Challoner’s annotation (1752), which explains the Church’s official interpretation: “All power, etc... See here the warrant and commission of the apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christ’s church. He received from his Father all power in heaven and in earth: and in virtue of this power, he

58 sends them (even as his Father sent him, St. John 20. 21) to teach and , not one, but all nations; and instruct them in all truths: and that he may assist them effectually in the execution of this commission, he promises to be with them, not for three or four hundred years only, but all days, even to the consummation of the world. How then could the Catholic Church ever go astray; having always with her pastors, as is here promised, Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. St. John 14.” (Catholics are permitted only annotated , to escape private interpretation.) Further to support our eventually forthcoming controversion of Davies’ simplistic “arguments,” we cite The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Infallibility (last article, Vol VII), by Patrick J. Toner, S.T.D., Professor of Dogmatic Theology, St. Patrick’s College, Maynooth, Ireland: “there is question particularly in this passage of doctrinal authority—of authority to teach the Gospel to all men—if Christ’s promise to be with the Apostles and their successors to the end of time in carrying out this commission .....”; and Gospels of the Sundays and Festivals, Cornelius J. Ryan, D.D., (first printed 1903), Vol II, Pentecost: “..... He declared that He was to be ever with them in bringing about the end for which they laboured.” The object and duration, then, of Christ’s cited promise is the Church’s mandated activity, which Vatican II deliberately murdered with its openly heretical Decree on and Declaration on Religious Liberty, both signed and promulgated in his “papal” capacity by Paul VI. But Davies would apply the promise to the nefarious activities of those who have disobeyed and exceeded Christ’s mandate and falsified His doctrine. I would specify those open heresies had I not mailed the incomplete list twice to Michael Davies in The War Is Now! #3 (1977) & #15 (1982), because he had boasted failure to detect heresy in Vatican II’s decrees. He also received Paul VI’s Legacy: Catholicism?, in which I detailed pages of criticisms of the novus ordo missae which he never included in his Pope Paul’s New Mass—presumably because mine were invalid criticisms meriting neither consideration nor reply. The papacy’s purpose is preservation. It provides our standard of unity in belief. Its chief task is to preserve and propagate the Deposit of Faith consigned to the Church’s care by Jesus Christ Himself, Who established the Church and instituted its Mass and sacraments as a major part of the Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Catholic Church and its head, His vicar, for preachment and preservation in toto. When a man separates himself from his official duties to preserve and propagate the unchangeable, unaugmentable Deposit of Faith, and assumes divine power to institute new mass and new sacraments, when this man continually expresses dissatisfaction with Jesus Christ’s message and looks ahead to its completion, clearly this man has revolted—as surely as Lucifer. He has just as surely exceeded his competence, which is confined in a genuine pope to the Deposit of Faith, complete as handed down from Jesus Christ and His Apostles through His unchangeable Catholic Church. Included in this unchangeable Deposit is St. Paul’s prophecy of a revolt before the end.

59 The Mass is a divine institution. How could the novus ordo, invented only these few years, rejected immediately by the 1967 Roman Synod, acquire divine institution? Even proper papal authority properly exercised cannot validate a new rite of Mass. Certainly Montini, a known heretic before his election, an even more widely known heretic since his promulgation of Vatican II’s many condemned heresies, had no possible authority to introduce a rite for a May Day . Why so freely accord theoretical validity to that which even Lefebvre admits is seldom valid in practice? May a pope commit suicide? No!—for the same reason that forbids any other man: he would usurp the rights of God, Who alone can take our lives because He gave them to us. Our part is regulation of our lives according to His commands. The papacy’s purpose is regulation of the Church and its sacraments and sacrifice—the life of the Church. To kill or replace these a man must assume divine prerogatives and power. Papal election, even if legitimate, confers no divine power. Attempt at its assumption is itself as much an invasion of Creator’s rights as suicide. Paul’s new rite lacks the Church’s traditional—ergo necessary—intention. No priest can manifest intention to do what the Church intends in a rite which (1) the Church forbade centuries ago; (2) clearly expresses incompatible intentions. A new rite, defined as not a Mass, flaunting condemned heresy, perverting Christ’s own most solemn Consecratory Prayer in both word and form, contradicting Christ’s and His Church’s identical sacrificial intention, is fraudulently introduced as an experiment in flagrant violation of laws made to protect our Holy Mass and in deliberate fracture of two most solemn oaths required of and sworn by every priest at ordination and every bishop at consecration, nineteen centuries too late for Revelation! Valid? 1) There is no doubt that the traditional Mass on which we grew up is a true Mass—as Leo XIII said, the way in which God has shown that He wishes to be worshipped. Anyone who forbids or obstructs true worship of God is His enemy. 2) Mass and sacraments were, by definition, instituted by Jesus Christ while on earth. No man can institute a new Mass or sacrament because he is not divine and because he is nineteen centuries late. “This conciliar church is a schismatic church. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all of which have been already condemned by the Church in an official and definitive way. Consequently this conciliar church is not Catholic.”—Lefebvre, 1976 No Catholic of my knowledge or vast acquaintance, nor I myself, would in 1950 have believed what has since befallen our Church. It could not happen! Had we not the Holy Ghost? Did not Christ promise to be with us to the end of the age? Even reading St. Paul’s infallible prognostication in II Thessalonians ii, nearly all envisioned a great lapse of the laity, not the hierarchy. But a successful large-scale apostasy requires credible leadership. The laity might fall from grace; apostasy needs higher authority. The Holy

60 Ghost will never desert His Church; its members —no matter how high—can desert Him, or free will is a myth. Christ’s promise began with “and,” denoting a continuation of or dependence upon His previous sentence, the promise’s condition. But Jesus Christ, says Davies, is with apostate heretics because He promised to be with His Church. Since 1958 four men claiming papal status are so habitually in error that they can be defended only on spurious grounds that they never speak ex cathedra, or never quite deny de fide definitions. Where is their infallibility? The Holy Ghost would not permit them to err by accident—if they were popes. But God permits man’s free will to govern his own actions. It follows that they err deliberately. We can dismiss ignorance or arteriosclerosis; we have had old, sick, and ignorant popes before. The Holy Ghost is not subject to conditions. Even genuine popes have no license to preach error. Such preachment is clear evidence that they are not Catholic, therefore not popes. Davies: “The novus ordo Missae ..... would appear at first to be a very strong argument against the doctrine of indefectibility” [if it were a true Mass] “..... I have devoted countless articles, pamphlets, and, above all, my book Pope Paul’s New Mass, to documenting the manner in which the Catholicism of millions has been destroyed by the liturgical revolution that has followed Vatican II...... These practices” [“abuses” of the novus ordo] “are certainly harmful, and would appear to undermine the doctrine of the Church’s indefectibility. But this cannot be the case as the Church is and must be indefectible or it ceases to be the Church founded by Our Lord, which would mean that Our Lord had never founded a Church.” [Or else that “pope,” hierarchy, and clergy had defected. The Church is indefectible, not those who have defected from it, even should they constitute the whole population. The introduction or continuation of false worship, heretical and defective, cannot be the act of a Catholic, especially a genuine pope under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Even Lefebvre asked: “How could a pope, a true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, preside over the most vast and extensive destruction of the Church..... that no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing?”] Davies: “Although the Ordinary and Proper of the Mass as found in the New Latin Missal are manifestly inferior to the Missal of St. Pius V as an expression of Catholic Eucharistic teaching,” [Is inferior other than incorrect?] “they do not contain heresy” [except Judaism, Islam, , and correction of Jesus Christ in what He offered] “or mandate” [carefully avoided in form] “any practice that is in itself contrary or harmful to the faith. There is nothing in this Latin Missal which could be described as intrinsically bad in strict theological terms.” [“the Catholicism of millions has been destroyed by the liturgical revolution”—Davies above] “..... the fact [?!] that the Latin Missal of Paul VI is free from doctrinal error and mandates no intrinsically harmful practices will not surprise any Catholic acquainted with the indefectible character of the Church.” All these terrible effects and defects, then, result from faulty translations? Who authorized and approved these faith-destroying translations, which are

61 used to the almost entire exclusion of the “official” Latin? Why the condemnatory Ottaviani Intervention, which preceded all translations? After nearly thirty years of the novus bogus missae, Rome is unaware of the ’ faults? These are intentional and deliberate; they have for their purpose the dilution, defilement, and destruction of the Catholic faith. And three “popes” have let them run. A genuine pope could and would shut them all down within minutes of assuming the papacy. If it is a Mass, if Paul VI, JP1, and JP2 are real popes, and, forsaking their purpose, enjoy some shadow of power to impose it (to the exclusion of what all Catholics must believe is a true Mass), who are these men to disobey legitimate authority and reject a properly promulgated, valid Mass? They are clearly rebels, and deserve no consideration. For those who insist that Paul VI was pope, their insistence creates insoluble problems in justifying destructive activities and excusing notorious heresies— which made him ineligible—long before his “lawful” election. He derived “eligibility,” the red hat, from another heretic, John XXIII. He perverted the papacy’s purpose. Supposedly Christ’s vicar, he usurped Christ’s own power to institute new sacraments and a new “mass” in the form of an old meal. Supposedly infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost, he promulgated lies, errors, and previously condemned heresies over his official seal and signature. These lies, errors, and heresies, repeatedly drawn to his attention, Davies blandly ignores. He continues to “reason” in mazes, from which truth could liberate him. A Catholic can be required to practise or believe nothing new, especially new papal purposes and powers. Under Canon 2314 not only heretics and schismatics incur ipso facto excommunication; the first category so expelled is “all apostates from the Christian faith?” If one abandons the Christian faith entirely (Canon 1325) he is called an apostate. Abandonment is an action, not necessarily verbalized as heresy. It can be a whole series of anti-Catholic actions, in which correctness of doctrine need never arise. Paul VI in effect put all popes but one out of the Church—for Catholic actions. The current antipope even put them all legally in the wrong. He excused changes to the laws just as Paul VI excused changes to worship, by pretending that the previous code of canon laws had been a set of new laws rather than a largely better arrangement of several unwieldy codes. Paul pretended that he only followed St. Pius V in instituting a new rite. He knew he needed a precedent, so he invented one; he could hardly point to his real precedents, introduced by Cranmer, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and many more, which had necessitated St. Pius V’s codification of divine law seldom if ever violated before the “.” The , January 1980, carried Lefebvre’s statement of Nov. 8, 1979. He listed five fundamental and pertinent dogmas violated (“Not clearly represented ..... even contradicted”) by the novus ordo missae. “These New Masses,” he said, “are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and

62 Protestant sects.” True! The novus ordo is not mass; it has been imposed by non-Catholics, heretics, apostates. But where is his reason? He acknowledges as legitimate the authority that imposed and continues to guarantee these sacrileges. He will not even say that this authority has exceeded its competence, or that these sacrileges must be wiped out. He will settle for equal rights for the traditional Mass in the same churches with these sacrileges. You may not attend, but neither may you conclude ..... under penalty of exclusion from his Society ..... invalidity. There is no point in quoting Lefebvre, though I have filled a pamphlet with his inconsistencies. The first qualification for a successful liar is a good memory. Our Mass, defined as the Sacrifice of Calvary, is efficacious because the Victim is divine—of infinite value, the only sacrifice, as the Church has always taught, of any propitiatory value. In the new rite, defined as other than the Sacrifice of Calvary, containing a “Preparation of the Gifts” correcting Christ in offering the insufficient of the Old Law, which He had deliberately replaced, containing Cranmer’s “narrative of institution” instead of Christ’s prayerful Action, telescoping the people’s into the essential priest’s Communion, a number of “Eucharistic Prayers” replace the essential . In the Preface of the fourth Eucharistic Prayer you may read, if you don’t mind blasphemy, “Father in heaven, it is right that we should give you thanks and glory. You alone are God, living and true.”—classic Arianism, denial of the Blessed Trinity, denial of the divinity of the Second and Third Persons. (And checked in the highly original Latin!) What effect has this heresy on the consecration, supposing it were real in any version of the novus ordo? Is this, then, the Body and Blood in Sacrifice of an infinitely valuable Divine Person? Or is it now the body and blood (How?) of a mere man, of no eternal value whatsoever? Is it not even less—the useless corpse of all time’s greatest liar and impostor, who has claimed divinity? And (presuming anyone can believe in him and his “consecration”) when he is raised and adored is this not idolatry? What must be said of the man who promulgated this most hateful heresy? (Not even a new heresy in which he might conceivably be honestly deceived!) What can be adduced in defense of the clergy and hierarchy who must know this as well as he? Or what were they doing all those years in the seminary? What are these people if not heretics? Where, then, is their jurisdiction? Removed by Canon Law! They are obeyed only at the risk of weekly idolatry, the worst crime on the calendar. The Church is in ruins and Davies spouts sophistries and begs questions: “It is thus incompatible with the profession of the Catholic Faith to claim that any liturgical rite approved by the Roman Pontiff for universal use, above all the rite of Mass, could be invalid, contain heresy, or harm souls.” “It is thus, to put it mildly, theologically untenable to maintain that ‘the new Mass is not a ..... is in itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil’ and is not ‘an official Mass of the Catholic Church’.”

63 “If a true pope authorized an intrinsically evil Mass for the universal Church it would mean that the Church founded by Our Lord had failed, which would mean that He had made promises that He could not keep and that He is therefore not divine.” [Precisely!] “There is only one person in the Church who can decide what constitutes and what does not constitute ‘an official Mass of the Catholic Church’—and that person is the Vicar of Christ in Rome. He is also the only person in the Church who has the authority to state which rite of Mass Catholics may or may not attend...... Lefebvre accepted and confirmed to me in writing that the New Mass fulfils the Sunday obligation. “It would be ludicrous to claim that one could fulfil the Sunday obligation by being present at an intrinsically evil rite of Mass!” “To deny the Catholic character of the New Mass constitutes an explicit denial of the divine[?!] authority of the Pope and must therefore be considered a schismatic act.” [Now watch him wriggle!] “The promise of indefectibility applies only to the Latin version of any sacramental rite approved by the Pope and known as the typical edition, the edition which all the vernacular versions are supposed to reproduce faithfully.” [Now he challenges the few who have seen the Latin Missal to specify where it harms the faith. He tells us that enshrined somewhere is a genuine new mass which keeps Bugnini and Montini orthodox, so all the public heresy and idolatry associated with the vernaculars must be ignored as if the experts had perpetrated them mistakenly in good faith. He never mentions Paul VI’s regular use and universal encouragement of vernaculars.] “..... the claim that if one accepts that if the New Mass is an official Catholic Mass there is no reason for preferring the old, .....” [Leave it to Davies to construct another phantom! Logically, if a man that you believe pope imposes a mass that you believe valid and licit, and if you believe he has divine power to institute and impose a new mass to replace a true Mass which cannot be legitimately replaced, what possible reason have you for refusing obedience? You lack absolute right to a certain Mass if his experimental substitute is equally valid and licit. So shut up and obey! Preference is irrelevant.] [But let’s return to inconsistency, non sequitur, and artful dodgery.] “The question as to whether the new Mass is or is not intrinsically evil must be decided by our acceptance or rejection of the fact[?!] that Paul VI was a true Pope. If he was then the New Mass is an official Catholic Mass.” [He dodges with a non sequitur. He has omitted the step which grants a human the divine power necessary to institute a Mass or a sacrament. He ends with an absurdity designed to shield him from the strongest arguments]: “Those who deny that Paul VI was a true Pope are schismatic and their opinion is of no relevance to members of the indefectible Church founded by Our Lord.” [Even if Paul VI could have been a pope, and I were in schism for refusing to believe it (Would that belief constitute a schism?), would his death not end my schism?]

64 In imposing ecumenism and religious liberty Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II officially promulgated doctrines previously condemned by the Church. No pope can err in such matters. These men, having so erred, are proven not popes. In his insistence to the contrary, Davies denies the dogma of papal infallibility. Catholic, May 1996, page 2: “This month we had the privilege to interview Mr. Michael Davies, the most prolific author writing in defence of Christ’s Church in the English-speaking world. For a long time we have wanted to go behind this man’s writing to find out just what he thinks on a number of topics.” The editor has said it all. In the English-speaking world’s most voluminous defence, Mr. Davies has not succeeded in conveying his thought concerning “a number of topics” of interest to an editor of a Catholic publication. Language is a means of concealing thought? In the June-July issue, however, the editor-interviewer asked questions which concern those who seek restitution of the stolen traditional Mass; and Davies has gravitated to leadership of , a worldwide organization dedicated to that purpose. We quote from his replies. “.... one cannot deny that the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church, and it has been promulgated by the Pope. So it certainly fulfils one’s Sunday obligation.” “..... the only person who can say which Mass fulfils your obligation and which Mass doesn’t fulfil your obligation, is the Pope.” [The only law governing this matter was issued in 1570 by the Pope. St. Pius V’s Tempore has been violated grievously, but has been neither removed nor replaced.] “.... if I could not go to a , and I could find a New Mass as it is celebrated in the London at Brompton, where the entire Mass is in Latin, said facing the East, where they have no table in their , where they have no Offertory procession” [and no Offertory], “no sign of peace, no lay readers, then I would certainly go to that because I can” [will?] “see no reason not to do so.” “But at the average Mass in a Catholic parish today, you have Communion being given in the hand. I find this completely unacceptable for the reasons .... copying of Protestant practice and the legalization of the defiance of Church law.” [An accurate description of his New Mass!] “I would attend any Tridentine Mass which was said reverently, in accord with the rubrics, and where the sermon was acceptable.” [He can tell beforehand?] “You are supposed to have the 1962 Missal” [Tridentine?] “used exactly as it is used by priests of the SSPX.” [Having never been trained in the rubrics or celebration, they vary greatly—there is no exact use. But they are trained in piosity.] “It also doesn’t trouble me one little bit whether the priest says the Old Mass and the New Mass. If a priest is prepared to say the Tridentine Mass and says it reverently, it is up to him what Mass he will say.” [No matter if he flouts

65 Quo Primum Tempore!] “..... if a priest who will say only the Tridentine Mass starts passing judgements on priests who say both, then he has no business to do so, because what he is virtually saying is that his personal judgement on the matter is infallible.” [Here Davies’ habitual question begging escapes right out of hand. His hypothetical priest is merely obeying the law of the Catholic Church, and warning against those who violate it.] “..... what is absolutely certain is that when the next century comes ..... the increase of the priests celebrating the old Mass, and the laity attending that Mass is going to go on increasing.” [Apparently without help from this wimp, who refuses to recognize that in the Latin rite there has been no priest validly ordained in the Catholic Church (unless by stubborn bishops of the stripe of Antonio de Castro Mayer) since Easter, 1969. The victims of the rite introduced with the novus ordo missae can celebrate till the cows come home often, without producing a Mass.] The 1968(?) ordination rite was replaced in 1989. Davies has “given a very detailed examination of the 1989 Ordination Rite in the new edition of ..... The Order of Melchisidech, and I find the new Ordination Rite far more unsatisfactory even than the New Rite of Mass. But I am absolutely sure that it contains sufficient elements for validity.” [No one is allowed to condemn the wretched rite because he would invade the prerogative of a pope, if any; but Michael can approve, right?] “I know priests who were accepted into the SSPX who had been ordained under the New Ordination Rite, and the Archbishop never requested them to be conditionally ordained. One example is Fr Glover, who was Professor of Canon Law at Econe. But if a priest had very serious scruples about whether his ordination had been carried out strictly according to the rubrics, the Archbishop would agree to ordain him conditionally.” (Editor: “I have heard it explained that essentially the Archbishop regarded the priest himself as the main judge.”) “Yes, as the main judge.” Una Voce has never advanced half an inch toward its avowed goals. Its new head will surely uphold its glorious traditions. They deserve each other. Nothing will ever be accomplished by petitions to apostate thieves of our Mass and sacraments—stolen deliberately, and equally deliberately buried. Their “co-operation” can be bought only by recogniton of the robbery’s legitimacy and that of its instrument, the novus ordo missae.

The Remnant, 1/15/96, Brian Harrison vs. Michael Davies. Adoremus, a “Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy,” founded last summer mainly through the initiative of Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., of , with support of , James and Helen Hitchcock, Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J., Ralph McInerney, etc. Spokesman Harrison, a postconciliar convert with a novus ordo ordination, complains: “..... if we deserve all (Matt’s) vituperation, then so did the two thousand-plus ..... bishops who” voted for Vat II’s Sacred Liturgy Constitution. [True, but hardly an argument.]

66 “While certainly intending to promote in the immediate future the most reverent and dignified style of celebrating the Novus Ordo, our long-term goal is to revise the preconciliar Missal, not the Missal of Paul VI.” [He can dangle a participle with the best.] “We wish to work ..... toward the development of an alternate implementation of the Council’s liturgical mandates.” Vatican II nowhere mandated a new rite or missal. But Harrison hopes to present an alternate to Rome and to request for it status equal to that of the novus ordo. “..... (.....I myself make use of the whenever I can, ....)” [So he concedes validity to the novus ordo missae as well as to his own “ordination.”] Harrison sees as wildly unrealistic the dream that a pope will order replacement of the New Missal with the Tridentine; this would constitute rejection of Vatican II’s mandate, “so is out of the question. Even in the extremely unlikely event of the election of a traditionalist Pope, a solid wall of episcopal opposition would render it impossible ..... to enforce such an order.” Solution? Dialogue. Michael Davies in reply cites as nonsense JP2’s statement (Apostolic Letter on occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the liturgy constitution) that: The vast majority of the pastors and the Christian people have accepted the liturgical reform in a spirit of obedience and indeed of joyful fervor. For this we should give thanks ..... for the radiant ..... vitality drawn from the ..... Liturgy. These are all reasons for holding fast to the teaching of ..... and to the reforms which it has made possible: “the liturgical reform is the most visible fruit of the whole work of the council.” Davies: “Those who were not assisting at Mass before the Council have not been brought back, and in country after country many, sometimes most, of those who were assisting before the Council no longer do so. In countries such as France and Holland the percentage of Catholics at Mass each Sunday has declined to a single figure. In the U.S.A...... from 71% in 1963 to 25% in 1993...... 24.000,000 fewer American Catholics attend Mass than before the Council.” ..... “..... the traditionalist position is that every priest of the has an absolute right to celebrate the traditional Mass, that all the faithful have a right to be present at it, and that no indult is necessary.” But “Adoremus rejects the traditionalist position because ‘it does not help to achieve the reforms lawfully mandated by the Council.’ ..... the Council ..... did not mandate any specific reforms beyond requiring that should become the norm for sung Masses, ..... It also mandated that the Latin language should remain the norm for the Latin rite, ..... not a reform .....” Davies takes issue with Adoremus over its acceptance of Vatican II “as an act of the Church’s supreme Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit. Its documents are an expression of the word of Christ himself for his bride the Church in our times.” Says Davies, Vatican II documents involve only the Ordinary Magisterium, in which the Church seems allowed to propagate error. And liturgical directives are mere disciplinary matters [which all can flout ]. To Davies, Adoremus’ long-term goal to revise the preconciliar Missal “is completely incompatible with the legitimate aspiration of The Remnant, which is to maintain the 1962 Missal exactly as it stands.” [Tradition?]

67 Davies, referring to universal imposition of the 1965 Missal: “..... it is impossible to imagine that the Holy See would wish to take a step which would make it a moral impossibility for its members to be reintegrated into mainstream Catholicism.” But he sees nothing heretical or invalidating in the 1969 “missal,” imposition of which has constituted no such impossibility. Finally he challenges Harrison to present his improvements to the 1962 Missal—to promote dialogue. Who needed the 1962 Missal, a break with tradition, a violation of Quo primum? Cardinal O’Connor Every cleric knows, or should know, that the new “mass” was invented by that freemason, . Most know that Paul VI placed him in the position to accomplish this change, and then appointed as his “boss” His Ignorance Cardinal Knox of Melbourne. Even New York’s Cardinal O’Connor knows this, but he controls his own diocesan press, and can lie heroically without fear of contradiction. Australia, “the lucky country,” has recently entertained the new head of Una Voce, the worldwide organization allegedly trying to bring back the . His interview with the local press furnishes fodder for this issue. Comparison with Cardinal O’Connor’s St. Patrick’s Day message should shed light somewhere. O’Connor attributes a “legitimate” question to some anonymous form of curiosity: why a Latin Mass? Why has he not provided a legitimate answer? If no answer existed, no one would ever have heard of a Latin Mass. O’C presents first nostalgia and familiarity, while informing all that the language which has provided the great bulk of our English working vocabulary is hardly manageable vocally. And periodically, he says, we must remind ourselves of the heritage and tradition of our Church, seemingly forgetting that he introduced the subject by insistence that this particular Latin “Mass” is an innovation of less than thirty years’ infliction, rather than the expected traditional “Tridentine” Mass. So he skips the Mass and defines our tradition in terms of language and music. He then introduces the irrelevancy that Latin is not the Church’s only language, and cites what he says is the belief in some quarters that once Latin was universally used for Mass. Everyone who went near a Catholic grade school knew better. “Our Lord Himself never used Latin.” How came O’C by this knowledge? Did Jesus not speak with Pontius Pilate? Is it likely that Rome appointed its provincial governors for proficiency in local languages? Does O’C imply that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity could not speak or understand Latin? How about Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Empire? But no, “Our Lord used Aramaic which was the language of His day; ..... This should be remembered by those who want to return to the practice of so-called ‘early Christianity.’” In this he describes the innovators, as they struggle to tie each invention to some ancient practise which has not survived until its present resurrection. This early practise (whatever), not having been handed down, is not tradition. 68 Our Latin Mass is the oldest rite in use, one of the traditions virtually vital to our salvation. He avers that during and immediately following its classic period Latin had given way to Greek and Aramaic in its own home town. The Romans, we are to believe, ran their empire by adopting the languages of the Gauls, Belgae, Britons, Celtiberi, Lusitanians, Numidians, Rumanians, Dalmatians, etc., and this linguistic anarchy continued through the period of the Latin Fathers of the Church, like Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, , and Augustine. St. Jerome, being a scholar, never spoke to the common people, so what need was there of a Latin translation of the Bible, most of which was available in Greek? Until long after the end of the Empire in the West, Latin prevailed sufficiently to constitute the strongest influence on the current languages in its territory. But why should O’C adhere more closely to truth here than in the rest of his instructive sermon? He then digresses into the Cyrillic alphabet and the invention of printing. Next he denigrates late medieval clerical morals. Here we can believe him. After all, were not the Reformers nearly all clergy? And today can we not see worse? But he mentions the Council of Trent, apparently for the purpose of misdating it. He follows along with reasons(?) why St. Pius V “had to bring about a major reformation in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.” It was too long and flowery. If so, these conditions had prevailed for centuries, and could just as well have continued. The standardization was necessitated by the Reformers’ innovative services on all fronts, and wholesale deception of the common people, ignorant as they were of Latin, into accepting vernacular substitutes as translations of the Mass. So the oldest rite in existence was imposed everywhere, though exceptions were made in favor of newer rites enjoying usage of two centuries or more, thus excluding all current (chiefly Protestant) innovations. Having twisted St. Pius V, why should O’C not torture St. Pius X, whose plea for increased lay participation had taken the form of wider use of Gregorian chant? O’C mourns its loss, and attributes our preference for the traditional Mass to not only nostalgia but aesthetic appreciation and good taste. It seems not to have struck him that none of the fringe benefits which he deplores were attached to our traditional Mass, but rather rode the coat-tails of change. At last he comes to the real problems, Vatican II and its real and imagined implementations. He chides us for not reading the documents, knowing that had we in any great number read them immediately, they could never have been so misinterpreted and implemented. He is on safe ground; they are old stuff now, and no one will ever read them. So he quotes liberally from the council’s first document. May I refer you to Is The Pope Catholic?, for my interlarded comment: Const. Sacred Liturgy: “21...... Holy Mother Church desires to undertake .... a general restoration of the liturgy itself.” [Restoration? To what? What essentials have our Mass and sacraments lacked? Who will “restore” them? Nay, who will discover them? How? Why?] “For the liturgy is made up of unchangeable elements divinely instituted” [Offertory, Consecration,

69 Communion?], “and elements subject to change.” [Who says these unspecified elements either lack divine institution or are subject to change? St. Pius V says the Mass has already (1570) been restored to “the original rite and form of the Holy Fathers,” and forbids heedless change.] “The latter” (elements subject to change) “not only may but ought to be changed with the passing of time if features have by chance crept in” [during the last seven guaranteed unchanged centuries?] “which are less harmonious(?) with the intimate nature of the liturgy, or if existing elements have grown” [in seven unchanged centuries] “less functional.” [Have the nails rusted out of the ? Has the priestly knee ankylosed? “If” raised settled questions for modernists to resettle.] “In this restoration(?), both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the things which they signify.” [Supposing the need for clarification, the only safe method is explanatory extension—not removal or replacement.] “50. The rite of Mass is to be revised .... the rites are to be simplified .... Elements which, with the passage of time” [all more than seven centuries ago], “came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded. Where opportunity allows or necessity demands, other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history [and negligence of the Holy Ghost] are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the Holy Fathers.” [That lying St. Pius V!] What have accidents of history to do with our Apostolic Mass? This incredible document is what Paul VI “obeyed” in foisting upon us a new rite. O’C: “Since ..... Trent and ..... Pius V ..... many additions were being made to the Mass, with a great deal of duplication.”—Propers for new feasts, often duplicating or Gospel verses in , , and/or Communion . Then, having demonstrated his great benevolence and tolerance for the Mass on which he was raised, O’C dogmatizes: “The Tridentine Mass is valid” [if the celebrant is validly ordained], “but I reject categorically all allegations that only the Tridentine Mass is valid. That this Mass of Paul VI is not valid, or that certain things have been omitted or certain doctrinal nuances changed, is absolutely, categorically not the case.” [What happened to the Offertory?] “Anyone who participates in a Tridentine Mass because he or she thinks that this Paul VI Mass is not valid is in serious error.” A deceased polemicist friend often said: “The fault is not in the intellect but in the will.” A categorical statement is legitimately and sufficiently refuted by a categorical denial. O’C reduces his case to absurdity: Paul VI’s new “mass” is valid because Paul VI imposed it. Because we cannot see how a pope can acquire power to institute a Mass, or how true and perpetually privileged worship of God may be suppressed to make room for “experimental” innovation, we are “in serious error.” We see such glaring defects as refusal to face facts, question begging, inability to reason or to follow others’ reasoning, and irresistible itch to pontificate common to Davies and O’Connor. Additionally, both are reported in action in

70 The New York Times, May 13, 1996, Metro Section, at an Indult Mass celebrated in St. Patrick’s Cathedral by retired Cardinal Stickler. O’Connor made quite a virtue out of welcoming to the cathedral the Mass for which it was built. The article said:“But with advocacy of the old Tridentine Mass, even as an option, being so closely associated with cutting criticism of the new liturgy, it is not surprising that many priests and bishops resist more Tridentine Masses as a source of divisiveness.” Verily, the time is out of joint, when a chief symbol of our unity has become “divisive.” Richard J Neuhaus, a cleric who writes too much, worries that many “are enamored of the Tridentine Mass as basically a protest against the Council, which they see as an aberrant moment in the church’s history.” This “puts them radically out of step with the present Pope.” No one mentioned the popes before 1969. “When Michael Davies, a Welshman who heads the international movement to make the Tridentine Mass more widely available, took the podium (at a meeting a day earlier), he began, ‘I have to confess before I begin, I am not a Vatican II Catholic.’”—a contradiction in terms. He could have fooled me. He keeps repeating that he finds no heresy in Vatican II—or in two innovations which even Vatican II never ordered, the new “sacrament” of order and the novus ordo missae. No one who concedes the validity of either can be sufficiently motivated to retrieve the true Mass. He can be silenced by the irrelevant “obedience” bluff. What is an ultra-traditionalist? According to John M. Cooke in his recent “monograph,” The Chair of Peter, it is some one who adheres to more Tradition than John M. Cooke and the writers to whom he deigns to apportion space. Some ultra-traditionalists appear even to maintain vacancy in the aforesaid Chair. Mr. Cooke and his authorities know better. They cite abuse after lie after heresy after bluff of Vatican II, its Renewal, and its tyrannical postconciliar “Church”—then pretend that we owe recognition to the antipopes who have imposed this garbage. We cannot label them heretics because we have no dogmatic authority. But we need not obey them in moral matters because no one can command us to sin. We have moral authority. We may judge and choose among their orders, though they have charge of the Church and probably know more than we about moral obligations because they hold the supreme office in the Catholic Church; but we may not ignore or boycott them as heretics because they occupy the supreme office in the Catholic Church and are not subject to Canon Law, as represented by Mr. Cooke’s authorities. So we know better than our pope how to act but cannot discriminate for heresy, though we must know what to believe to be saved. We who have been taught and trained in our religion are supposedly incapable of determining what opposes our belief. “Obviously,” writes Mr. Cooke, “we must denounce the failings of him who sits on the throne of Peter,” but not the failings in faith by which he has removed himself from the Catholic Church—over which, consequently, he cannot rule.

71 Vatican II opposed doctrine, tradition, and law, most blatantly in its Decree on Ecumenism (paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 8, & 9), its Declaration on Religious Freedom (paragraphs 2 & 11), and its The Church in the Modern World (Karol Wojtyla helped write it) (paragraphs 44, 50, & 93)—all quoted, documented, and in detail proven heretical in my book, Is The Pope Catholic? Paul VI promulgated all these previously condemned heresies as Catholic doctrine to the whole Church over his “papal” signature and called upon the Holy Ghost to back him in self-contradiction, one of the very few things impossible to God. Paul was thus, at least from that time, a public heretic—it is indeed hard to see how his heresy could have been more public. The papacy’s purpose is preservation, not innovation. Canon Law, with the same essential purpose, provides: Canon 1322: “Christ our Lord confided to the Church the deposit of faith, in order that she, with the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost, might faithfully preserve and expound the revealed doctrine. Independently of any civil power whatsoever, the Church has the right and duty to teach all nations the evangelical doctrine, and all are bound by the divine law to acquire a proper knowledge of this doctrine and to embrace the true Church of God.” : “It is not sufficient to avoid heretical error, but one must also diligently shun any errors which more or less approach heresy. Wherefore all constitutions and decrees by which the Holy See has condemned and prohibited such opinions must be observed.” Canon 1325: “The faithful are bound to profess their faith publicly, whenever silence, subterfuge, or their manner of acting would otherwise entail an implicit denial of their faith, a contempt of religion, an insult to God, or scandal to their neighbor. Any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately (pertinaciter) denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic; ....” Pius XII, , 22: “.... Schism, heresy, or apostasy are such of their very nature that they sever a man from the Body of the Church.” Canon 2314, *1: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic incur the following penalties: (1) ipso facto excommunication; (2) if they have been admonished and do not repent, they shall be deprived of any , dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may hold in the Church; they shall be declared infamous, and, if they are clerics, they shall after renewed admonition be deposed; (3) if they have joined a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, they incur infamy ipso facto, and, if they are clerics and the admonition to repent has been fruitless, they shall be degraded. Canon 188, *4, provides, moreover, that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration.” Ius Canonicum de Personis: “The pope’s power is removed: (a) through death .... (b) through resignation .... (c) through lapse into certain and incurable insanity .... (d) through notorious lapse into heresy. .... if he .... publicly deny a dogmatic truth, he is no longer a member of the Church, and therefore cannot be its head, and by the very fact loses jurisdiction. This is done by divine law; for 72 this reason the sentence .... would be not of deposition but of mere declaration...... controversy concerns a heretic pope. Innocent III openly grants the possibility. (Sermo IV in cons. Pontif.: “He can be judged by men, or rather be shown judged, if he clearly vanishes into heresy, because he who does not believe has been judged.”)” But no declaration is needed—“by the very fact.” Not a matter of discipline, heresy by its nature excludes its public adherents from God’s Holy Church. It is in essence refusal to believe God. “But he that believeth not shall be condemned.” – Mark xvi, 16 Paul VI’s successors, John Paul I and II, both subscribed, along with nearly all the world’s bishops, to the heresies of Vatican II as publicly promulgated by Paul VI. Both heretics, on usurping office, dedicated their reigns to further implementation of Vatican II, though each had the opportunity to disclaim it without penalty. Some say a pope is not subject to Canon Law, therefore not to Canon 188 *4. So JP2 is pope. The argument depends, in the first place, upon his being pope so that he can be above the law. But we refuse to grant the first premiss, which is also the argument’s conclusion. We are more likely to grant JP2 freedom from Canon Law on grounds that Canon Law is for Catholics, and is concerned with heretics only to exclude them. JP2 was certainly a public heretic before, therefore ineligible for, his election. Papal privileges accrue only to popes. A pope must profess the Catholic Faith. A pope is subject to divine law, natural or positive. He is therefore subject to canons which express such doctrine and law, obviously including Canon 188, *4, which states undeniable fact: a heretic is not a Catholic; a Catholic is not a heretic—by definition. The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol VII, p 261, published the substance of Canon 188, *4 eight years before the Code was promulgated: “Heretical clerics and all who receive, defend, or favor them are ipso facto deprived of their , offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.” Volume XI, page 457 spells out the consequence: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void.” Clearly, therefore, Canon 188, *4 embodies a doctrine already received, an essential feature of the divinely instituted Church, as defined by Pope Innocent III in 1215, in the Fourth Lateran Council: “There is one universal Church of believers, outside which no one at all is saved.” A publicly unbelieving pope, a pope that is a public heretic, would be incompatible with the nature of this Church of believers. Under Canon 2314 not only heretics and schismatics incur ipso facto excommunication; the first category so expelled is “all apostates from the Christian faith?” If one abandons the Christian faith entirely (Canon 1325) he is called an apostate. Abandonment is an action, not necessarily verbalized as heresy. It can be, as in Paul VI’s, Henry VIII’s, or Emperor Julian’s cases, a whole series of anti-Catholic actions, in which correctness of doctrine need never arise.

73 In a near-universal apostasy it devolves upon us to profess the Catholic Faith publicly—not to pick and choose (the very definition of heresy) among the published statements of men whose platform is non-existent unless it is the authority of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, which their public “authoritative” statements have rendered unrecognizable. Canon 2315: “A person who is suspected of heresy, and who after admonition has not removed the cause for suspicion, he shall be suspended a divinis. If a person suspected of heresy has been punished with the penalties here stated, and does not amend within six months after their imposition, he shall be considered as a heretic and be liable to the penalties for heresy.” Canon 2316: “A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy, or who communicates in sacred rites (in divinis) with heretics in violation of the prohibition of Canon 1258, incurs suspicion of heresy.” Woywod & Smith, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 1946: “The Code ..... makes various acts of co-operation in heresy a distinct offense called ‘suspicion of heresy.’ Various Canons state the acts which constitute the offense of suspicion of heresy: Canons 2316 (co-operation in sacred rites with heretics, propagation of heresy), 2319 (agreement to educate one’s children as non-Catholics, procuring their or education outside the Catholic Faith), 2320 (sacrilegious abuse of the Holy Eucharist), 2332 (appeal from Decree of the Roman Pontiff to an Oecumenical Council), 2340 (stubborn perseverance in excommunication for one year), 2371 (reception of orders through , ordaining or administering other sacraments through simony).” Since Canon 2316 penalizes violation of Canon 1258 with suspicion of heresy, thus declaring it the action of a heretic, Mr. Cooke appears to imply that heresy itself is a matter for only ecclesiastical law, despite Jesus Christ’s “He who believes not shall be condemned.” Canon 1258 (correctly quoted): “It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or to take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics. A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the bishop.” [Mr. Cooke’s version: “Some worship in common with non-Catholics in any ‘active’ manner is strictly and simply forbidden UNDER PAIN OF MORTAL SIN.”] For strict legality see Canons 188 and 2314. Obviously an antipope would claim the privilege of legitimacy in office. Paul could often be found in vocal support of the orthodoxy his actions destroyed, even though nearly as often such orthodoxy became apparent only after tortured interpretation. But none can gainsay his “official” approving signature on twelve undeniable heresies of Vatican II. He cannot dodge responsibility for the novus ordo, complete with Arian statements and “correction” of intention and definition of both Mass and Sacrifice.

74 Definition of a heretic as one whose superiors have officially admonished him and he has refused to recant falls down on four counts. (1) A public heretic is already excommunicated before admonition. (2) Delay in excommunication until after admonition applies, under Canon 2315, to suspicion of heresy, a separate offense with a separate penalty for actions almost necessarily implying heresy without verbalizing it. (3) What if the heretic has no superior? (4) No one who deliberately promulgates doctrine known to vary from all ages of the Church, from all tradition, from Ecumenical Councils, from divine and other recognized law, can plead that he has not been formally notified by his superiors. Is a pope not obliged to know the doctrine for which he stands? This is the irrelevancy of the millennium. For many of his heresies Paul incurred excommunication latae sententiae, which also removes jurisdiction and authority. The “absence” of legal machinery to cover a case without exact precedent cannot justify Catholics in tolerating the rule of heretics. In Volume V, page 688, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), we find that one is automatically excommunicated for holding certain condemned propositions, whether or not these fit Canon 1323’s definition of heresy. An excommunicated man, heretic or not, cannot be pope—head of an organization to which he cannot belong. When we see a “pope” teaching error, even if not heresy under Canon 1323, we are faced with the fact that he is not infallible in matters of faith and morals. We must conclude that lacking infallibility he is not pope. We cannot be forced to choose between popes. We know the doctrine and we know that a genuine pope knows it. We know that a genuine pope enjoys the Holy Ghost’s guidance and protection, which the teacher of error obviously lacks. But this argument is all unnecessary. Paul VI convicted himself of notorious heresy again and again. The “theological opinion” that a pope turned public heretic is automatically deposed, embodied in Canon Law, is not in the slightest doubt. Canons 188 n.4 and 2314. §1 necessarily apply. All quibbling concerns definitions of public and heretic. All theological opinions fade before the law. Canons 188 n. 4 and 2314 §1 apply. A heretic is deposed by the fact itself of his public heresy, without any declaration. Catholic and heretic are mutually exclusive terms. By definition a Catholic is not a heretic, nor can a heretic be at the same time a Catholic. The first requirement for the papacy is Catholicism. Unless a man is Catholic he cannot be pope. If he is a heretic he is not a Catholic, and has therefore no authority of any religious or ecclesiastical nature whatever over any Catholic whomever. Nor can he rise superior to Canon Law, though he may well claim exemption from it on grounds of his publicly heretical condition. Papal superiority over Canon Law (that portion which is not divine law) cannot accrue to a man impossibly pope because not Catholic. Mr. Cooke and his authorities follow ’s relegation of the illegitimacy of the last four antipopes to the field of theological opinion, refusing

75 to recognize that Canon Law had settled this matter. Even the innovators knew this; the new code changed the law to preserve them in office. Mr. Cooke and his authorities deny that Vatican II and its four antipopes have promulgated heresy because “they have never invoked infallibility.” But these heretics have promulgated heresies as Catholic doctrine to the entire Church in documents and decrees of Vatican II. They have done their best to counterfeit infallibility, and were kept from the actuality only by their publicly heretical status, which Mr. Cooke and his authorities ignore, and by their defeatist inconsistency support the usurpers in office—while they piously await an unnecessary declaration authoritatively condemning public heretics—from the usurping heretics themselves. At the same time they denigrate papal laws which yank the rug from under the Renewal by pretending that they no longer apply, despite Canon 23: “In the case of a doubt whether the former law has been revoked, the repeal of the law is not to be presumed, but the more recent laws are to be, as far as possible, reconciled with the former law so that one may supplement and not contradict the other.” This coincides with the implicit idea that the 1917 Code was a codification, not a replacement. So we find real, though unnecessary, support in Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, much more than a mere papal election law, and that Exsecrabilis had really precluded the legitimacy of a council convoked to update the unchangeable Church. And had Mr. Cooke and his authorities really done their homework, they might well have discovered “By their fruits you shall know them.” The fruits of the papacy filled by a genuine pope have historically been a strong, ever-growing, united, world-wide Church which has historically sought first the Kingdom of God and His justice. Over the last four decades, under tyrannical regimes, it has deserted tradition and sought first the accommodation and “rights” of modern man through the individuality and rites of heresy, the fruits of which historically have proven to be loss of purpose, loss of strength both numerical and spiritual, and geometrically progressive fragmentation. Can it be mere coincidence that these evils have overtaken us suddenly, simultaneously with the obvious usurpation of the papacy by public heretics? Is there some other credible chief cause for our free-fall from grace and catastrophic loss of our four identifying marks than sudden hostile occupation of our nineteen- century historical standard of unity? What possible purpose is served by insistence on the impossible legitimacy in the papal office of a series of public heretics? Does it not create insurmountable problems, dogmatic, moral, logical? Can it be maintained without misquotation, restriction, misinterpretation, or falsification? Is there not a better use for time devoted to defense of the indefensible? If it could be defended, could the defense solve the problem? Would we not remain in this same unholy mess— the mess which historically follows heresy? The rot is universal. The responsibility lies at the top.

76 John M. Cooke is unhappy with the foregoing, published in issue #42. I should print his entire argument verbatim. He has till now printed his own. He is not a sedevacantist because no priest or layman can make judgments on popes. Nor can such declare the postconciliar usurpers heretics, or antipopes, because this belongs to the authority of the Catholic Church, which fails this duty on account of its present corruption. If we live in a lawless society it will not help us to know the law. If we see a murderer unpunished because those charged with upholding the law will not punish him, we need not invite him to dinner. If he visits us because we have complained of his “legal” immunity, on his past performance we may deduce that we are in mortal danger. We need not wait for the decision of a corrupt judge. But in the case of usurpers who had and have every intention of stealing our ordinary means of salvation, wiping out our Catholic Church, and facilitating our way to hell by murdering our souls, we are to await decision of a court which (Cooke admits) will not hear or adjudicate the case. The judges know the law; this is why they changed it. But they violated laws in effect at the time of their violations and were subject to those laws’ penalties. What use is a law that only a few understand? It applies to all, so all are assumed to understand it. We do not declare these apostate usurpers non-popes. We have the law on them. We show how they violated it and to what penalties it subjects them, whether or not there is anyone to penalize. In the case of apostates and heretics we may—we must—follow Apostolic counsel and shun them. We cannot do this by recognizing their “papal authority,” by which we allow them to command us in some matters while rejecting their commands in others. Either they are popes and must be obeyed in all their official orders and believed in all their official contradictions of our defined doctrine, or they are not popes and must be shunned as public heretics and apostates. They have taught heresy from a position of papal authority in its proper field of promulgation of dogmatic constitutions and other decrees of Vatican II. Such promulgations in such a field fit the very definition of ex cathedra. But Cooke says that no pope has ever taught heresy ex cathedra. Does it not follow that he who has done so could not have been pope? Are Catholics not bound, for their salvation, to advert to such an important issue?—to judge the “pope?” The pretense that he performed such vile actions in “non-infallible” gear only compounds the felony. Who would have believed him unless he was believed pope? Popes’ public statements are published in the first place because they are popes. They are not free to lie. We have, of course, the virtual certainty that John XXIII’s election was illegal, even had he not been an apostate freemason with a background of utter disrespect for Baptism and its certification; he falsely guaranteed in the name of the Church that some six thousand Jews had been baptized. He was deliberately elected as an antipope so that he need not fear interference from the Holy Ghost, while claiming divine inspiration to convoke a council deliberately to modernize (change) our eternal Church. 77 How was this accomplished? By proper election of a pope who was then shunted aside without formal abdication and convocation of a new conclave. John was elected to an office already legally filled. It follows that all his “papal” acts and appointments were null and void, just as were those of Anacletus II, antipope from 1130 to 1138. Therefore even had Paul VI not been a public heretic from his archiepiscopal output at Milan, he could not have been a cardinal and was therefore not eligible for the papacy. The same applies to his two successors for this and other defects developed in The War Is Now! #42. Mr. Cooke should be delighted not to feel obliged to wriggle and crawl his way around the horrible records of the last four usurping antipopes. There is no need to depose men who had never properly held the papal office. Remember that old axiom: Doubtful pope, no pope. Not that the matter is in doubt! Mr. Cooke continues to insist, against all the evidence, that our last four usurpers are not public heretics. Their heresy is not my sole reason for disbelief in their legitimacy in office, but it will do for a start. Montini imposed a “mass” that embodies Judaism, Arianism, and apocatastasis, as well as change of emphasis, definition, and intention? What is the effect of mistranslation of the universally known form of Sacrament and Sacrifice. And of its degradation, Anglican-style, to a “narrative of institution?” Was this not only ample ground for suspicion of heresy (which Montini never even tried to dispel) but as public a display of outright apostasy as can be imagined? He had dealt with Anglicans and foreshadowed the new idolatry while “exiled” at Milan, as quoted in John G. Clancy’s record. He betrayed the entire Latin Rite, just as he had earlier betrayed the Italian troops fighting the actively atheist tyranny of Russia. There was overwhelming evidence of his public heresy long before his therefore invalid election to the primatial see—that is to say before Canon 1556 could have “protected” him! He then illegally reconvened Vatican II, which had been improperly convoked by his publicly heretical usurping predecessor. In his “papal” capacity he signed and promulgated Vatican II decrees and documents expressly spelling out previously condemned heresies, as repeatedly demonstrated not only by me but by Patrick Omlor in writings which Mr. Cooke sells. How is the promulgator of heresies not himself a public heretic? How is he not teaching “as a pope?” Who would take him seriously in any other capacity? If, impossibly, he had been pope, he had deposed himself, as the law clearly specified, and, even by Mr. Cooke’s argument, was now subject to the law. Only a legitimate occupant of the primatial see benefits from Canon 1556. Even he is not superior to the whole law, because much of it comes from a Higher Authority. He cannot suppress proper divine worship without some grave cause, such as would merit an . The interdict would, of course, preclude an official substitute. He cannot commit suicide. He cannot impose heresy. He can neither invent nor dispense from doctrine. He cannot participate in false

78 worship. When he engages in such activities he proves that he is not Catholic, therefore not pope. I didn’t make the rules, which bind us all. If I recognize him as pope I apostatize with him, and follow him out of the Church to hell. But four men have spouted heresy in public, from a position of papal authority; how formal can they get? They have lied in the field in which they are supposedly protected by infallibility, and everyone has heard them because of their position, and Mr. Cooke denies that they have preached heresy. They did their utmost to define it, failing only in their competence. The only defense is the impossible proof that their official words and actions express no heresy. Mr. Cooke reiterates irrelevant legal words of St. , a theologian out of his field. The entire quotation appears speculative—such illicit election possibly took place. If the man got away with it, what can be done now? But he (if he existed) had acceptance of the whole Church—which has never accrued to Montini and his two successors. Many (ultra?) traditional Catholics have never accepted them. If a Catholic is not traditional he is by definition a modernist—just another heretic. St. ’s words apply to a pope, not a usurper. Padre Pio possibly saw what God permitted him of the future. God was under no obligation to disclose all the future to him. Had He done so, the infallibly prophesied apostasy might have been averted. Even in Rome, some people listened to Padre Pio. I have quoted facts, laws, St. Robert Bellarmine (cardinal, outstanding authority on the papacy), and Pope Innocent III. I can’t appreciate lectures on humility from a man incapable of recognizing such facts, understanding such laws, or accepting the pertinent words of a genuine pope. Cooke opposes my position not out of malice but out of genuine concern for the Church. Arguers must have common bases upon which to argue. For instance, Martin Gwynne argued that the whole Renewal was scuttled by application of Canon 436. I quote page 255, The Enemy Is Here! “But the appearance on page 58 of an utter misapplication of Canon 436 (1918 Code) astonished me; these Britons had tried it on me earlier and been answered. Indeed they knew in the first place that 436 appears among the qualifications and duties of a vicar capitular (Canons 434-444 incl.), a priest who fills in as head of a pending appointment of a bishop. “When the see is vacant let nothing be innovated”—no unusual collections, no new school projects, no changes in parish boundaries. No one ever dreamed a vicar capitular would introduce a new catechism or change Mass, or even Mass times. This law has no bearing on our sedevacantist case, and its use as though pertinent weakens case and credibility. The Britons don’t use it even to indicate the Church’s attitude to change ..... but rather as the final word.” Cooke has erred similarly in his citation of Canon 1556: Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur (= the first see is judged by no one). As one may note in Woywod, this canon heads the section Of Trials in General in Book Four, Of Canonical Trials, or, as Augustin puts it, Ecclesiastical Procedures. It sets a limit to litigation, and says no more than that no one can try a legitimate pope. It does not make the pope superior to the entire Code, some of which is natural and/or 79 divine law, to which every human is subject. A true pope is not bound by mere ecclesiastical law, because it has been legislated by the Church. The fact that the Church promulgates, propagates, or applies divine law does not reduce it to ecclesiastical law. Pp. 93-4, Is The Pope Catholic?: “The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IX: The ultimate source of Canon Law is God, Whose will is manifested either by the very nature of things (natural Divine law), or by Revelation (positive Divine law). Both are contained in the Scriptures and in Tradition. Positive Divine law cannot contradict natural law; it rather confirms it and renders it more definite. The Church accepts and considers both as sovereign binding laws which it can interpret but cannot modify; however, it does not discover natural law by philosophical speculation; it receives it, with positive Divine law, from God through His inspired Books, though this does not imply a confusion of the two kinds of Divine law. Of the Old Law the Church has preserved in addition to the Decalogue some precepts closely allied to the natural law, e.g. certain matrimonial impediments; as to the other laws given by God to His chosen people, it considers them to have been ritual and declares them abrogated by Jesus Christ. Or rather, Jesus Christ, the Lawgiver of the spiritual society founded by Him (Con Trid., Sess. VI, “De justif.” canon xxi), has replaced them by the fundamental laws which He gave His Church. This Christian Divine law .... is found in the Gospels, in the Apostolic writings, in the living Tradition, which transmits laws as well as dogmas. On this positive Divine law depend the essential principles of the Church’s constitution, the primacy, the episcopacy, the essential elements of Divine worship and the Sacraments, the indissolubility of marriage, etc. “Henry Davis, S.J. (Moral and Pastoral Theology, Vol I): ‘The divine positive law is superimposed on Natural law, and has been explicitly promulgated. Its existence is known to us only by Revelation, and it comprises the Mosaic Law and the New Law. The Mosaic Law, as such, no longer binds man. It comprised precepts, moral, judicial, and ceremonial. These were abrogated as the formal Mosaic Law, though its moral precepts were confirmed and promulgated in the New Law. .... That it was, as a fact, abrogated, the Apostolic implicitly declared. After such abrogation, therefore, to fulfil the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament would have been and would still be false worship of God, because it would be a repudiation of the Messiahship of Christ. Consequently, when the New Law became .... sufficiently promulgated .... the works of the Old Law were both dead and sinful. “ ‘The New Law was instituted and promulgated by Christ our Lord, as Supreme Lawgiver and Infinite Wisdom, but in such a way as rather to fulfil than to destroy the Mosaic Law. He instituted and promulgated it by enunciating .... numerous precepts .... These precepts are theological, as referring to Faith, Hope, Charity; they are moral, as contained in the Decalogue and confirmed and perfected by our Lord .... sacramental, as referring to the Sacraments and the Sacrifice, and these may be called new moral precepts in a wide sense. Lastly, Christ left to His Church the power of framing such other ordinances as should be vitally necessary for discipline, for divine worship’ ”

80 (differentiated from discipline) “ ‘and ecclesiastical order. .... The New Law binds all mankind: “Going therefore teach ye all nations .... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt. 28). “ ‘This New Law is not subject to change, and it is to remain in force for all time, because Christ is with His Apostles and their successors for all time, as they expound this identical Law. There is none more perfect to take its place and there is no power that can abrogate it.’ ” What is Canon Law?, Rene Metz, Hawthorne Books, 1960, pp. 60-61: “The fourth book, De Processibus, containing canons 1552 to 2194, is devoted to procedure in all its forms: in disputes, criminal processes, marriage processes, ordination processes, causes for beatification and and administrative procedure.” Canon 1556, then, is a general guideline, like the king can do no wrong. It frees the papal office from litigation. I quote again from Rene Metz, page 26: “The Church has laws ..... It is important to know their origin...... the Church shows the greatest respect for the divine law, natural and positive, which represents the primary source of canon law. The Church is the interpreter of the will of God to the faithful in setting before them in concise form the laws which are contained in Scripture and those which are implicit in human nature. One cannot say that the Church is the author of these laws; she does no more than incorporate them in her legislation and when necessary provide penalties for those who transgress against them. She cannot dispense from these laws, which are outside her power of jurisdiction and which moreover form only a small part of her legislation.” Direct Scriptural prescriptions of Jesus Christ must be regarded as divine law. Mark 16:15. And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16:16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. I submit that the laws and papal pronouncements which I have cited all derive from this divine law—from which the Church cannot dispense. Mr. Cooke continued to miss the point, and to try to impute me some usurpation of authority. Nowhere had I claimed authority to depose a pope. I had repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that four public heretics have been ineligible for the papacy. When a man publicly promulgates multiple previously condemned heresy while claiming in the process to act as pope he publicly defects from the Church, and thereby without any declaration (though Woywod omits these three words in translating Canon 188) loses all offices in the Church, as provided by Canon Law and official pronouncements of genuine popes, both in recorded sermons and in law. I had stated all this repeatedly, but Mr. Cooke professed to see me dodging an issue. He appeared unable to understand plain English. So what is his level of comprehension of Latin- phrased laws?

81 I have quoted the law, and some recognized authorities in the field. When I draw logical conclusions Mr. Cooke accuses me of ignorance of the laws. But he misquotes laws and can’t keep track of their numbers. Page 5 of his monograph quotes part of Canon 1325 and labels it Canon 1346, which concerns Lenten sermons. Shall I accept his canonical competence? He appeals (in violation of Exsecrabilis) to a future council to condemn these heretics before we may defend ourselves and disavow them. But previous popes and councils have condemned their heresies in such terms (If anyone say ..... let him be anathema) as excommunicate those who hold these heresies. These are infallible doctrinal public penalties, well known as such to four antipopes and the entire episcopacy present at Vatican II, most of whom thus fall under these specific latae sententiae . (Whether or not these propositions are formal heresies, whoever holds them publicly is, by this very holding, automatically excommunicated.) I must, it follows, recognize both the various heresies and their penalties which the Church, following divine law (He who believes not shall be condemned.), has infallibly decreed. In discussing current ecclesiastical difficulties I cannot ignore this issue. I must take the logical position in accord with the law, which obliges me to shun public heretics posing as ecclesiastical authority. Mr. Cooke certainly lacks authority to fault me in this matter, on his own argument. If I accept a public heretic as pope, ordinary, or parish priest with authority over me in any manner, I am equally a heretical schismatic apostate. I am allowed judgments which the Faith obliges me to make, because they affect my membership in the Church, therefore my salvation. I do not judge Mr. Cooke for disagreeing. He brought this up. When he publicly and specifically attacks my completely orthodox position I insist on my right of defense. He has not shown where or how I err. I know several bishops who refused to sign Vatican II’s heresies—and Lefebvre, bishop or not, was not among them. I lie under no compulsion to comply with Mr. Cooke’s demand for their names. Nor does it make the slightest difference. The Faith is the Faith if no one holds it. If we have any cardinals left (appointed before October 1958) they are too old, according to Montini’s incompetent changes to electoral laws, to vote in conclave. Where is the “put-down” to St. Catherine or Padre Pio? What did I say wrong? But Cooke can impute malice—or at least disrespect. St. Alphonsus as Cooke quotes him is wrong. The whole idea is foolish. Nor can it pertain to our current situation, wherein obviously the whole Church will not accept heretics as popes. Or has Mr. Cooke authority to read us out of the Church for orthodoxy? His pope-sifter is an ass. Can he really expect unity in absence of a standard of unity—a pope? I treated his article in The War Is Now! #38, page 3. We were never commanded to be humble about what the Church taught us. If the clergy were proud enough to do their job, who would listen to me? “Doth a candle come in to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?” – Mark iv, 21

82 Excommunication, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Vol V, page 680c: ... (4) Public and Occult—Excommunication ferendae sententiae can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence pronounced by a judge; but excommunication latae sententiae may be either public or occult. It is public through the publicity of the law when it is imposed and published by ecclesiastical authority; it is public through notoriety of fact when the offense that has incurred it is known to the majority in the locality, as in the case of those who have publicly done violence to clerics, or of the purchasers of church property...... IV (page 681c) Who can be excommunicated?—Since excommunication is the forfeiture of the spiritual privileges of ecclesiastical society, all those, but those only, can be excommunicated who, by any right whatsoever, belong to this society. Consequently, excommunication can be inflicted only on baptized and living persons...... Catholics cannot be excommunicated unless for some personal, grievously offensive act. Here, therefore, it is necessary to state with precision the conditions under which this penalty is incurred. Canon 2197. A crime is: 1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circumstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so; 2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata, or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750; 3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circumstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it; 4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden. Augustin’s Commentary: 1. A crime is public if committed under, or accompanied by, circumstances which point to a possible and likely divulgation thereof. Canonists enumerate different degrees of publicity: almost occult (pene occultum), which is known to at least two witnesses; famosum or manifestum, which not only can be proved, but is known to many; and, finally, notorium. From this it will be seen that a real intrinsic distinction between a public crime and a crime notorious in fact can hardly be established. To fix the number of persons required for making a crime a public one is rather hazardous, though it may furnish a certain rule which will enable the judge to decide as to the secrecy or public character of a crime...... 2. A crime is notorious by notoriety of law (notorietate iuris) if it has become an adjudged matter according to canons 1902-4, or judicially confessed, according to canon 1750...... A crime is notorious notorietate facti when it is publicly known and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or circumstance...... The second clause refers to imputability, which may be lessened by extenuating circumstances, according to canons 2201-6. Hence not only the fact itself must be notorious, but also its criminal character.

83 A penalty a iure or latae sententiae is already clearly marked out and only requires the verification of the criminal act. Thus a latae sententiae does not demand a canonical admonition, though a declaratory sentence may be necessary in certain circumstances (can. 2232). – Augustin, VIII 166-7 [Canon 188 exempts itself from such a need.] Actual membership in the Church is totally lost by excommunication. – Aug. VIII 172 Apostasy a Fide, or Perfidiae, is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion, such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself, a sin which has always been looked upon as one of the most grievous...... Today the temporal penalties formerly afflicted on apostates and heretics cannot be enforced, and have fallen into abeyance. The spiritual penalties are the same as those which apply to heretics. In order, however, to incur these penalties, it is necessary, in accordance with the general principles of canon law, that the apostasy should be shown in some way. – The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Vol I, 624-5 So Mr. Cooke knew (letter 24/4/97) I would refuse to name certain bishops. Then why ask? How will it help him to know? If I name them I could cripple their activities, and subject them to surveillance and interference by the enemy. I list the Society of St. Pius X among the enemy. His letter asked also for a list of pre-election heresies of the four usurpers. He quoted Canons 2314.2 and 2315 and inquired after the required admonitions. He quoted from Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis: “While the is vacant the Sacred , has absolutely no power of jurisdiction on those matters which, while he was alive, the pope was responsible for .....”— and followed this with: “do you claim that all the Cardinals ..... since the death of Pius XII have no jurisdiction?” [How answer this last? There is no relationship between the statement and the question. Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis had forbidden the cardinals individually and collectively to assume papal jurisdiction, which they had never possessed. Other things being equal, vacancy of the Holy See restricts no jurisdiction proper to a cardinal.] His last paragraph quoted a page but not a volume of The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910): “It is not for men, but for Him Who searches the reins and heart, to sit in judgement on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience.” By his capitalization of the boldface type he seems to believe that he has administered the coup de grace—I am utterly tamed! I replied: “Your final quotation is another irrelevancy. It never entered my mind to judge guilt, except to doubt that Catholic bishops could be unaware of holding previously condemned heresies. The points at issue are their ineligibility and consequent lack of authority. I am quite happy to leave to God those who usurp and pervert His authority, and destroy millions of souls in the process.” “You continue to prove: (1) you have read little or none of my writing, or (2) you can’t understand what I write, or (3)you can’t remember what I write. … 84 “You have seen, and may even have read, my 24-page delation of JP2 for heresy submitted to Ratzinger, the heretic in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Would you not stretch a point and call it an admonition? Nor is it alone; remember the Ottaviani Intervention? and De Nantes’ and Barbara’s public protests? and above all Fr. Saenz y Arriaga’s book, which earned him Montini’s excommunication for orthodoxy? At least he received a reply. “You can find many of Montini’s pre-election heresies in The Enemy Is Here! pp. 92-103, and a few espoused by his two clones on pp. 106-108. Please continue on to the end of page 133 for some of JP2’s “papal” antics. The War Is Now! #42 page 10 listed some of the heresies of The Second Vatican Council, to which all three appended their signatures—the last two before their invalid elections. You can check these in Is The Pope Catholic? pp. 132-139. “Canon 2315 does not apply to public apostates and heretics, but to those who have incurred suspicion of heresy. See The War Is Now! #42 page 11 right column and The Enemy Is Here! pp. 313-314. Canon 2314 #2 is irrelevant as shown by page 225. It wouldn’t kill anyone if you read the whole article. You might find pp. 400-408 also pertinent. “You may infer my answer to your cardinal question from reading Appendix III, pp. 166-180 in Is The Pope Catholic? Then, if it is not too much trouble, please read Section Eight, pp. 151-160, same book.” I wrote Mr. Cooke again May 5: “You referred to the highest law. It was never part of the Code, because it is a statement of policy rather than an enforcible law. Not surprisingly, we find it at the tail end of JP2’s New Code (1983), in a futile attempt to baptize this shredding of our traditional law. “Final canon (1752): ‘In cases of transfer’ (of parish priests), ‘the prescriptions of can. 1747 are to be applied, with due regard for canonical equity and having before one’s eyes the salvation of souls, which is always the supreme law of the Church.’ “In Latin the last clause reads quae in Ecclesia suprema semper lex esse debet (proper translation: which in the Church must always be the highest law. This code—needed only to justify Vatican II, its antipopes, and their innovations— finishes off with a triumphantly traditional slogan, thus improving on the codification of traditional laws which it replaced. It is proven mere lip-service by the missing effect it would otherwise have had on replacement of our traditional rites of Mass and Sacraments, as well as upon its own introduction.” Not satisfied with my replies, Mr. Cooke tried to pump a friend in Toowoomba, to whom I wrote: “In his letter of June 21 John Cooke pursued with you some of his queries to me on bishops. I had written him that I knew a few, but refused to divulge names to avoid crippling their activities. When he complains that I cannot tell him he neglects to quote my stated reason. “He goes on to play the numbers game that certain people of certain rank are essential to the Catholic faith. IF, he says, there are no bishops (which I never

85 said) then all else is lost (which does not follow) and this concerns him greatly. (His concern is greatly simulated, for he has, he thinks, a whole crew of Society of St. Pius X bishops and priests.) If only one person holds the Catholic faith, the Church exists, and Jesus Christ will be with it, even if it is one woman, not possibly a bishop. John intends his useless, non-consequential argument as a base from which to ‘prove’ that Marcel Lefebvre was a Catholic bishop who could (without mandate or jurisdiction) impose his own hierarchy to keep the rest of us Catholic. “I can, of course, tell John Cooke that real Catholic bishops exist, but I will name none. Not only is it unnecessary for him to know, but he will alert the traitors in the Society of St. Pius X, and they will try to eliminate their ‘competition,’ to preserve their monopoly. They are in this pseudo-traditional field for money, property, and control, and have lacked both legitimacy and legitimate purpose from their belated beginnings. “One thing I will tell John: there are no Latin-rite bishops in Australia or New Zealand. Does this mean that there are no Catholics in Australia or New Zealand? “John, of course, is trying to drive me into a silly, illogical, non-existent corner from which he thinks to elicit a belief that I am Australia’s only Catholic. If it were so, what would this prove? “So John agrees with Bill Strojie and me but not with our conclusions. So he must have conclusions of his own (or of some one else) which somehow fit the facts with which he professes to agree. He kept demanding my beliefs, as though he were not on my mailing list and had never received my three books, my Lefebvre pamphlet, or my 24-page delation of JP2 for heresy to the appropriate (though usurped) Roman congregation. So when I pointed to my public record, and cited him my page numbers which covered his queries, without having had time to check, he wrote you a small part of the same, as though it concerned the case, and as if naming a few names would solve the whole problem. “He is no novice, but presumes to write authoritatively on the postconciliar ‘Church.’ This, joined to his hostile tone, leads me to conclude that the Society of St. Pius X has proven unable to prove itself, and hopes through John to needle and harass me without further engaging its own ‘infallibility.’ His letters to me are framed in that petty, ill-tempered, accusing vein typical of those who leap to the impossible defense of the Society of St. Pius X. Lacking real argument, they substitute vituperation and the anger which springs from inadequacy. These tactics could be better applied against the usurping ‘authorities’ responsible for the major original problem, those apostates who have robbed them almost entirely of the ordinary means of salvation, and caused their misguided dependence on the Society of St. Pius X. Whatever the situation, I did not put it on them; four antipopes did, with the co-operation, however reluctant, of nearly all the hierarchy and clergy. WILDCATS Let us note, not as news but as characteristic of the beast, another split (early 1995) in the ranks of the Society of St. Pius X—that pious society whose 86 members exempt themselves from St. Pius X’s anti-modernist oath. It seems that an Australian superior was replaced and reassigned—like out of the country. It is easy to appreciate his need of replacement; the superior of a pious society should appear pious. He can more readily convey an impression of piety from a position of weakness (emaciation follows black fasts and nocturnal vigils) than from excessive corpulence (gluttonous ). But can the man who split because he reportedly would not leave his “parishioners” to the tender (incompetent?) ministrations of his former fellows, justify an attempt to purchase property some eight hundred miles away for the purpose of dividing the pious society’s clients in that region? He will probably progress to the episcopate. How else can he compete?

An Open Letter from a Confused non-Catholic Whenever he circulates his friends and benefactors, we find anew that without Richard Williamson life would be less interesting. Especially engrossing are his multifarious analyses of , its status, its motives, its adherents. We are flattered that we, in our infinite diversity, can be so easily understood by some one who has never provided evidence of understanding himself. He clarified(?) his position in a typical letter of February 4, 1998, from which let us quote: “..... when John XXIII and Vatican II began seriously to err, easily most Catholics were caught off their guard. Whether they accepted error with their erring leaders and became liberal, or repudiated the erring leaders with the error and left the Church or became sedevacantists, either way they lost their Catholic balance.” [All this moderation conduces to observation that he is balanced, and therefore appreciates balance.] Since we entertain little concern for papal or conciliar tax reform, accounting, astronomy, geography, or music, the error to which Williamson refers is surely religious error, which we always designate heresy. “Erring leaders” are heresiarchs; many such have been repudiated right into bonfires. They have one essential characteristic: they teach religion which varies somehow from the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic faith. Since a Catholic is by definition one who holds completely and unvaryingly to this faith, “erring leaders” are not Catholic, and cannot hold positions of authority the purpose of which is preservation and propagation of the Catholic faith. Pope, cardinal, bishop are not mere positions to be filled for the exercise of authority. Their nature demands that only Catholics fill them. The fact that a heresiarch or other public heretic sits in the Chair of Peter entitles him to no authority, no status, no claim to obedience or recognition from Catholics. Our obligations as Catholics necessarily include repudiation of false teachers and denial of their authority. But this renowned spokesman for the Society of St. Pius X, paragons of balance, or at least of balancing acts, cites us for loss of Catholic balance. But he will join us when the proper conditions arise: “One day, maybe soon, the See of Rome could become vacant.” He refers to historical false popes, to La Salette

87 prophecy, to JP2’s looming death, to a possible interregnum or antipope. How will he identify an antipope? Will he be illegally elected? Will he do something strange? Will he change what he is installed to preserve? Will he teach new doctrine? What imaginable can waken Williamson? For Williamson condones forty years of disaster because it is present. God accepts it because Williamson lives with it. Williamson says that God allowed inside His Church Arianism and the Robber . This is his excuse for accepting the new Arianism and The Second Vatican Destroyer Council. He must see that such former disasters were ejected by active opposition of those whose salvation was concerned. Everything has been legitimate for the last four decades—but watch out for next week! September 1996—The Australia-New Zealand Superior, Society of St. Pius X, in an official letter expressed Catholic views. He disowned them in his official October letter: “So when we say the Novus Ordo mass is intrinsically evil it has nothing to do with its validity or invalidity...... depends on whether the elements for a valid sacrament” [divinely instituted matter, form, and Christ’s and His Church’s necessarily identical—for Mass and Holy Eucharist, expressed propitiatory and sacrificial—intention] “are present or not...... What is meant is that the new Mass, as ..... published in 1969, objectively, taken in itself, regardless of the priest, and not only the abuses which followed, is bad, is evil.” In support he quotes Lefebvre (June 1981): “It is certain that the evil in the Mass is something internal to the Mass, inside the Mass, and not something merely external or extrinsic to it.” Lefebvre did not say “intrinsically evil.” “Why? Because I am afraid that some among you might misinterpret the word making it equivalent to invalid. No I avoid the word ‘intrinsically’ in order to avoid ambiguity.....” When something is internal, inside, not merely extrinsic to mass, what makes intrinsic inaccurate or ambiguous? He shirks a logical conclusion. The letter then incorporates quotations galore which tend to support that same ineffable, ambiguous conclusion. “The new mass is bad because it expresses a different faith. The text of the NOM published in 1969 is the same as that used at Taize, the Protestant monastery dedicated to ecumenism, in 1959. It is as Archbishop Lefebvre put it: a poisoned Mass, because, once Catholic truths are no longer affirmed in the Mass, as is the case in the Protestant version, then little by little, faith in these truths disappears too” “The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details” [intrinsically?] “a striking departure from the of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” – Ottaviani Intervention “The Lord’s Supper is the sacred assembly or meeting of the , with a priest presiding, to celebrate the Memorial of the Lord.” – Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, 7

88 “..... the compiled in accordance with this defective presentation of Catholic Eucharistic teaching was not corrected. The true significance of the new published in 1970 is that the IG was amended but that the Order of Mass was not. Thus what is being celebrated throughout the Roman Rite is still the Lord’s Supper of the 1969 Institutio Generalis; and the definition of the Lord’s Supper given in this article could have satisfied, and could have been written by, Thomas Cranmer.” – Pope Paul’s New Mass, Michael Davies. “I had no doubt whatsoever: the reforms ..... imposed on us were not being imposed by the Church, but had also been imposed on her by men who had infiltrated the Church and who by underhanded and unlawful tactics succeeded in imposing on the Church ..... not only the liturgical reform ....” – Archbishop Lefebvre Pope Paul’s New Mass, Michael Davies: “Paul VI had ordered the then Father Bugnini to submit the draft of the IG to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for examination before publication. Pope Paul contented himself with reading through the text of the Order of Mass. Father Bugnini disobeyed the Pope, and when the IG evoked a reaction of scandal and outrage the Pope wept from sorrow, shame and anger.” [but subsequently promoted Bugnini and issued the corrected(?) 1970 missal! We guarantee neither the truth nor the chronology of this quotation.] Cardinal Journet is reported as reporting that when he asked his friend, Paul VI, how he could have signed IG, 7, Paul replied: “Oh I had not read it. I signed it without reading it.” [responsibility?] Archbishop Lefebvre is reported as reporting that when he approached Cardinal Cicognani to sign the Ottaviani Intervention, Cicognani replied: “I am in complete agreement; but ..... being Secretary of State, I cannot do this. But I am completely baffled by this Novus Ordo Missae, aghast at this reform of the Mass. But what would you have me do? This Bugnini has free access to the Holy Father, and gets him to sign whatever he wishes.” Archbishop Lefebvre is reported as reporting that when he approached Cardinal Gut at the of communion in the hand, Gut said: “I am the of the Congregation for Divine Worship, but it is not I who am in command; and you guess who is in command.” Lefebvre continued: “We understood that he was speaking of Bugnini. And all this was said in front of his assistant!” The October letter from which this is extracted finishes this subject: “So it seems clear that the new Mass did not come about in the normal way, [Institution by Jesus Christ?] “in the way things are done in the Church. It was not promulgated in a normal manner, the way the laws for the Church are promulgated. Can it then be a true law of the Church? The answer is no, this NOM is not truly a law of the Church. Then it cannot be considered an act of papal authority. Archbishop Lefebvre has always maintained this.” In his 1976 Conclave Paul VI cited Archbishop Lefebvre for disobedience to Paul’s self-acknowledged imposition of the novus ordo missae. So either this imposition was an act of papal authority or its imposer was not pope—clearcut alternatives with no room for compromise. Even Lefebvre, as he mangled logic 89 and commonsense, realized the inconsistency of these positions. To keep from condemning an antipope he was forced to allow validity to an intrinsically evil, poisoned Protestant version, fitting its definition (non-sacrificial, non- propitiatory), underhandedly and unlawfully imposed, which could have been written by Thomas Cranmer. In effect Lefebvre and Violette grant a pope the divine power to institute a mass and/or sacrament. It follows that a pope may impose as true (valid) worship of God a poisoned, evil “mass” which erodes the Catholic faith. How can Catholics embrace this obviously heretical position for the privilege of availability of almost certainly invalid Society of St. Pius X masses and sacraments, which originate illicitly outside the Catholic Church and involve them in idolatry? Perils from False Brethren Excerpts from Richard Williamson’s “explanation” of recurring troubles and defections at Winona, Minn. “..... the Traditional Benedictine, Dom Gerard, led most of his monastery and countless followers back into the Newchurch...... Dom Gerard’s defection from Tradition made (Archbishop Lefebvre) weep. He said that had Dom Gerard not betrayed, Rome would have been forced to do something right.” [Hoist on his own petard! Father Noel Barbara reported: “In July 1969 we explained why we could not accept the new mass. In 1976 we established the treason of Paul VI and Vatican II. Though the matter became increasingly urgent, Lefebvre always refused to join us in a study of these questions to reach agreement on their Catholic answer. Still, for years, while he hesitantly advised assisting at the new mass, Econe’s founder maintained friendly relations with those who recognized neither the validity of the new mass nor the legitimacy of the postconciliar popes. His change of attitude dates from John Paul II’s accession. After renewal of negotiations with the directors of the postconciliar church Lefebvre distanced himself from those who accept neither the new mass nor the illegitimate authority (conciliar popes) behind it. In November 1979, though he had always declined leadership of the traditionalists, he emerged from his habitual reserve, publicly took a stand ‘on the two problems which worry the consciences of Catholics faithful to Tradition: the validity of the novus ordo missae and the present existence of a pope.’ Taking full advantage of his episcopal status, he attempted to impose his position on everyone by discrediting all who thought differently, accusing them of animation by ‘a schismatic spirit.’ “Remember: Lefebvre has always rejected meeting to study these problems. He made his decision alone and tried to impose it on all, even outside his Fraternity. His decision was given wide circulation. His announcement had all the assurance of the supreme, sovereign Magisterium with none of the supporting arguments which always accompany such decisions.” Should the fact need emphasis, the above account includes Lefebvre’s own betrayal of Tradition when Father Barbara raised the flag in 1976. Had Lefebvre not played the traitor, “Rome would have been forced to do something right.”]

90 “Archbishop Lefebvre officially and correctly resigned from being Superior of the Holy Ghost Fathers two years before he founded the Society of St. Pius X .....” [Williamson tries to imply that Lefebvre had some intention at the time the Holy Ghost Fathers dumped him (for wrong reasons) of founding the Society of St. Pius X.] “What about Society priests being under-educated? ..... relatively few have university degrees, but then did Our Lord Himself choose to make his Apostles out of Pharisees or ..... fishermen? ..... in 1975 ..... at the Society’s central Seminary in Econe, ..... a number of professors were quitting because the Society had just been ‘dissolved’ ..... A seminarian went to the Archbishop to express his concern. The Archbishop’s quiet reply: ‘Well, if all the professors leave, the seminarians will just have to teach themselves’!” [And haven’t they just?!] “Of the 400 priests (Archbishop Lefebvre) ordained in and for the Society, some 100 had defected before he died, evenly split between those who thought he was too hard and those who thought he was too soft!” [Here, on occasion of yet another split in his own seminary, Williamson paints progressive fragmentations—normally characteristic of heresies and false cults—as vindications of the Society of St. Pius X’s orthodoxy. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.] Ever Fragmenting SSPX A week before (1997) another member handed in his resignation to , director-in-charge. Robert L. Neville’s letter, abbreviated: I conclude that the Society of St. Pius X has many inherent errors and contradictions. It maintains that JP2 and the hierarchy in communion with him have authority and jurisdiction. If so, one must logically conclude that their ordinary universal magisterium and disciplinary reforms are infallible—that this authority must be recognized as such in practice. Either we can save our souls by accepting Vatican II and following its changes, or we cannot. If so, we as Catholics must accept Vatican II and reforms which ensued; for there would be no reason to resist these changes, and the work of the Society of St. Pius X would be unnecessary. If not, Vatican II and its changes cannot proceed from the authority of the Church. Then the Society of St. Pius X is equally wrong, because it recognizes an authority from which come false doctrines and disciplines. Either JP2 is pope or he is not. If so, masses offered by priests of the Society of St. Pius X mentioning his name in the Canon are schismatic—outside and even against his authority; and the Society raises its against the of the Vicar of Christ—certainly a schismatic act. If not, the same masses are schismatic since offered outside the Church in union with a false pope. SSPX’s practice of picking and choosing through the magisterium, law, and disciplines of the Church is not supported by the Church herself nor by her theologians. This has rather been the practice of heretics and schismatics. The reason for adhering to any given teaching, law, or discipline is not that the

91 Roman Pontiff has himself decreed it, but rather because the Society of St. Pius X has “sifted” it. The SSPX “golden sifter” has in effect replaced the infallible magisterium. Inconsistency is clearly seen in SSPX’s liturgical practice. It claims to adhere solely to the rubrics of John XXIII, and condemns those who do not. It does not itself follow those rubrics. It has rather mixed together a wide array of liturgical practices that no pope before or after Vatican II would recognize. This was more than obvious at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary during . Inconsistency is clearly seen in SSPX’s attitude toward sedevacantism. The Society considers it schismatic, yet it is well known that many of its priests are sedevacantists, and that they omit the name of JP2 in the Mass Canon. If JP2 is pope, these priests are schismatics, and should be corrected or expelled. The seminary rector has said: “One day we might have to be sedevacantists.” Who is to decide when we are to be sedevacantists? There is no real difference between him deciding in the future and anyone else deciding right now. The Magisterium, not the “sifter,” should decide. Inconsistency is clearly seen in SSPX’s attitude toward marriage annulments. of a Catholic marriage is reserved to the Apostolic See—which the Society claims is occupied by JP2. But the Society has established a “Canonical Commission” to decide regarding annulments. This commission usurps the very authority which the Society recognizes in Rome. The Society’s declarations of nullity lack force of law; its “Canonical Commission” lacks jurisdiction. The Society has declared its suppression by Paul VI null and void because he failed to follow legal formalities, but it has not hesitated to act in the same way regarding annulments. The Society is bound to the formalities of the law. These declarations, lacking juridical character, are themselves null. Yet priests of the Society are expected to recognize and promote these “annulments,” use them, and provide sacraments to those living publicly in sin. The Society operates throughout the world without the slightest effort to approach those whose authority it maintains. Obviously SSPX lacks ordinary jurisdiction, so its apostolate must be justified by something else—which can be only the principle of epikeia, the favorable and just interpretation of the mind of the legislator. But epikeia cannot be invoked if the authority can be approached without difficulty. The Society justifies its apostolate with the principle of epikeia, even though this authority can be approached without difficulty. This “authority” condemns the Society as schismatic, defiant, and disobedient. The authority of the Church is the authority of Christ. If the work of the Society is for the good of souls, the authority of Christ would not condemn it. If the authority of Christ has condemned the work of the Society, then it cannot be for the good of souls. But JP2 and the hierarchy in communion with him have abandoned the true magisterium and disciplines of the Church, have forced harmful ones on the faithful, and have consequently lost their authority. The Society claims that its own suppression and the excommunication of its bishops are invalid. The Roman Pontiff is not bound to follow the formalities of law, not even of Canon Law. The Society’s appeal is against the very authority 92 which it claims to uphold in the post-Vatican II “popes.” This defiance of authority is typical of a sect. The Society has held “negotiations” with Rome. Only schismatics “negotiate” with Rome. A true Catholic Pope cannot promulgate error by means of the ordinary universal magisterium. Nor can he promulgate evil ceremonies, rites, or disciplines for the universal Church. But JP2 has done this. It is evident in (1) his approval of the , which allows non-Catholics to receive the Eucharist; (2) his recognition of an “apostolic mission” in schismatic and Lutheran bishops. This destroys the unity of Faith. It is therefore impossible that JP2 be pope; otherwise we would have to conclude that the ordinary universal magisterium and disciplines of the Church are not infallible. But this is contrary to the Faith. The ordinary universal magisterium is infallible. The Church of Christ cannot neglect the truth; much less can it persecute those who confess it. One who has placed himself outside the Roman Catholic Church through public profession of heresy cannot be head of that Church. But JP2 has placed himself outside the Roman Catholic Church through public profession of heresy. He cannot, therefore, be head of the Roman Catholic Church. JP2 has taught such heresies as: All men are saved. (L’Osservatore Romano, May 6, 1980) The Mystical is not exclusively identified with the Roman Catholic Church. (L’Osservatore Romano, July 8, 1980) The Catholic Church is incapable of giving credibility to the Gospel unless there is a “reunion of Christians.” (L’Osservatore Romano, May 20, 1980) A properly ordered society is one in which all religions are given free rein to practice, proselytize, and propagate. (Vatican II, ) JP2 says that this document has a particular binding force. Non-Catholic religions are means of salvation. (Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism) This heretically opposes Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pope Pius IX called a very well known Catholic dogma. But JP2 promulgates Vatican II. He therefore adheres to heresy, he publicly professes it, and he imposes it upon the Church. These are not the statements of a Catholic. JP2 cannot be the legitimate successor to St. Peter. If one holds that he is pope, one must admit that he has erred in his official capacity as Vicar of Christ by imposing on the Church an entirely new religion foreign to the Catholic religion. He has unquestionably implemented new doctrines and disciplines contrary to the old. The teaching of Vatican II and the postconciliar popes is full of error. Vatican II, if Catholic, would at the very least conform to the ordinary universal magisterium. It was not an informal meeting. It was (supposedly) an assembly of pope and bishops which certainly produced false teachings with regard to Faith and morals. Since the ordinary universal magisterium is infallible, we face only two possibilities. Either Vatican II was a false council or the Church has erred in teaching.

93 If JP2 is the supreme authority of the Church, all Catholics must submit to his authority. Refusal would be schism. Now the Society of St. Pius X in practice refuses. Its priests celebrate mass and hear confessions in defiance of bishops appointed by JP2. How can their authority be at the same time recognized and disobeyed? If JP2 and the hierarchy in communion with him have authority and jurisdiction, then the Society of St. Pius X raises its altars against the Vicar of Christ. To those who say we have no right to judge a pope, I concede that we have no juridical authority; but I deny that we cannot judge his deeds and enactments by comparison with the doctrine and discipline of the Catholic Church. The Society of St. Pius X makes such judgments daily when it sifts the magisterium, the laws and disciplines which emanate from the Vatican, and when it pursues its worldwide apostolate in defiance of JP2. It fails, however, to draw logical conclusions from disagreement between the Vatican II magisterium and practice and the Catholic magisterium and practice. SSPX Reaction to Fragmentation Robert L. Neville’s apologia (see Twin! #45, pp. 9-10), evoked refutation, in the form of a pedestrian onager stampede, from another victim of Lefebvre’s phoney wildcat orders, Kevin Robinson. The refutation (6 Jan 98) sets its high tone with a Latin quotation which displays two elementary errors. The subsequent four pages include multiple error far more serious. “Any exercise of magisterial authority opposed to the clearly defined truths already taught by the magisterium is ipso facto suspect or wrong (not necessarily heretical).” [It opposes clearly defined truths? It is clearly heretical. It is, therefore, wrong, and must not be obeyed. Suspect? Suspicion of heresy is, after six months, treated as heresy.] “The authority of a pope comes from God,” [to be used for God’s purpose in establishing the papacy] “his errors come from himself (or ....). We must obey the first,” [such as requires a papal mandate to consecrate a bishop] “and try to correct or at least ignore the latter.” [The Sifter in action! We are to set ourselves up to judge the actions of a pope. How is this different from judging his status as a pope? And whence his infallibility? Not only all major exercises of authority by the last four “popes” but also any number of doctrinal pronouncements have opposed the established teachings and purposes of the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. At what point will the Society of St. Pius X abandon some of its inconsistencies and turn, as Williamson projects, sedevacantist? Are they waiting for the next apostate?] “Sedevacantists present a false dilemma by saying it must be all or nothing, all authority” [doctrine] “without blemish in its exercise, or no authority,” [Dogma and doctrine are issued by authority; indeed, they constitute the authority’s purpose. Robinson’s sedevacantists, then, adhere strictly to Leo XIII when he emphasized that it requires only one heresy to make a heretic.] “a convenient way to avoid the difficulty of obeying the truth.”

94 [Many sedevacantists have no difficulty obeying truth. The difficulty arises from trying to discern it in the mouthings of apostates. If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. But if it looks, walks, and quacks part-time, and at other times gallops about, roars, and lays grenades for eggs, it is certainly not a duck. Are we then to believe it is a duck when it quacks?] “Yet we have a duty to ‘sift’ the dubious statements or alleged illegal acts of the apparent holders of magisterial authority, in order to obey Our Lord’s command to ‘beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing’,” [orthodox wolves? papal wolves?] and [to disobey] “ ‘judge the just judgment’, and ‘a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruits ... judge the tree by its fruits’ ... etc.” [Talk about hanging oneself!] “Some of the problems of today in the official teaching of and since Vatican II are tendencies rather than direct heresies. Tendencies that lead to undermining the Faith.” [Yet others are outright heresies that destroy the faith. When has it become less than duty to eradicate noxious tendencies?] Robinson then defends practices against the mass rubrics on the grounds that some parishioners are old enough to remember them. I can also remember when these innovations began. They were confirmed and embodied in the 1962 missal, a major step on the road to ruin. “The differences between what we do and the exact details of the 1962 missal are so minor it takes an expert to even notice them. .... most of these changes of John XXIII (rather all of them as a body) were arranged in the time of Pius XII, and would have been signed by him had he not died.” [Had the dog not died, he’d have caught the rabbit! If this supposition is true, could not Pius XII’s date of death have been divine intervention to protect papal authority and papal infallibility?] “These rubrics are not perfect, but they are not intrinsically undermining the Faith, as are Paul VI’s rubrics.” [Here Robinson adopts Montini’s definition of his new rite of mass, both in effect denying that it was a new rite, ergo beyond papal competence to introduce. Robinson, however, states that it undermines the faith, though SSPX refuses, in accord with its founder, Lefebvre, to condemn it as an invalid mass. It has become rather a valid mass which destroys the Catholic faith.] “.... as Bishop Williamson has said, SV” (sedevacantism) “(as a private theory) is not the greatest sin in today’s circumstances when there is objective grounds for suspicion. These grounds, the obvious deviations from orthodoxy and orthopraxis, are not conclusive as to loss of papal office.” [only because never held by the public heretic.] “If it became much more clear, then we could say they were right, as even the Archbishop admitted. Yet until you can determine any statements of the pope” [and they are legion!] “that are incontravertably unorthodox in the highest degree,” [in any degree that opposes defined doctrine] “you may not act on the presumption of loss of office. This would be the end of any visible Church, as it would undermine any society if private individuals could make legal judgments as to loss of authority.” [This does not follow. If we must accept and follow an apostate, is our Church not, to a like extent, undermined and destroyed? If we follow him we follow him whither he 95 goes—out of the Church, our means of salvation.] “So if a priest had a personal theory” [or recognized an objective legal fact] “that John Paul II can not be pope, that is his business. If he preaches this as fact and acts in total disregard and disrespect for the man in the See of Peter,” [for which public heresy disqualifies him] “he commits a mortal sin and (arguably)” [What is the argument?] “breaks with the unity of the Church.” [He rather maintains unity with the Church against the public heretic who has broken with the Church.] “If John Paul II utters any unambiguous heresy, manifesting his attachment to it for pertinacity,” [such as his dedication of his pontificate to the further implementation of the decrees and documents of the Second Vatican Council] “we would surely reconsider the SV question. Yet there are sixty-nine degrees of condemnation of errors, from offensive to pious ears to formal heresy. Which one(s) is he undeniably, pertinaciously guilty of?” [Is Robinson illiterate? Is he deaf and blind? Or does he merely avoid the weekly statements of Garrulous Karolus?] “.... how would you propose to deal with the poor victims of Novus Ordo nonsense which often was the cause (or the occasion) of real invalid marriages? Obviously we must assess each case” [not our business!] “according to the traditional criteria if we wish to be absolutely sure.” [Are assessments and determinations free of charge? Or is this another lucrative by-product of assumed jurisdiction?] “The canonical commission” [which presumably operates under the 1983 code, which is taught at SSPX seminaries] “is a clear necessity for the many difficult cases we simple priests cannot deal with.” [Santa Claus is a clear necessity for small children.] “Does it require jurisdiction for such declarations?” [Certainly! And who sent the Society of St. Pius X? What is its Authority?] “The state of necessity supplies ad hoc jurisdiction for such essential functions in the life of the Church.” [from a man with no possible jurisdiction about a “canonical commission” with equal possibility of jurisdiction.] “What is an annulment, if not a simple statement that there never was a marriage according to Catholic principles. Who are we going to trust these days to make certainly valid assessments? Rome or Menzingen?” [In a vacuum of authority who can trust either? Only the spouses themselves can judge their own case. But the genuine priest has no qualification to confirm their judgment, and should they remarry (however) he cannot confirm the legitimacy of their annulment and knowingly admit them to the sacraments.] “If Almighty God wants His Catholic Church to remain unchanged till the end of time, He must have provided the means” [wildcats with no possible jurisdiction?] “for this to happen in today’s crisis of authority.” [If we have a genuine pope there can be no crisis of authority.] “If God wills the Society to continue” [When did they begin?] “as part of this means and pursue its operation, He must provide the necessary jurisdiction for our work, such the canon law does provide.” [Canon law provides no jurisdiction for wildcats—and wildcats are clearly unnecessary, as well as in violation of canon law. Society of St. Pius X wildcats

96 have demonstrably not adhered entirely to Catholic doctrine or tradition. But what argument has Robinson to support SSPX jurisdiction?] “The use of epikeia is appropriate because the legislators today are morally unapproachable,” [then how are they legitimate?] “set as they are on a new direction.” [Epikeia cannot apply where acknowledged (by SSPX) authority (Garrulous Karolus and his Vafia), can be consulted.] “No serious theologian has ever declared that the laws or disciplines of the Church are infallible.” [Every canonist who ever compiled a textbook on his specialty has stated without equivocation that some laws are divine or natural law which bind everyone, pope or not, Catholic or not. The theological opinion that a pope turned public heretic is automatically deposed, embodied in Canon Law, is not in the slightest doubt. Canons 188 n.4 and 2314. §1 necessarily apply. A pope must profess the Catholic Faith. A pope is subject to divine law, natural or positive. He is therefore subject to canons which express such doctrine and law, obviously including Canon 188, n.4, which states undeniable fact: a heretic is not a Catholic; a Catholic is not a heretic—by definition. Adolphe Tanquerey, the eminent theologian: “All theologians teach that notorious heretics, i.e., those who by public profession adhere to a heterodox sect or refuse the infallible teaching authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, even if their heresy is merely material.” – Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae All theological opinions fade before the law. Canons 188 n. 4 and 2314 §1 apply. A heretic is deposed by the fact itself of his public heresy, without any declaration.] Some “argue thus: *He who is not a member of the Church can’t be its head. *but a heretic is not a member of the Church, *now Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, and John Paul II are heretics, *therefore, they are neither members nor head of the Church, *and so all their acts are to be completely ignored.” [Yes, that’s part of the argument.] “But then again, the argument continues, the same scandals are true of all the world’s diocesan bishops, who are also consequently non-members without authority; and the Catholic Church must be identified only with those who have not compromised the Faith and who refuse communion with these ‘Popes’ or ‘Bishops.’ A minority of these will elect their own ‘Pope.’ ” [This minority’s eccentricity has no effect on the previous argument.] “The argument’s strength is in the real scandal of the conciliar authorities’ impetus given to the Church’s ‘new direction’; its weakness is in not being able to prove that any of these authorities are formal heretics.” [And Robinson’s weakness is inability to identify heresies. This glaring fault is common throughout the Society of St. Pius X and its dissidents, due to incompetence in logic and canon law, and defective seminary training.] “*You are a ‘material’ heretic without knowing it if you objectively contradict what God has said but through no fault of your own.” [Can a pope contradict God without fault? No kind of heretic can be pope.]

97 “*you are a ‘formal’ heretic if you do pertinaciously contradict what God has said, i.e., knowing that you’re denying what God has said and wanting to do this anyway. “Now, the ordinary way for the Church to ascertain pertinacity and enforce the consequences of one’s heresy by either excommunication and/or loss of office, is through authoritative monitions to the delinquent which he spurns (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 2314, §1).” [Robinson fails not only to furnish the canon number in the 1983 code, but to quote canon 2314, §1 from the 1917-18 Code undeniably in effect till 1983. Canon 2314, §1: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic incur the following penalties: (1) ipso facto excommunication; ..... “Canon 188, §4, provides, moreover, that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration.” A penalty a iure or latae sententiae is already clearly marked out and only requires the verification of the criminal act. Thus a censure latae sententiae does not demand a canonical admonition, though a declaratory sentence may be necessary in certain circumstances (can. 2232). – Augustin’s A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, VIII 166-7 Actual membership in the Church is totally lost by excommunication. – Augustin VIII 172] “But nobody can authoritatively admonish the Pope (canon 1556), and the Bishops can only be admonished by their superior, the Pope (canon 1557), who has not done so.” [Public heretics derive no benefit or privilege from a law protecting a pope. It is not surprising that no usurping occupant of the Holy See has admonished his heretic usurpers of most other sees.] “Therefore, pertinacity, and so formal heresy, cannot be proven.” This inconsequential conclusion derives from unnecessary and faulty premises. Robinson assumes that he has proven something. He begs the question. “The argument .... becomes less probable when you consider .... other explanations for the ‘material heretic’ Pope {a) below}, and it becomes quite improbable when you consider its dangers b) or consequences c).” [What can be more dangerous than acceptance of a heretic as pope?] “a) The liberal mind-set of a Pope Paul VI or a Pope John Paul II can be an explanation of their wanting to be Catholics and their simultaneous betrayal in practice of Catholicism. They accept contradictions;” [as also SSPX and Robinson] “with a subjective and evolutive mentality, this is to be expected.” [Of popes? But not tolerated!] “But such a frame of mind can be convinced of heresy only by way of authority.” [Of which we have too much. Liberalism is itself a heresy. Ignorance is not presumed in a pope. He must know what his office obliges him to preserve.] “hence Vatican I’s profession that Peter will have perpetual successors.” [Pure fiction! based on erroneous translation of Denzinger 1825: ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat (not habebit, has, not will have) 98 perpetuos successores; aut Romanum Pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem: ..... that it is not by institution of Christ the Lord Himself or by divine law, that blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy: let him be anathema. This despite sixteen interregna exceeding a year, four of which exceeded two years.] “But is indefectibility preserved if there is no Pope since 1962(!) or if there is no one with ordinary jurisdiction whom the sedevacantists can point out as such?” [Is indefectibility preserved by a “pope” who continually spouts heresy? Who pursues further implementation of the innovations of Vatican Council II?] “c) If the Church has not had a Pope since the days of Vatican II, then there are no more Cardinals legitimately created. But then how is the Church to get a Pope again, as the current discipline grants only to Cardinals the power to elect a Pope? The Church could have ordained that non-Cardinal ‘electors of the Pope’ be capable of doing it, but we cannot go by any other way than the current discipline which ordains that Cardinals elect him.” [Is this argument not the peak of hypocrisy? Has the Society of St. Pius X not flouted current discipline in consecrating bishops? We must obey the law in one case and obey SSPX in the other?] “Sedevacantism is a theological opinion ... not a certitude.” [It is legally certain that none of the last four reputed popes was eligible. It is painfully obvious that they all lacked papal infallibility.] “.. invariably it leads to one’s recognizing no spiritual superiors on earth.” [So where and who are they? The Society of St. Pius X? Or perhaps the “popes” whose orders they sift?] Would you buy a used theological opinion from this man? Objection—Abp. Lefebvre’s orders are valid because Lienart went through the proper motions, as required by Leo XIII in Apostolicae Curae, 33: “Now if, in order to effect and confer a sacrament, a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. This principle is the basis of the doctrine that a sacrament is truly a sacrament even if it is conferred through the ministry of a heretic, or of one who is not himself baptized, provided the Catholic rite is used.” Reply—A heretic bishop would not go through the proper rite and ceremony unless he intended to preserve and episcopal powers for his own group. We may assume that he has the proper intention. In the case of an apostate freemason who conceals his apostasy in order to work against the Church from within, we must assume an utter lack of intention to confer the sacrament. The presumption is that he never intended to confer the sacrament— that Leo’s phrase “in order to effect and confer a sacrament” applies to neither his action nor his intent. Has he “seriously” or “delusorie” “used the due matter and form?” Why must we believe that this God-hating masonic apostate intends what the Church intends —or even that he intended to receive the episcopacy in the first place? The proper intention is inconsistent with his apostatic bent,

99 which Lienart clearly demonstrated at Vatican II. He would viciously attack our doctrine and authority, but would preserve the sacrament upon which these largely depend? Like Talleyrand, he could not invalidate episcopal (co- ) but could readily have destroyed validity of all his conferred ordinations(?) to diaconate(?) or priesthood(?)—including Lefebvre’s. We had stronger arguments in The War Is Now! #35, p. 4, and repeated some at the end of The Enemy Is Here! We quote from, and edit, the translated writing of Mme. de Boismenu, perennial defender of the Catholic faith, who, when last I heard, believed Lefebvre’s orders valid. Her article concerns risks in reception of sacraments outside proper channels. The devil has substituted for the true pope some caricatures who have destroyed the Catholic Church from within. He has multiplied his wiles to render resistance nugatory. He has induced traditional Catholics to resort to the ministrations of clerics who have no mandate from a successor of St. Peter. He suggests to the Chinese conciliar clergy an identical argument for reviving the “patriotic” clergy, i.e., those in the pay of the communist government. Clergy who exercise clerical functions without a pope’s authority are like fingers on hands severed from the body. Those not joined to the papacy are schismatic clergy, as those of the Orthodox. April 27, 1987 Archbishop Lefebvre wrote his priests: “Not having a canonical mission, we are without jurisdiction” Perfectly clear! Lacking missionary orders from a pope, they lack jurisdiction—they have no power to absolve sins, officiate at marriages, or confirm. But Lefebvre continues: “But the Church, by law, grants Her jurisdiction to us by reason of the obligation which people have of sanctifying themselves by means of the sacramental graces which they can only receive with difficulty, or doubtfully, if they do not receive them from us. Therefore, we receive jurisdiction on a case by case basis in order to go to the aid of souls in distress.” What terrible words! They confuse the “Most Dear Friends” and mislead them on a path not Catholic! The Canons of the Council of Trent oblige one and all. The holy Synod teaches, that in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of other orders, the consent, or call, or authority of the people, or of any secular power or magistrate is not so required for the validity of the ordination; but rather it decrees that those who are called and instituted only by the people, or by the civil power or magistrate and proceed to exercise these offices, and that those who by their own temerity take these offices upon themselves, are not ministers of the Church, but are to be regarded as “thieves and robbers who have not entered in by the door” [cf. John 10:1; can. 8, Session 23]. Canon Law is explicit. Canon 879, 1°: “For the valid hearing of confessions, jurisdiction must be granted expressly either in writing or by word of mouth.” (Tacit, presumed, interpretive, or other kind of delegation is rejected.) Without jurisdiction, confessions are invalid— sins are not forgiven.

100 As to the Sacrament of Matrimony, Archbishop Lefebvre cited Canon 1098, which authorizes marriages before two witnesses when no Catholic priest is available to receive the consent of the spouses. For the Sacraments of Penance, Confirmation, and , Archbishop Lefebvre can find no canons which permit solutions by substitution. Those who, like himself, muddle the issue, lie shamelessly when they permit people to believe that necessity may alter law! The Church has provided in case of necessity for: Baptism, Canon 759; Matrimony, Canon 1098; Absolution at the point of death, Canon 882. Outside these specific cases, it is prohibited to invent permissions. May 19, 1988, a year after his letter on jurisdiction, Archbishop Lefebvre answered a correspondent: “You have seized upon the radical solution in your judgment on the pope, and so, for you there is no longer a pope. It is a solution which simplifies the problems. As for us, we prefer to leave this judgment to God, and to act as if the pope were the Pope although we condemn his words, his writings, and his actions, which are those of a wicked shepherd. It is a more difficult solution but one which permits us to endeavor to have tradition restored to Rome.” More difficult solution? It is no solution at all. Archbishop Lefebvre, Doctor of Theology, is totally wrong. The “radical solution” does not simplify the simple problem; it simply follows from the Evangelical counsel: “Yea, yea, no, no.” (Matt, v,37; James v,12) Nor is it a case of judging a pope, but rather of determining whether a self- designated pope is an intruder. Lefebvre agreed with his correspondent that the words, writings, and actions of the man who calls himself pope are those of a wicked shepherd, but chose the “difficult solution” of not calling a spade a spade and JP2 a ravening wolf. Archbishop Lefebvre thereby outrages the Divine Majesty (he implicitly accuses Our Savior Jesus Christ of having placed at the head of the Church a hireling who betrays the flock to the enemy.) and lays waste the dogma of papal infallibility. If the infallible pope speaks, writes, and acts contrary to the Faith, Our Lord has prayed in vain, and the Church is not built upon the rock of truth, but on a tottering stone which endangers the entire edifice. And all to restore tradition to Rome! By dialogue with the devil! Ten years later, what has this apostasy achieved? Numbers do not determine the quality of a society, nor render true what is false. Modernists are numerous. Lefebvrist and seminaries may be crowded. But the kingdom of God is not benefited. Are not , synagogues, Protestant temples, and Orthodox buildings full? Are these helps to salvation? Many refuse to believe Archbishop Lefebvre could play such a nefarious game. This is not the first time that the angel of darkness has masqueraded as an Angel of Light. One ought not trust appearances, but rather apply the teachings of the catechism. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that “good faith” vanishes into negligence in informing the conscience. The chief duty of our state in life is not

101 scholarship, position, or provision of good food and clothing for our children, but rather discharge of our Baptismal and Catholic obligations. We must guard the Catholic Faith and shun those who forsake it. The Lefebvrist enterprise has had no other function than to keep alive a body without a Head, and to ensnare in schism and heresy whoever are weak enough to join it. CIRCULAR PHILOSOPHY Is it circular because: 1) promoted in a Society of St. Pius X circular letter? 2) it has no identifiable beginning or end? 3) it chases its own tale? SSPX circularized its mailing list December 1, 1995 with POPE-SIFTING, Difficulties with Sedevacantism, six pages of excuses for accepting four antipopes, ending with the plaint that “our judgments even about purported ‘errors’ of Vatican II do not have the Church’s authority behind them” [I have often documented these “errors” along with their prior papal and/or conciliar condemnations.]—“and are therefore likely to be mistaken. Consequently[?!], all we can and must do as Catholics in these confusing” [Who’s confused?] “times is to do what we have to in order to save our souls.” [We must first and foremost adhere to and profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety. We must also condemn heresies already condemned by the Catholic Church, even though promulgated as Catholic doctrine over purportedly papal signatures in such a manner as to try to involve the Holy Ghost.] Am I a typical sedevacantist? Whether or not a pope exists, he has not been publicly known since October 9, 1958 when Pius XII died. Pius himself had for years neglected his duty to condemn heresies and the public heretics whose tenets they were, including Angelo Roncalli and G. B. Montini. Neither was eligible for the papacy by reason of public adherence to condemned heresy. No matter who elected them, no matter who recognized their papal status or authority, they could never have been popes. If this sounds shaky, all doubt vanishes in the cases of Luciani and Wojtyla, both of whom had, along with a commanding majority of the world’s episcopate, subscribed to heresies in Vatican II documents. But this circular list of difficulties would require us to wait till all these public heretics condemn themselves before we dare question, presumably on the grounds that these public heretics constitute the Universal Church, to which not one of them belongs nor accords his faithful allegiance. Not only that, but this mob of heretics would most likely perform this self-condemnation “through the declaration of a General Council,” which no one is competent to convoke, convened to appeal from the judgments of four antipopes. But we are permitted no defense against the enemy because the enemy is in charge. We are obliged to defend and preserve our faith, just as much as the faithful during the ascendancies of the nearly universal Arian heresy and of the national and regional defections of the Protestant revolt, against all enemies, even those in charge. If we entertain any doubt about the hostility of these last, all we need ask is who replaced our Mass and sacraments with idolatry, who changed our catechisms and laws, or who vacillates in the face of current monstrous perversions. 102 We are required, moreover, to believe in St. Paul’s final revolt. Unfortunately, the latest sedevacantist census leaves us too few to constitute a credible apostasy. But is a papal apostasy not incredible? St. Paul never said that the pope would apostatize, “only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way.” (II Thess. ii, 7) Innocent II was taken out of the way in 1130, and an enemy of God ruled in Rome for eight years until he died. Among those who refused to recognize Pierleone as pope were two extremely active canonized saints, who publicized the destruction imposed from the top and roused the general populace, which may have been less literate than the current generation but certainly less stupid. It appreciated the absurdity of the concept of a papal heretic, and that to accept a heretic as pope is to deny papal infallibility, and commits the dupe also to the same condemned heresies as his “pope.” But no, we must wait until they are condemned again. Was Arius not a heretic before his doctrine was condemned? Is not the entire Renewal Arianism? Mark Piverunas pontificates When one pretends to be a bishop it must be expected that he or she will talk like a bishop. One may even commit thoughts to paper, or computer. Mr. Piverunas did just that March 19, 2002, taking to task the group of priests established by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. Mr. Rangel, their “bishop,” had recognized the legitimacy of the Second Vatican Council and the validity of the novus bogus missae under certain unlikely conditions. He fully expects SSPX to take the same route back into the postconciliar “Church” which it never left. “… they erroneously maintain that John Paul II is a true pope … completely disregard him by their public disobedience to him, inasmuch as they administer the sacraments without a canonical mission and without jurisdiction from him whom they recognize as pope. They have no authority or approval from John Paul II to set up churches and chapels throughout the world, nor to dispense the Sacraments. If the Conciliar Church of Vatican II is the Catholic Church, as they believe, then how can they not consider themselves as schismatic? “This is the ultimate contradiction; while they maintain nominal recognition of John Paul II as pope, they completely disregard him by acting without jurisdiction which they would need to receive from him in order to function as bishops and priests.” Piverunas and his CMRI freely admit that they themselves lack jurisdiction. Since they recognize no pope they cannot obtain these. But they barge forward just as if they had what they recognize as requirements for others! They draw impossible justification from the needs of the faithful. CRICKET LAW Under the presumptuous title Canon Law & Common Sense, dreams up: “some layman with an ax to grind will get hold of an English paraphrase of the Code of Canon Law (the official text exists only in Latin), and, like a Protestant handling scripture, will treat his discovery as a handy source for ‘proof-texts’ he can use to dismiss everyone else in the traditionalist movement as ‘non-Catholic.’ He has no idea that, as with scripture,

103 there are authoritative principles and rules which must be followed for applying the particulars of the Code.” We can easily infer from this that unless we understand Latin we can’t know our obligations. All these translations are mere paraphrases, just like the Douai Bible. Let me assure the grasshopper that I grind my ax in favor of the eternal Catholic Church, and consider myself no part of a ‘movement.’ Laymen, of course, understand no Latin, so how is it that I can match the English translations (I have four) word for word with the Latin laws? I can even perceive occasional errors of omission, as in Woywod’s translation of Canon 188, which fails to translate or paraphrase et sine ulla declaratione (and without any declaration). “..... laymen in the traditional movement instinctively adopt this common-sense approach. Without realizing it, they’ve put into practice a very common-sense principle that Catholic canonists (canon law experts) have always used for applying canon law: the principle of equity.” When there’s patronizing to be done, call Cekada! Now he will instruct all us ignoramuses who can’t understand what we do— we never went to Econe. “Theologians divide law into two broad categories: 1) Divine law. This in turn is divided into the eternal law (God’s reason and will), the natural law (the knowledge of good and evil written on every man’s heart), and the divine- positive law (the Old and New Testaments). 2) Human law, which is divided into ecclesiastical law and civil law. Church law, therefore, falls under the heading of human law.” Why drag in theologians? Till now he cited canon law experts. These might have mentioned that laws made by the Church are ecclesiastical laws, but they are by no means the sum total of Canon Law. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Vol. IX, p. 57a: “If we consider its (Canon Law’s) sources, it comprises Divine law, including natural law, based on the nature of things and on the constitution given by Jesus Christ to His Church; and human or positive law, formulated by the legislator in conformity with the Divine law.” What is Canon Law?, René Metz, Hawthorn 1960, p. 26: “..... the Church shows the greatest respect for the divine law, natural and positive, which represents the primary source of canon law. The Church is the interpreter of the will of God to the faithful in setting before them in concise form the laws which are contained in Scripture and those which are implicit in human nature. One cannot say that the Church is the author of these laws; she does no more than incorporate them in her legislation and when necessary provide penalties for those who transgress against them. She cannot dispense from these laws, which are outside of her power of jurisdiction and which moreover form only a small part of her legislation.” A Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, 1954, p. 100: “‘Propounded by ecclesiastical authority’: the word ‘propounded’ is used to indicate that some of the rules belong to the natural or to the divine law, and as such are not originally imposed by the Church, but proposed and explained by her; while the words

104 ‘by ecclesiastical authority’ serve to distinguish Canon Law from the systems of law imposed by the civil authority of States.” Proceeding from such a solid foundation as his legal training at Econe, where the Canon Law accepted and taught(?) is the 1983 Code of JP2, Cekada builds an equally good case for equity—epikeia— the intent of the lawgiver. Whether or not he escaped Econe before the new code’s introduction, he obviously failed to escape the sloppiness so glaringly apparent in all its courses, classes, and graduates. “Catholics need sacraments to save their souls, and priests provide the sacraments. Equity therefore allows a traditional Catholic bishop to ordain priests without (canonical permission from an ordinary), and to consider the technical” [why not punitive?] “suspension which would otherwise result to be null and void. On the other hand, it would be grossly imprudent and utterly contrary to equity for a bishop to ordain someone who had not received the lengthy scholastic and spiritual formation the Code of Canon Law” [which code?] “lays down.” But Cekada and his fellows, from Hector Bolduc on down, were ordained(?) by a near-traditional schismatic heretic who established his fraternity with permission of a novus ordo modernist, after a sadly defective, abbreviated scholastic and spiritual foundation. Not some ax-grinding layman innocent of Latin and law, but Father Noël Barbara calls Lefebvre’s consecrations scandalous in lacking doctrinal justification and in total violation of Church law. “The very first condition, the sine qua non for interpreting the intention of the lawgiver, never existed for them. Not only did they recognize but they continue to recognize John Paul II as a true Pope.” Obviously, if Lefebvre recognized JP2 as pope, he could not appeal to some one else’s intention to oppose him. In the unlikely event that Lefebvre’s orders were valid, it remains certain that he held heresies which would deny him authority or jurisdiction even had he held an office to which authority and jurisdiction are ordinarily attached. A cannot confer even titles. A non-cleric can confer no sacraments but baptism and matrimony. Let us ask with St. Paul (Romans x, 15) “How shall they preach, unless they be sent?” Challoner’s note: “Unless they be sent. Here is an evident proof against all new teachers, who have all usurped to themselves the ministry, without any lawful mission, derived by succession from the apostles, to whom Christ said, (John xx, 21) As My Father hath sent Me, I also send you.” Who sent Cekada? Query—Have you seen that Home Alone treatment of one of the traditional Catholic’s minor problems by one Anthony Cekada, “educated” at Econe, “ordained” by “Abp.” Marcel Lefebvre, since operating under the CMRI aegis? Reply—One would think that a man who has found himself sufficiently alone in $$PX surroundings that he decamped into another shaky non- Catholic organization would have the sense to refrain from ridiculing those who have the sense to avoid all wildcat organizations. He might consider that 105 not all stay home alone. I usually had the company of twenty to thirty children, in-laws, grandchildren, and (occasionally) great-grandchildren. Nor were we alone spiritually. “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Mt. 18, 20) We were deprived of the practice of our religion. We were spared additional irritant of heretical views preached by irresponsible, half-educated, grass-hopping wildcats, none of whom can adduce credible basis for his jurisdiction or authority. But they have few qualms over assuming and asserting both. They set up their own marriage tribunals, thus arrogating to themselves competence in such matters—for the benefit of the dissatisfied laity and the filling of their own coffers. They have gone out of their collective ways to break up marriages in punishment for questioning their authority. They do not appear to realize their own limitations. The mantle of the Church has fallen on them, and if you fail to recognize this they will steal your wives and children. “You can’t live with that heretic; he will destroy your faith!” This sometimes works on women who can be talked into being liberated from the slavery of fulfilling their matrimonial obligations. They won’t listen to the men they married because some pious pipsqueak sympathizes with them in opposition to the man who dares question the knowledge or motives of the pious pipsqueak. By the wildcats’ unwarranted interference they assure that this man will indeed be home alone while his family rejoices in the privileges of heresy, schism, and idolatry. This is a sure sign of a non-Catholic cult. They overreach themselves in a field in which they pretend omniscience—canon law! They penalize rational behavior far more than ever the Church penalized anyone excommunicated by name for crime, heresy, or apostasy. The Church indeed penalizes the (the man who must be avoided) under Canon 2267: “The faithful must avoid communication in profane matters with an excommunicated vitandus, except in the case of a husband or wife, parents, children, servants, subjects, and in general unless there is some reasonable excusing cause.” The Church, then, unlike the arrogant pipsqueak, is not petty and vindictive. It recognizes natural rights.

The War Is Now! # 39, August 1996 Rev. Augustine Cummins recently took a couple of weeks off, and left his quasi-parish to the tender idolatries of the “reverend” Gerard Hogan, whose “orders” derive through Marcel Lefebvre from Achille Lienart, an apostate Freemason for many years prior to his own “consecration.” We may legitimately question a 30°, devil-worshipping Freemason’s intention to receive a sacrament according to the intention of the Church. Certainly the Church has never intended to confer its sacraments upon apostates. Lefebvre established his seminaries ostensibly to provide the traditional Mass through properly ordained priests. In Fr. Cummins’ absence, we hear, Gerard Hogan has placed the facilities of the traditional at the disposition of “Fr.” Michael Rowe—“ordained” according to the new rite by “Archbp.” Hickey, himself “ordained” bishop in the selfsame new, invalid rite—for 106 “celebration of the true Mass.” Hogan, then, places Rowe’s orders on par with his own. I can’t quarrel with that; so do I.

SSPX Canadian Capers We have maintained for years that Society of St. Pius X major aims are separation of Catholics from their religion and from their money. Another demonstration recently surfaced in . The “priests” associated with the Church of the Transfiguration, 11 Aldgate Ave., Etobicoke, Ont., operated a “Fund Raising Draw” in excess of their permit, and beyond the bounds of natural justice. The guilt eventually involved SSPX at the top level. Among the terms and conditions under which the licence was issued: “The net proceeds derived from the conduct of the raffle shall be used for charitable and religious objects or purposes in Ontario as approved in the application for licence.” But the purpose of the lottery was to raise money for St. Joseph’s Bursary Fund which benefits children attending School in Lauzon, Quebec, and other SSPX schools in the U.S.A. and Canada, all outside Ontario. The licence granted permission to print ten thousand tickets, as requested on application. 12,000 were printed. “Only the prize(s) as described and approved in the licence application shall be awarded.” (Terms and Conditions) Licence applic. Tickets & awards 1st Prize trip Paris, France trip Cancun, 2d Prize $1,500 cash $1,000 cash 3d Prize $500 cash $500 cash Total Value $6,000 $3,000 The application figures satisfied legal requirements. The award & ticket figures fell $1,800 short of the minimum legal prize value. This lottery was conducted in further violations of the Terms and Conditions, which specified that the licensee must notify (in writing, furnishing copy of licence and application) each (Ontario only) municipality outside its home base into which it would extend sales. Opposition arose from parishioners not only over the fraud and violations listed but also because the Paris trip had been replaced by one to a beach resort where women wear nothing above the waist both on and off the beach. The opposition was denigrated from the . “Fr.” Castel told a nameless penitent (Mrs. Veronica Eden) in the confessional to find another church. John Thomson received phone threats from another parishioner. During a phoned threat, Mr. Thomson learned of a graver situation in the area, a “serious transgression of Church Teaching,” which involved a family visited at the time of the transgression by “Bishop” Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, who was alleged to have maintained silence in its regard, and was known to have received a customary contribution from the family—purely coincidentally, of 107 course. Messrs. Thomson and Dupuis and Mrs. Eden reported this to four SSPX “bishops” and to “Father” Franz Schmidberger. Tissier de Mallerais threatened legal action. But he adduced no refutation of the charge; he merely stood upon his non-existent episcopal status. He demanded a retraction from three who (1) had not made but only reported the charge, (2) would not have reported a lie, (3) were duty-bound to report. Necessarily, they refused to retract. So they were forbidden the use of SSPX facilities for “mass” and “sacraments.” Police were called on three separate occasions to charge Michael Dupuis with trespass, and threatened him with jail. On the third occasion he was forcibly dragged from “mass” by police, searched, handcuffed, jailed, and fined $65 for trespass. John Thomson was threatened with like treatment. Tissier de Mallerais offered no explanation. He could have stated that no serious transgression was involved, but, whatever it was, there are photographs of the occasion. He could have denied knowledge of the transgression, though it took place during his visit. He could have denied having received a contribution, which seems to have been his reason to visit. His reaction included private interdict against several parishioners and is not a typical response of an innocent man. I see no reason not to believe people whose only fault is their mistaken belief that SSPX is a legitimate Catholic organization with a genuine mandate to bring them the Mass and Sacraments of the Catholic Church. The “bishop” was present. He kept quiet. Was there a reason other than the contribution? “Bishop” Fellay faxed “Fr.” Emily Nov. 11, 1997: “.....I read the reports ..... about Bp. Tissier de Mallerais and me, ..... incredible inventions and pure imagination. They ..... attribute to the superiors of the Society the worse interpretation of poorly misinterpreted words or actions...... not mere questions, clear accusations ..... clearly denied by the fact that we ..... request retractions .....” [Clearly denied, but not thereby refuted. One more example of the mandatory Econe course in the non sequitur. Fellay sent another fax Dec. 3:] “..... Their refusal to accept any mediation or discussion to stop their incredible attacks against us, shows that their concern is not to know the truth ..... or to defend the Society ..... but rather to destroy it...... since they have publicly given scandal in our churches in St. Catherines and Toronto, I suggest that you now explain to your faithful the object of these accusations, ..... to reassure them that we are fully justified for the action ..... against them.” The following day “Fr.” Emily issued three pages of incredible fog. Page 1 expresses his desire not to defend himself and “Fr.” Castel against fraud charges connected with the lottery and against Castel’s heretical bias. This is certainly prudent; the charges are proven. The next page describes unspecified “slander” and how the SSPX elected to punish it. It finally mentions the specification against Fellay, as contained in:

“For it is a fact that the authorities in Rome are divided on our account, as we can prove by documents in our possession. So we can only continue on our present course of staying in private contact with Rome while in public we 108 protest out loud against the Church’s self-destruction, .....” – Superior General Letter #52 to Friends and Benefactors, March 25, 1997, (signed) + Bernard Fellay The charges of hypocrisy and negotiation with Rome seem proven from Fellay’s own words. Page 3 skims lightly over what has been written above. “By this accusation they both seriously slander this innocent family” (name withheld from the public) “and they accuse His Excellency of nothing less than bribery.” [I could have sworn it was bribe-taking and corruption.] Having offered no other explanation or defense than that already here quoted, Emily continues: “The two examples of far-fetched allegations based, as they are, on a misguided interpretation, will reveal the unsoundness of the accusations against Fr. Castel and myself, which are of the same spirit.” This appears to tie the accusations together for credibility. I don’t think his “bishops” will thank him. The fraud of which he was accused is indefensible; he is lucky not to be in jail along with his co-defendant, Castel, since transferred to Mexico. The “bribery” accusation, defended against so poorly that it gives an equal impression of indefensibility, is thoroughly consistent with the track record of the Society of St. Pius X, which has shown from its beginnings that it will do anything in the world for financial gain.—Even: Marriage Annulments Richard Williamson has broken again into print (3/3/98), in defense of the flourishing SSPX judiciary system. “The accusation ..... is that by undertaking to examine marriage cases” [on whose authority, for what reason?] “and by declaring the invalidity of even a few of the marriages examined, the Society is taking upon itself an authority which can only belong to the mainstream or official Church. Thereby the Society is first going into schism, and secondly helping to dissolve the institution of holy matrimony. The Society pleads not guilty on both counts.” After laying a few ground rules, which he can do because “most Catholic priests know these rules well enough to be able to give sufficient guidance to Catholics seeking it,” he then treats us to the deplorable state of ecclesiastical jurisprudence brought on by the Renewal. Nevertheless, agonizing questions can call for authoritative judgment. God can’t expect us to obey His laws which make severe demands on fallen nature, unless He guarantees us His Church’s authoritative guidance to apply these laws. But four paragraphs north he bound the whole human race by divine law on marriage. Can four-fifths of humanity cope with serious marriage problems without the Church’s authoritative guidance? Or is everyone free to violate the natural law? But however good a case Williamson makes for Church or state to adjudicate marriage problems, what qualifies the Society of St. Pius X? Williamson draws his authority from anyone’s grant that (1) the true Church owes Catholics all the help they need to live up to its demanding laws, (2) the Newchurch provides no help [relevant?], therefore, (3) it makes sense that the

109 Society, among others [a chance for me?], will step into that gap where it reasonably can [and can be reasonably compensated], even [how else?] without territoritorial jurisdiction, and where it so steps in it may reasonably assume, in accordance with [which?] Canon Law, that the Church will, case by case, for the salvation of souls which is the supreme law, supply missing authority or jurisdiction. [Logic! Unconscious humor is funniest.] The Society of St. Pius X is either Catholic or not. If so, why or how would it usurp a Church court which, as Williamson points out, requires trained legal experts? If not Catholic, what possible effect have its judgments? Williamson maintains that because serious[ly misinformed] Catholics confess to SSPX “priests” in the belief that these “priests” have supplied emergency jurisdiction, these “priests” have supplied emergency jurisdiction to apply the canon law on marriage. Which canon law? At Econe they have accepted and taught the 1983 code from which Williamson abstracted his “supreme law.” Marriage problems, he says, cannot wait for resolution till the end of the Church crisis. So Catholics may assume [that joke again!] that if the Society seriously examines marriage contracts in accord with Catholic principles, they may trust its declarations to receive from the Church any jurisdiction lacking, and may act in good conscience on jurisdiction which they admit, and try to build a wall of assumptions against its deficiency, is lacking. Doubtful mass, sacrament, tribunal, no mass, no sacrament, no tribunal. Doubtful annulment, no annulment. Williamson leans so heavily on emergency supplied jurisdiction because he can claim no normal jurisdiction. The Society of St. Pius X has no mandate from the Church, either the postconciliar “Church” to which it belongs, or the traditional Church which it has constantly and deliberately undermined from its foundation. The Society needs a real defense, and another advocate.

Society of St. Pius X Masonic (letter 1/29/97 of Christopher Shannon, known for his sheet, The Spark.) Personal Witness. me. , Mon, Tues, Wed of 5th week after Easter, Year 1972, Econe-Sion, . The two towns are only a few blocks apart. Procession through Econe-Sion from his seminary. Masonic band formed in front, lead (sic) whole procession. Very disturbing! I was in procession, most uncomfortable. Never heard of such a thing. Later, back in US, on TV saw other European lead (sic) by bands. Why. Why a band? Playing band music. Why? Processions are lead (sic) by the Crucifix, NOT a 15 piece band! … anyway. I asked people in the procession what is going on here? They all said it’s the Sion Masonic band. Lefebvre is a Mason, it’s OK. Since I hadn’t yet really dug into the Masonic issue, Jewish issue, Conspiracy issue – This certainly got me started!

110 I was in Econe-Sion, 2 months, by this time very nervous about what to do if they accepted me. I went there uncomfortable to begin with, something strange about Lefebvre, Econe, his Roman connections. Anyway I figured if they took me in permanently, I’d finish the course if I could (I didn’t like the Masonic thing). Finish, be ordained, cool it a few years, being a nice guy for them, then bolt the Society My goal was ordination whatever the cost, as long as it didn’t cost me my soul. [The ordination Pius XII cooked?] Then two things came together. I was getting more nervous about Masonry and Econe being right in the middle of it — Sion, Switzerland, I learned while there, was a major European Center of . … How did I discover all this? Again, people there told me! No mystery or digging required. Strange. He was ordained by a known Masonic Cardinal Achille Lienhart (sic) of whom I heard when I was in Fatima, but that is another story. I met Lienhart in Fatima 2 years before, where he met with others among whom I also happened to be seeking a finish to my seminary career. Coincidence, but an instructive one. Already I was seeking a higher path. The religious orders I was in and out of, about 6 of them were closer to the contemplative style I thought I was seeking & this kind of pursuit is OK in Canon Law, upward, upward, is why I was allowed to leave one and join another. I suppose you would rather read something exposing the Masonic origins of Society of St. Pius X. My answer to this is it has to be written yet and I don’t know who will – books at this point are not my style. Maybe some one has. I doubt it. Others have already exposed the Society in bits and pieces. No books I am aware of. And this. Follow the money trail. I suspect the bulk of the funds are from Rome. and this. Rome. Lefebvre made frequent trips to Rome while I was with him (I sat next to him at the dinner table). All of these were cordial, not combative, or argumentative, as most would believe. He was simply arranging strategies under the leadership of his Roman bosses. How do I know this, too? He told me. The man’s a devil (was, he’s dead). Benign saintly smile. The sugar, the poison was instilled in the process and grows, and grows, until the harvest. [End of quotation] I have maintained for years that Lefebvre was a Freemason. I have sat on this letter for more than two years. I put it out now mostly to see how quickly John Cooke and Georges de Nantes will back off their astounding new discovery.

Question—Why do I believe Marcel Lefebvre was a Freemason? Answer—In 1976, when I still corresponded regularly with him through his seminary student, Gerard Hogan, I came across evidence of Paul VI’s membership in a Roman lodge. I pursued it as far as I could, but could not confirm it. I then wrote Econe, suggesting that since Lefebvre had a house near Rome, and that since Econe was closer to Rome than Australia, Lefebvre or

111 some of his people could track this proof down. I pointed out the obvious effect such proof could have on the credibility of Vatican II and the whole Renewal. I never received a reply. Four or five years later Father Brian Buckley told me of the former head of the French secret police, Bernard Fay, who had taken advantage of the chaos attendant upon the German withdrawal from Paris during World War II to raid all the Masonic lodges and confiscate their files. For this DeGaulle ordered Fay shot on sight, so he resided in Switzerland. He came to Econe six weeks each year to instruct the students on Freemasonry. He was dead two years when I first heard of him, but he had lived two or three years past the date that I had written Lefebvre and Hogan on Paul VI’s Roman lodge membership. The absolute least that Lefebvre or Hogan should have done was to introduce me to Bernard Fay, to allow further investigation. Everyone to whom I have mentioned this affair has agreed that Lefebvre and Hogan were so obliged. There is good reason to believe that Lefebvre knew of Paul VI’s connection with Freemasonry. He had spoken of this “earth-shaking” weapon he held against Rome, though he died without using it. In impeding this investigation Lefebvre acted in at least two ways like a Freemason. Query—Were he a Freemason could he permit Bernard Fay to instruct his seminarians in the dangers from Freemasonry? Retort—Could he prevent Fay’s program without betraying his own membership? I know this does not constitute proof. But such things have a tendency to accumulate and confirm one another. The item requiring confirmation was the statement of a highly credible non- Catholic clergyman that he had seen a photocopied page from the membership register of a Masonic lodge in Rome on which was inscribed the name or signature “Giambattista Montini.” My informant had seen this years before. He was, however, not in charge of the file, and none of his group realized the sensational import of this piece of paper. We both spent considerable time trying to find the other members of his group. Two were dead. Two inquiries were returned undelivered. We never heard from the other two. I believe the man’s testimony. I have never advanced this as proof because it is legal hearsay to me, and double hearsay to my readers. If any of you can confirm anything like this, I’ll very happily publish it.

112 Query—What do you think of the Society of St. Pius V and the Mt. St. Michael group in Spokane? Reply—I thought you’d never ask! Both groups are wildcats without possible standing in the Catholic Church. They originated in schism, heresy, and bootleg orders procured outside the Church (Daniel Q. Brown) or void from their source (Lefebvre). In no way could either group become legitimate—not through renunciation of the schism and heresy—not through reception of genuine orders. If any are priests, they are not Catholic priests. We may resort to Greek Orthodox priests in emergency for , but not to these groups except to genuine priests who have been gulled into joining them after self- excommunication through outlaw episcopal consecration(?). had himself “consecrated” by Bp. Alfred Mendes (a genuine bishop)—but Kelly was not a priest; Lefebvre had “ordained” him. He and Mendes were both excommunicated by the same ineffectual “consecration” performed without papal mandate. There was, of course, no visible or accessible pope to issue the mandate, but that could have been overcome only by a prior statement in which Mendes had taken over in absence of the issuing authority. Abp. Ngo Dinh Thuc’s wildcat consecrations were similarly flawed. They may have been genuine, but Thuc hardly displayed responsibility when he did Carmona and Zamora, or in Guerard des Laurieres’ case. He made an insufficient statement of intention to preserve the Church thereby, but he so declared the following year! For effect his declaration would necessarily have preceded the deeds. But if we postulate his sanity after that fiasco at Palmar de Troya and his return to Rome for forgiveness and good standing, and the reformed Schuckhardtites are then presumed to have genuine orders and to have somehow at some time rejoined the Catholic Church, not only are they still not Catholic priests, but if they were they would have no claim whatsoever on our allegiance, obedience, or support (any more than Pius XIII in Kalispell). In following them we would ourselves apostatize, and have third class reservations to hell. The same situation restricts and forbids contact with $$PV, $$P, and their parent $$PX. Additionally, all these groups offered the disgusted Catholic an alternative, when he might have stayed vocally and uncooperatively in his parish and won the fight. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that these wildcats were set up by the apostates in Rome for this very purpose. Another common attribute is their greed. They encroach on any independent priest or organization and take over or fragment and destroy. $$PX is known to have sent out men “ordained” with Paul VI’s phony new rite to say “mass” and hear “confessions” for those who believed them legitimate because Lefebvre sent them. This was not in the least necessary, and can have had only two not mutually exclusive motives: 1. More collections. 2. More certain idolatry. It was certainly not done thoughtlessly. These men had refused reordination, possibly knowing that Lefebvre’s conferred orders were equally useless. Life was not meant to be easy. Every few years some genius arises to teach us oldies our religion from his non-appreciation of its complexity and its problems. 113 There are, you must have discovered, more than enough kooks in this business. They usually suffer from imperviousness to logic and undiluted lack of information. The latest heresy proposes that since nearly all priests are heretics we must join them in order to hear Mass. We had such forbidden choices for centuries: at least the various Eastern Orthodox had Mass, which they when they left. But the postconciliar wildcats offer most certain lack of jurisdiction and almost certain idolatry—all to satisfy a seldom-existent obligation! We may not go outside the Church for Mass or sacraments. Imminent danger of death permits recourse to outsiders for confession, but only to genuine priests. These are extremely rare in the heretical, schismatic groups ($$PX, $$PV, CMRI) recommended by that skilled interpreter of Canon #2261, Michael Dimond. He has gone to supererogative lengths to assume guilt for wholesale idolatry. How did you ever survive before this bright young man “armed you with the true teachings of the Catholic Church?” I now live about an hour’s drive from Sunday Mass. I pass several parish churches en route. Strictly speaking, I have no obligation to travel that far; the Church is obliged to supply a real Mass at the nearest parish. But after about ten years too far from Mass (none available in the entire continent) I am delighted to quit my stay-at-home Sundays with my old missal. “Where the faith is,” said St. Jerome, “there is the Church.” The Church exists on earth while one live Catholic holds the faith, whether or not he can practise it. He is obliged to hold the faith; he is obliged to practise it if possible. He is under no obligation to seek out men or methods that violate canon law, or are in any way questionable or doubtful. When apostasy, idolatry, schism, or heresy are possible, the risk can never be justified. If the slightest chance exists that what we attend is not Mass, or the Mass of a schismatic or heretic, who needs it? We have all come through so much trouble for our faith. Why throw it away now? We could in better faith have gone along with the main apostasy. No Catholic can tolerate schism, nor its equivalent innovations, within the visible structure of his Church. Nor can he accept authority which tolerates these splits, these innovations, these destructions of his traditions, these errors. For what authority can impose error? Both Lefebvre and Thuc lie under suspicion of inability to confer orders, even illicitly, one from probable lack of genuine orders himself, the other from possible mental incapacity. Not only do those who repair to these men or their ordinands run the clear risk of idolatry, they certainly and concurrently violate Church law. The Mass(?) at any price? Could the Palmar de Troya crowd hoodwink a sane bishop? Trust in such a man’s responsibility comes hard. Nor can I imagine circumstances which would justify the effort. Thuc’s bishops(?), even if convinced of the rectitude of their own actions, have no possible jurisdiction; and they must know this. So all their actions fall under reasonable suspicion. When does a law cease to bind? When fulfilment is impossible. If we cannot attend Mass on Sunday our obligation ceases. No bishop is obliged to ordain without authorization or jurisdiction. If one argues that the laws cited (2370, 2372, 2373, 2374) cannot be fulfilled because there is no competent authority, 114 then to exempt oneself from fulfilling them obviously one must place himself above their application. (Why would a canon law commentary treat a subject which exceeds our wildest nightmares?) Unless one takes that course the penalties apply, because he is subject to the laws. We claim these penalties apply? The laws specify that they apply. Jesus Christ founded His Church, endowed it with its four marks, and stands behind its authority. No one else can. No one can correct Him. No one—not Lefebvre, not Thuc, not Schuckhardt—can create a substitute, nor even set up a legitimate religious association lacking Church approval. No one can go legitimately outside the Church for Holy Orders or Apostolic Succession, or hope thereby to attain any semblance of jurisdiction. We need not attend Mass, even if we are sure it is Mass, under difficulties of time and distance. But we must keep the faith. “If anyone say ... that those who have not been rightly ordained by ecclesiastical and canonical power and have not been sent, but come from some other source, are lawful ministers of the word and of the sacraments: let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session XXIII, 15/7/1563 Communicatio in sacris — Canon 1258 § 1. It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or to take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics. Augustine’s Commentary: Even the simulation of false religion is incompatible with the purity of the Catholic faith. Hence: (a) The sacrament of Baptism can never be lawfully received from a non- Catholic minister; nor is it allowed to offer a child for baptism to such a minister, even if the child was first baptized by a Catholic minister and the heretical ceremony is admitted in order to avoid a fine. Neither are Catholics allowed to assist as sponsors, either personally or by proxy, at a baptism conferred by a non-Catholic minister. (b) Confirmation may not be administered to such as are compelled by a non- Catholic parent to assist at heretical services. (c) The Holy Eucharist may not be received at the hands of or in the temples of non-Catholics, nor are Catholics allowed to assist at the Mass of schismatics; if they have no church of their own, they are not bound to hear Mass on the days prescribed. … (d) Confession may be made to a heretical or schismatic minister only when there is danger of death, provided no scandal be given, that no other priest be present, that there be no danger of perversion, and that the non-Catholic administer the sacrament in valid form, i.e., secundum ritus Ecclesiae. …

Spirago-Clarke Catechism, page 228: Neither heathens, Jews, heretics, nor schismatics are members of the Church (Council of ), though children baptized validly in other communions really belong to it. “For,” as St. Augustine says, “Baptism is the privilege of the true Church, and so the benefits which flow from Baptism are necessarily fruits which belong only to the true Church. Children baptized in other communions 115 cease to be members of the Church only when, after reaching the age of reason, they make formal profession of heresy, as, for example, by receiving communion in a non-Catholic Church.”

Since Twin! #49 three subscribers have objected. They are not the enemy; they write to keep me on the rails, if possible. I avoid the ARGUMENT CORNER format and leave the reader to fill in the objections. We are caught up in a storm at sea, but we are not uncertain, and we have a rudder, tradition—as recommended, nay commanded, by St. Paul. We sail aboard an unsinkable barque with a whole string of pilots, from St. Peter down, who knew their destination exactly. It is a commonplace that a man is not beaten unless and until he knows he is beaten. It seems parallel to me that a man is not chastised unless he knows it. It also seems to me that the traditional Catholic is the only one who knows he is chastised. The novus ordo lunkheads all think everything is great, life is pleasant, and they’ll all get to heaven following that wonderful Garrulous Karolus. Can you quote some legitimate authority for your belief in universal chastisement and the extent of its blanket application to friend and foe alike? Who has placed us under an interdict? We have not appealed from a pope to a council. So let’s return to an accepted parallel to our plight, the Deluge. God certainly chastised the human race. But He provided Noe instructions to build an ark, because Noe and his family obeyed God. They stayed with the job and with the ark, so they survived. So if people stay with His new ark, the aforesaid barque of Peter, why should He kill them along with all those who have left it? He fed those on the ark. Will He starve those who remain in His Church of its appointed means of salvation? I often refer to wildcat ordinations. But a priest properly ordained in, and through the rites of, the Catholic Church by a properly consecrated Catholic bishop is not a wildcat when he continues to operate as a Catholic priest. No traditional Catholic priest admits that genuine authority has forbidden him to continue to act as he was ordained to act. No one can legitimately forbid him to celebrate Mass or furnish the sacraments. If there is an interdict, what authority has published it? (Exsecrabilis those who appeal from a pope to a council.) We still have our obligation to worship God. What one is obliged to do, he has an absolute right to do. And the priest is just as obliged as we. If from Catholics he withholds his powers, which are given him for the benefit of the laity, he may himself go to hell. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol V, p. 615: “Eusebius displayed his greatest activity during the persecution of the Catholics by the Arian Emperor Valens. Disguised as a military officer he visited the persecuted churches of Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, exhorting the afflicted Catholics to remain loyal to their faith, ordaining orthodox priests where they were needed, and in many other ways assisting the Catholic bishops in the difficult exercise of their duties during those troublous times...... Incensed at the great success of Eusebius, the Arians prevailed upon the Emperor Valens to banish him into Thrace. After the death of Valens, in 378, he was allowed to return to his see...... he resumed his 116 former activity against the Arians, both in his own diocese and in the neighboring churches.” His jurisdiction, then, expanded to fill the vacuum. But Eusebius said quite openly that the bishops he undercut were Arians, that he ordained Catholics to keep the faith alive in his area. He himself operated under his original papal mandate, and the approval of exiled bishops. Father Brian Buckley (r.i.p.) explained his assumption of general jurisdiction. Before this apostasy overtook us, when he traveled out of his own diocese he requested faculties and jurisdiction from the chancery office of the diocese in which he traveled. How? By telephone. It was a matter of course; he was never refused. He had no reason to ask faculties or jurisdiction from a heretic, who by public heresy had lost his own jurisdiction. All his experience had led him to believe that he could secure them automatically under normal conditions. He could presume approval from their Catholic predecessors, were they not retired (living) or dead. He had no need of such faculties for himself. He could celebrate Mass privately without anyone’s permission. He considered the spiritual welfare of those who had asked him for Mass and sacraments. All Australia needed the services of the two or three priests who would consent to fill their office. He believed these two or three had jurisdiction because there was no one to restrict it. You cannot “invade” a heretic’s territory; he has himself lost it through his heresy. The people who requested sacraments from these two or three are allowed under canon law to request these even from excommunicated priests. Whence an excommunicated priest’s jurisdiction? From the law which permits him to satisfy these requests, and from the requests themselves made under this law. If they are wrong, then jurisdiction is supplied under canon 209, which is tailor-made for such a situation. Or what is it for? The priest is legal, licit, competent any way we look at it. Should he hang back and let souls go to hell because you have qualms? His conscience probably won’t let him hesitate. He is on the scene; with his lay critics the problem is only academic. Father Buckley never considered that he had lost jurisdiction, needed only for valid administration of the . He had no church, no parish set-up. He traveled about as requested by Catholics legitimately and canonically requesting what he had been ordained to supply, and had no right to deny, whether or not his bishop had apostatized or refused. He was sure he acted correctly, and had the necessary jurisdiction. Those who approached him for the sacraments were just as sure. If all were wrong—and none of us had any doubt—they were all in a common error, and the Church supplied jurisdiction as its Canon 209 states. The law is there for a reason. The Church never legislates for impossible situations. It is a principle of Canon Law that privileges are taken in their broadest sense, and restrictions interpreted in their narrowest sense. This is not to say that we invoked Canon 209 for our actions. We never even considered it. But it is on the books, for the benefit of all Catholics, cleric and lay. It may not be deliberately invoked by heretics, schismatics, by wildcat groups established in the postconciliar “Church” or out of the Church; by “clerics” who have not

117 been sent—who never had a mandate from the Catholic Church. Canon Law supports the Catholic Church, not those who have left it. We cannot go outside the Church for its benefits. The occasional real priest who joins one of these wildcat groups is outside the Catholic Church. A priest is not sent by his own bishop. Still less is a bishop sent by the bishop who consecrates him. His authority comes from the Church, and not even from any particular pope. Any claim by $$PX that they were sent by Lefebvre, or that Lefebvre was sent by Lienart, is pre-doomed. They cannot successfully suggest this nonsense, which in no way parallels my projected (if needed) solution. They are, of course, public heretics, and fool only those who wish to be fooled or to dodge the issue by refusing to question. They have long established a pattern of behavior sufficient to prove malice—even if their orders could be valid. If any advocate or follower of $$PX thinks like I do, he misapplies my thoughts to a different set of facts. He upholds the orthodoxy of known heretics. He grants jurisdiction to a group neither individually nor collectively sent, therefore without mandate or jurisdiction, a group which moreover originated in the postconciliar “Church” and divides itself into breakaways suspiciously reminiscent of the typical fragmentation of , which began in obstinate diversity. An occasional heretic (bishop or diocesan spokesman) would complain that assistance at Father Buckley’s Mass could not satisfy the layman’s Sunday obligation. But in the utter unavailability of Mass under diocesan or equivalent auspices, the laity of the area had no obligation. The worst that the local heretic could say was that laymen ignored their obligation to attend idolatry in their parishes. It was not even a case of assuming jurisdiction in the diocese of a dead bishop; it was assuming jurisdiction to provide what the living heretical or retired bishop refused to provide under his obligation and duty, reinforced by canon law, to provide it. Both laity and clergy are bound (again under canon law) to ignore the orders of heretics, be they bishops or popes. What happens to the episcopal structure (constitution) of the Church if priests act in this manner? What structure? Where is it? The postconciliar “Church” has transformed it into committees of heretics, most invalidly “ordained,” who individually and collectively impede the proper activities of all diocesan bishops, even their own heretics. The requirement of jurisdiction was imposed in the first place so that the (Catholic) bishop could keep order in his own diocese, so that he could protect his flock from the spiritual and temporal depredations of opportunists and imposters. In our time the bishops and popes are themselves the imposters. To the objection that only popes and cardinals have universal jurisdiction, we draw attention to the little known fact that military and naval chaplains, and perhaps even the sky-pilots in the air forces, enjoyed this same privilege—not as a personal privilege, but for the benefit of the members of these forces and their families. Even chaplains on cruise ships have sacramental jurisdiction at all ports of call. Perhaps better known is the fact that missionary priests and

118 hospital chaplains often had faculties to administer Confirmation. Some even think they retain this privilege after such a tour. You ask the meaning of my statement that our Mass prayers automatically united us with all Catholics in worship. This is specified in the Te igitur, the first prayer of the Mass Canon, in which occur the words (modified according to the Ritus servandus) una cum omnibus orthodoxis, atque catholicae, et apostolicae fidei cultoribus (one with all orthodox keepers of the Catholic and Apostolic faith). We appreciate that they were only recited prayers, not Mass. But at least two or three had gathered together in His name. It makes sense to me that if a true bishop who is not a public heretic, having never signed or subscribed to the heretical documents of the Second Vatican Council, can be found, he could publish the disqualifying heresies of the last four antipopes, invoke the canons covering such a situation, and publicly assume papal duties for the purpose of preserving the Church, and, incidentally, the world itself. Having assumed these duties he could confer such orders and jurisdiction as seems necessary for that purpose. But this has not yet been done. So we are plagued with wildcats who never had a shadow of jurisdiction. During previous interregna the business of the Church continued as usual. Priests were ordained, missions were staffed, people were married, sacraments were provided, though no pope occupied the seat. No one was deprived of his ordinary means of salvation because his pope or his bishop had died. And no one who was properly sent can be called off or unsent because no one now properly fills the office which sent him. No citizen loses his liberty or property because his mayor, governor, or president has died, or even resigned. Did Christ say “Where two or three bishops are gathered together in My name?” What good is authority which cannot be used? There are no cardinals to elect a pope? Who are the cardinals? The titular clergy of the diocese of Rome. The argument for a true bishop assuming authority of a vacant see, including the Holy See, parallels the argument for the priest assuming jurisdiction. Were such a bishop to assume episcopal authority in the Roman see, how long would it take him to ordain or appoint clergy for his parishes and suburbicarian dioceses? Then, if he wished, he could call a legitimate conclave. Or he could resign his diocese and call a conclave. Or he could hang on to his assumed authority to keep things under control, whether or not he called himself pope, until he died. Not too long ago we contacted a bishop from behind the Iron Curtain, who when apprised of the situation decided to rectify it. Unfortunately he trusted the chief prelate of his rite, who owes his position and his phony episcopacy to JP2, and when he returned to his country to spread the word among his fellow bishops, who also had never attended Vatican II, he was confined in a government insane asylum and permitted no visitors, not even a priest when he “died.” But his situation was far from unique in his own country, and his is not the only country in which legitimate Catholic bishops continue to function. Why would they cease to function, especially in ignorance of the fact that the papacy has been hijacked? It is no part of a bishop’s job to retire, nor to apostatize. He remains a Catholic bishop responsible for his diocese. If it comes

119 to the point that he is the only Catholic bishop left, he is automatically the Bishop of Rome. And he may not shirk his duty. You ask under what canon law would he act. It is possible that in utterly unforeseen circumstances the Church has legislated nothing specific to be followed. But we have always been in mortal combat with the devil. What kind of army quits when it can’t find its general? What kind of regiment retires when its colonel is shot? Of what use is a squad that sits still till some one sends a replacement NCO? I have often used La Salette as you have: as an example of what ecclesiastical approval of a means. I cannot argue with your premise, which is, or should be, that the arrival of a time when we shall have only the faith left is not inconsistent with Catholic doctrine. My War is for the faith first, but I see no reason to jettison anything which supports and promotes that faith. Spiritual warfare is not defensive but total. We may in the end be permitted to lose even the faith. What interpretation are we to put upon Luke 18:7-8, wherein Jesus Christ says: “And will not God revenge his elect who cry to him day and night? And will he have patience in their regard? I say to you that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?” So we may have time left—arguably, the harder we fight, the more time. Why make it hard time? As a Dominican seconded to Maryknoll’s often remarked: “As long as you’re going, you may as well go first class.” “Does a priest, once having been ‘sent’, require no more authority over him than this fact? Surely not, if the ongoing protection of the laity is the primary function of the laws and practices of jurisdiction in the Church, or even a function at all.” But the priest was ordained for the Church. Whether his superiors go crazy, die, or apostatize has no effect on his mission. He is obliged to denounce the shepherds who have abandoned their duty; what leg has he to stand on if he abandons his own duty? He holds authority and jurisdiction from the Church. Is it your position that the Church has ceased to exist because its popes and hierarchy have left it? Being outside it, they have no effect on it or its members, clerical or lay. You grant us the right to fight for the Church but you deny the same right to the priest, who, in theory at least, is far more effective. Is he to plead that he has no back-up, and allow those whom he supports in the faith to try to save themselves without our ordinary means? When the father of a young family dies, is the oldest child forbidden to continue to raise the family? Will not the oldest child continue in the example his father set? Though the priest cannot claim infallibility, he need only proceed as he was trained and taught, and innovate nothing. What law forbids this course? If priests lost jurisdiction, when? At what point in the interregnum? You attribute me wrong priorities. I have always put the faith first. Unless we can reverse the Renewal we shall eventually lose Mass and sacraments, for lack of providers. We must keep the faith to be saved. Can we keep what we don’t know? Are we to shun the priest who can instruct us because his preaching faculties have supposedly lapsed when his superiors left the Catholic Church?

120 Nor have I denied the necessity of ordinary jurisdiction. A priest with ordinary jurisdiction cannot lose it through the failure of his superiors, nor can he violate the diocesan boundaries of apostates and heretics by his operation as a priest in their former territory. Obviously, as you say, not all priests are right (some, for instance, name the Koran Kisser in their Te igitur), but not all are wrong. If Father X brings in an unordained wildcat heretic to substitute for him, how can this affect the status of Fathers Y and Z? If I assist at Mass I must assure myself as far as possible that the Mass is celebrated by a genuine priest who believes in the Mass but not in the Mass-destroyers in Rome or the local diocese. The best method I have found is to ask the priest. If he refuses to answer I will not assist. I must take this responsibility to avoid heresy, sacrilege, idolatry. What law forbids me to assist at Mass because my superiors have died or apostatized? There is no present need to re-establish the papacy. All we need accomplish is to fill the established office, by at least one of the programs we have suggested, one of which requires no action whatsoever. Men have not destroyed the papacy; they have merely usurped it. Other men can throw them out. We are not entirely bereft of hierarchy, though those left are almost as old as I. Should a bishop have gone into hiding and failed to speak out against Vatican II, he would remain a bishop; if he decided to straighten things out he would still have the power. If he were in Russia or China he might never have heard of Vatican II. This has happened to missionary priests in ; they came down out of the Andes and found their Church missing. Not all quit. A major reason for Vatican negotiations with the Russian Orthodox and Chinese communists is to discover the genuine bishops in their regions and to neutralize them. I cannot say what God would expect of bishops these days. He may have expected more from those at Vatican II. But the enemy supplied Lefebvre to lead the opposition, then cave in publicly and sign away his “hopeless” fight. Objection—If a pagan can validly baptize as long as he uses the correct words and specified actions, why do you not recognize the validity of Archbp. Lefebvre’s consecration? Apparently the words and actions were properly done. Reply—These are not parallel cases. God wills the salvation of all men. Nowhere is He on record as willing that all men shall be bishops. “All men” in the first case includes all women and children; in the latter case women and children would be excluded. You have omitted one aspect of the pagan’s sacramental administration: He must have the intention of doing what the Church does, even if he believes the Church accomplishes nothing by the ceremony. I cannot recognize the validity of Lefebvre’s consecration because there is no validity to recognize. I base my attitude on previously published (The Enemy Is Here!) citations of authority: Lefebvre has foisted novus ordo “priests” on traditionalists for no other possible (not mutually exclusive) motives than occasioned idolatry or more collections. His motives and intentions in ordaining(?) religious illiterates—who cannot determine what constitutes heresy these days—consequently attract at least

121 suspicion—probably sufficient to invalidate his orders even were they otherwise unquestioned. Moral Theology, Heribert Jone & Urban Adelman, 1946, pp. 334-5: “460. Requirements for Valid Reception. 1. The recipient of a Sacrament must be in the wayfaring state and (except in case of Baptism) validly baptized...... 2. The required intention must be present...... 461. a)The implicit habitual intention is in itself sufficient for the valid reception of a Sacrament...... b) The implicit habitual intention is required in order that ordination be certainly valid, since the intention to assume a new state and new burdens is not readily included in another act of volition.” p. 468: “638. I. Validity requires that the candidate for ordination be a baptized male who, if an adult, must have at least the habitual explicit intention to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders.” Canon Law, A Text and Commentary, Bouscaren & Ellis, 1953, p. 422, Canon 968: “Only a person of the male sex who has been baptized can validly receive the sacrament of orders...... (1) the male sex … (2) baptism by water …A third requisite is supposed in the case of an adult: the intention to receive the sacrament—this is required for validity in adults; an habitual, express intention suffices, that is, a positive act of the will once formed and never retracted before the reception of orders.” Cursus Theologicus, Carolus Bozzola, S.J., 1948, Vol. IV, De Sacramentis, p. 296, under De subjecto sacramenti ordinis: “But in adults … is required at least habitual intention of receiving the sacrament.” Sacramental Theology, A Textbook for Advanced Students, Clarence McAuliff, S.J., 1958, pp. 64-5: “The recipient’s intention must be both external and internal. He must intend not only to receive the sacred rite (external intention), but also to receive it as an act of .” Summa Theologiae Moralis iuxta codicem iuris canonici, Noldin & Schmitt, 1938 (25th edition), III De Sacramentis, p. 476: “465...... for valid reception of orders it is required and it suffices (α) that the ordinand be a male; (β) that he be baptized; (γ) that he have at least habitual intention of receiving the order, if he be adult.” To receive Orders is the right of Catholic Church members only. Certainly the Church has no intention of conferring priesthood or episcopate upon non- members, especially ex-members. “Only citizens and members of the Church can come under her influence as such; baptism is the door by which we enter the Church.” Apostasy and excommunication are doors by which we leave the Church, and lose all rights of members, especially title to the episcopate. The bishop, says St. Thomas, must have the use of reason because he must intend to fulfil the duties of his office. “But for the episcopate whereby a man receives power also over the mystical body, the act of accepting the pastoral care of souls is required; wherefore the use of reason is necessary for the validity of episcopal consecration.” – S.T., Sup., Q.39, Art. 2 We can readily appreciate the utter lack of reason involved in accepting that a man who has both apostatized by, and been excommunicated for, joining the masons, having attained a lofty devil-worshipping degree, can intend to accept the pastoral care of Catholic souls. Here is a example of a man with a 122 four-square head attempting to fit it into a circular mitre. As Hugo Maria Kellner pointed out (Letter No. 75, April 1979), Achille Lienart was utterly ineligible for the episcopacy by reason of apostasy and excommunication, and was by reason of 30° Freemasonry utterly incapable of forming the correct intention to receive a sacrament for its proper purpose “as an act of Christian worship.” Indeed, Vatican II’s only benefit that comes to mind is that Achille Lienart there proved his diabolical orientation—which Lefebvre and his unordained crew impiously hope never interfered with his ecclesiastical actions. Perhaps they can bemuse themselves about his intention, but they cannot gainsay his perfect ineligibility—which made his intention irrelevant. Objection—You ask “Who sent the Society of St. Pius X?” — “Who sent the Society of St. Pius V?”—“Who sent the Society of St. Peter?”—“Who sent the CMRI?” They are all sent by Canon Law. Reply—Which Code? You could as well have based your “mission” and “mandate” on the Koran Kisser’s “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” or the Volstead Act, or the Magna Carta, or some other piece of paper. Who sent Canon Law? And how shall they preach unless they be sent? – Romans x, 15 Who sent St. Paul? Canon Law? We should not be too amazed or disappointed that wildcats will not understand what St. Paul meant by “sent.” John 17:18-21. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. John 20:21-23. He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Jesus Christ thus sent His Apostles. He entrusted them personally with His mission and mandate. St. John wrote this account about six or seven decades later, when no other Apostles remained alive. Since they had operated under this verbal mandate, they needed no paper authorization—no reliance on Canon Law. Strange, is it not, that wildcats who operate in flagrant violation of Canon Law should cite the same Law (by neither code nor number) as authority for their illicit operation. Argument Corner Objection—You refuse the ministrations of priests and bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, Society of St. Pius V, Society of St. John, Society of St. Peter, and the Schuckhardt crew, both those who stayed with him and those who now call themselves CMRI, partly because, you say, they have not been sent. What do you mean by sent?

123 Reply—Exactly what the Church has always meant, and as used roughly sixty times in the New Testament. As an instance, see The Catholic’s Ready Answer, M. P. Hill, S.J., Benziger Bros., 1915, pp. 101-2: “It takes no profound knowledge of history to see in the present hierarchy the lineal descendants, in a spiritual sense, of the apostles and their immediate successors. In each successive age we find the hierarchy of the time safely anchored in the past. Each diocese could exhibit the unbroken line of its spiritual rulers from the beginning. In the earlier centuries heresies were triumphantly refuted by the application of the touchstone of apostolic succession. ‘We have it in our power,’ said in the second century, ‘to enumerate those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches and the successors of those bishops down to ourselves.’ The same boast is repeated by Tertullian in the third century, and by others in successive ages down to the present. It is conceded by all that the present hierarchy of the Catholic Church is in a direct line of descent from the apostles. “The acknowledgment of this fact is a matter of the first importance; for undoubtedly if the question is, which of the churches is the of Christ, a church whose succession of teachers and rulers can be traced to apostolic days must possess an immense advantage in the discussion as compared with any church not possessing such perfectly visible links connecting it with the beginnings of Christianity. “And now let us apply the test of apostolicity to the other churches. How can they possibly establish any connection with the apostolic age? began with Luther, a self-commissioned preacher, who succeeded for a time in making his opinions acceptable to his followers. A similar origin is that of all the Evangelical religions that have sprung up since the first half of the sixteenth century. We gather from the sacred writings that a preacher must have his credentials. He cannot preach unless commissioned to do so. ‘How shall they preach unless they be sent?’ asks St. Paul, writing to the Romans (x. 15). No one can preach in Christ’s name unless commissioned by Christ Himself, as the apostles were, or by those who have received their authority from Him. Hence the necessity of a succession of commissioned preachers, each receiving his authority from another, and all tracing their commission back to Christ Himself. “How shall they preach unless they be sent? What answer then can be made to the crucial question, Who sent Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli to preach? And above all, who could have sent them to preach a doctrine at variance with that universally taught in the Church of Christ? Is there any meaning in being ‘sent’ if the one sent preaches what he pleases? “The truth is that the whole doctrine regarding the necessity of the preacher’s being sent was repudiated by the self-constituted reformers of the sixteenth century. They took the bold stand of preaching a doctrine opposed to that of the Church, although it was only from the Church they could have received a commission to preach at all. Did they fancy they were sent directly by the Holy Ghost? If so, what manner of credentials did they bring with them? … “Furthermore, the idea of apostolic continuity includes much more than the bare fact of succession in office; otherwise the occupant of an ,

124 though he turned Mohammedan and preached Mohammedanism, might still claim to be a successor of the apostles! The faith and practice of the apostles must also be handed on to posterity by the occupants of the sees. If the rulers of God’s Church in the twentieth century do not stand for all that the apostles stood for in point of teaching and ministry the note of apostolicity is gone. “It is conceivable that a bishop duly consecrated and given local jurisdiction should lapse from the faith and use his office in the interest of heresy. In that case apostolic succession would be a body without a soul. Jurisdiction, no less than orthodoxy, would necessarily cease, and true internal succession would be no more than a name. And if such a bishop should consecrate another to be his successor and to propagate his heresy, the status of the latter would be like that of his predecessor. This is plain common sense, as well as the teaching of the Fathers.” St. Paul’s question (Romans x, 15), “And how can they preach, unless they be sent?” applies to all those you have named. What did he mean? He began the same Epistle: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God.” Haydock Bible note: “Called to be an apostle, or a called apostle. That is, not only having the name of an apostle, but Having his call to this high function, and his mission from God. — Separated unto the gospel of God. He means that he was separated, from others, and appointed by the Holy Ghost to preach the Gospel, as we read in Acts xiii. 2. when the Holy Ghost to those of the Church at Antioch said, Separate me Saul and , for the work unto which I have taken them.” Note from the Rheims 1582 New Testament: “15. Unlesse they be sent.] This place of the Apostle invincibly condemneth al the preachings, writings, ordinances, innovations and usurpations of Church, pulpit, & whatsoever our new Evangelists have intruded themselves and entered into by the window : shewing that they be every one from the highest to the lowest, false prophets, running and usurping, being never lawfully called. Which is so evident in the Heretikes of our daies that the Calvinists confesse it in them selves, and say that there is an exception to be made in them, because they found the state of the Church interrupted.” Luckily, contemporary wildcats (named in your objection) have simplified argument by embracing more heresies nearly every time they put pen to paper.

Brian and Laura Kasbar of Spokane, WA have written an argument that cuts the legs from under CMRI, $$PX, $$PV, and other assorted wildcats. It is available from their Email address — [email protected] A command from competent authority confers upon those commanded an absolute right to carry out the command. What we are obliged to do, we have the right to do. A legitimate order carries within it both right and permission to obey it. End of St. Matthew’s Gospel, plus Challoner’s notes: “And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.”

125 [All power, etc... See here the warrant and commission of the apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christ’s church. He received from his Father all power in heaven and in earth: and in virtue of this power, he sends them (even as his Father sent him, St. John 20. 21) to teach and disciple, not one, but all nations; and instruct them in all truths: and that he may assist them effectually in the execution of this commission, he promises to be with them, not for three or four hundred years only, but all days, even to the consummation of the world. … ] “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” This mandate, issued by competent authority, is a legitimate divine command which establishes divine right for those sent—who are granted apostolicity and jurisdiction in the act of being sent. Pope Pius IX (Quartus Supra (1873): “We considered that We should not keep silence on Our right to elect a bishop … in case the Apostolic See should be forced to exercise this right in the future. But even if We had remained silent, this right and duty of the See of blessed Peter would have remained unimpaired. For the rights and privileges given to the See by Christ Himself, while they may be attacked, cannot be destroyed; no man has the power to renounce a Divine right which he might at some time be compelled to exercise by the will of God Himself.” Apostolicity and jurisdiction are inseparable. Only those sent have authority and jurisdiction. Without this authority and jurisdiction over you no priest can absolve you of your sins, no matter how well he pronounces the right words. All CMRI and $$PX “clerics” acknowledge that they lack jurisdiction. Kasbars: “If—as The Catholic Encyclopedia says (they quote it)—it is divine law that a bishop have ordinary jurisdiction for his diocese, … every epikeian bishop is in trouble. He does not have what divine law says he must have. He has no diocese and he has no ordinary jurisdiction. He has no argument against this point (because there is no argument against divine law)—and epikeia cannot be used to set aside divine law.” “… epikeia can be used only to excuse a person from an obligation, not to permit something which is forbidden.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Apostolicity: “Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. … it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, … [An] ‘Apostle’ is one sent, sent by authority of Jesus Christ to continue His Mission upon earth, especially … the twelve Apostles. Therefore the Church is called Apostolic, because it was founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. Apostolicity of doctrine and mission is necessary … Apostolicity of mission means that the Church is one moral body, possessing the mission entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Apostles, and transmitted through them and their lawful successors in an unbroken chain to the present representatives of 126 Christ upon earth. This authoritative transmission of power in the Church constitutes Apostolic Succession. This Apostolic Succession must be both material and formal.; the material consisting in the actual succession in the Church, through a series of persons from the Apostolic age to the present; the formal adding the element of authority in the transmission of the ministerial power conferred by Christ upon His Apostles. “No one can give a power which he does not possess. Hence in tracing the mission of the Church back to the Apostles no lacuna can be allowed, no new mission can arise; but the mission conferred by Christ must pass from generation to generation through an uninterrupted lawful succession. … Any break in this succession destroys Apostolicity, because the break means the beginning of a new series which is not Apostolic. ‘How shall they preach unless they be sent?’ (Rom. x, 15) An authoritative mission to teach is absolutely necessary, a man-given mission is not authoritative. Hence any concept of Apostolicity that excludes authoritative union with the Apostolic mission robs the ministry of its Divine character. Apostolicity, or Apostolic Succession, then, means that the mission conferred by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles must pass from them to their legitimate successors, in an unbroken line, until the end of the world.” Two wildcats sent me copies of their protests to the Kasbars. The “bishop” wrote after reading half their article, the “priest”, after a “not too careful” perusal. Both are absolute strangers to logic. If Christ’s mission must go on to the end, it must proceed under His rules, which are a large part of the mission. Though the “bishop” assumes that jurisdiction is not to be had, it must go on, therefore it will go on, because God wills it. [Robbery and murder have never existed because they are incompatible with God’s will.] A wildcat bishop has a solemn duty to consecrate bishops and ordain priests. [Has he not an equally solemn duty to consecrate or ordain men of good character, sufficient education, and orthodoxy? In his current practice he assumes far heavier responsibility than they who abide by the laws.] If he wishes to claim he has a mission, let him show who sent him—and why he was not armed with the necessary jurisdiction. “Some one’s gotta do it” is no argument. No one comes to us on his own authority. It is an Apostolic rule that he must be sent. This is how he has a mission and mandate. Without it he jeopardizes not only his own salvation but ours as well. The “priest” answered specifics with fog. Catholics are entitled to reasoned argument. It is hardly convincing to tell them that if the specifics are to be accepted then we will lose the Mass and the sacraments, when obviously most Catholics have lost them already. But he will save us with a band or two of outlaws with immense clouds over validity of their orders! Who sent them? Whence their jurisdiction? He says emergency! All his authorities support emergency or supplied jurisdiction of real Catholic priests, but he applies this support to wildcats. He ignores their lack of training, violation of the law, and heresies. They can confer no benefit on Catholics, for whose salvation they claim to labor—with great profit.

127 $$PX and its breakaway $$P openly acknowledge the “authority and legitimacy” of the usurpers. CMRI (which originated in schism, heresy, and highly suspect orders) bases its legitimacy on Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc, who, like Lefebvre, signed most of the Vatican II documents, and had thereby also lost all office in the Church. Let us all try to cope with our four-decade crisis. But the prohibition on leaving the Church in quest of Mass and sacraments is Scriptural (Romans x, 13-15) and absolute. This wildcat “priest” denies us recourse to older, legitimately ordained priests because they followed Paul VI and thereby “lost jurisdiction,” while he upholds Ngo Dinh Thuc’s orders conferred subsequent to his approving signature on all Vatican II documents (which excommunicated him for public heresy) and to his years as a curate for a novus ordo apostate schismatic “bishop” in France. If no one may approach a “compromised” priest, who can accept “orders” from a far more heavily compromised bishop? Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc has another defender, who says we should treat the poor man better. We have no basis for suspecting his mental condition. But such suspicions treat him more kindly than attributions of normalcy, from which it would follow that he had created this episcopal chaos in cold blood. This defender has advanced several questionable arguments, which we have phrased as questions. A pope is not subject to Canon Law? If not, it is so argued because the lawgiver is not subject to his own laws. But in many cases these are not his own laws; they derive their authority from God Himself, and a pope is just as bound as we, not merely to obey but to back them with his own God-given authority. He is as bound to Divine law as he is to divine dogma and morals. See pp. 93- 94 of Is The Pope Catholic?. Obviously a pope is subject to Divine law, even should it appear also in Canon Law. St. Paul’s question, And how shall they preach unless they be sent? (Romans x, 15), is Divine law right out of Holy Scripture, and can be neither ignored nor set aside. In the forties the of , New York, was Archbishop Thomas E. Molloy. He was Bishop of Brooklyn, but archbishop ad personam. But he would not have been an archbishop had he not been first a diocesan ordinary. Similarly, if Ngo Dinh Thuc was a legate or privileged to consecrate bishops in his archdiocese without papal mandates because of unsettled circumstances, he came by this privilege simply and solely because he was Ordinary of his diocese. Both privilege and therefore depended upon his remaining, among other things, Catholic and a bishop. When he signed the heretical documents of the Second Vatican Council he defected from the faith and “ipso facto, sine ulla declaratione” lost all offices in the Church. Can a non-Catholic—bishop, patriarch, whatever—send anyone to Catholics? He has himself no jurisdiction; how can he confer it on others?

128 You would require Thuc’s formal deposition according to Augustine’s Commentary (on Canon 2314) before denying his competence and authority. Accordingly we must accept four antipopes. Who is to administer this “intricate procedure?” Can a heretic deposed ipso facto sine ulla declaratione somehow keep his former Catholic status because no authority competent to make his defection “official” exists? Pius XI, like all popes, was guided by the Holy Ghost in his field of infallibility —faith and morals—not necessarily in particular actions. Why, for instance, did he sign a treaty with the illegitimate government that had stolen the ? Why did he suppress the Cristero movement that had almost eliminated the masonic government of Mexico? In Thuc’s case plenipotentiary powers were supposedly conferred on a bishop whose episcopacy was essential to their use. When he loses his office he loses the powers. Thuc lost his office through heresy. A heretic cannot be pope. How can he be a patriarch? Canon 188 deposed him. Formal deposition was not needed. We cannot be saddled with a heretic because no authority competent to depose him exists. Warning? Where is the warning authority? Vindictive penalties are irrelevant. Canon 188 covers the situation, and it binds us: we may not resort to heretics. Augustine’s exposition is impractical in the postconciliar vacuum of authority. It makes no difference to the argument that other bishops also signed the Vatican II decrees and documents. It is irrelevant that Archbishop Pintonello signed none of those, though that fact is what drew attention to him. It is irrelevant that Father Emmet Buckley never once perpetrated the novus ordo missae, even though you question that well established fact. Your “thesis is that Pius XI … commanded and conferred upon Archbishop Thuc, Plenipotentiary Powers the absolute right to carry out his command,” (probably to staff his own patriarchate. The Holy See has always protected its Ordinaries from outside invasion. Such an invasion could not have been conferred in secret—without notice to all Ordinaries concerned.) whatever that command was, and as long as Thuc remained Catholic and compos mentis. If he had such powers why did he not cite them in his justification of his later consecrations? I concede that the bogus popes had no authority to remove his powers, whatever they were, as long as he remained Catholic. But he did not. Were there no madhouses before specialists and experts? How were people recognized as insane before Freud? From their irrational words or actions! Who needs a doctor or a psychiatrist to determine irrationality? Any bishop not under duress who signed the heretical decrees and documents of the Second Vatican Council must be suspected of incompetence in his own field or of malevolence. For how can he be forced into heresy? Is he not obliged to die first? When a bishop “consecrates” ineligibles (for age, education, orthodoxy, and more), he performs irrational acts. If he was fooled once, why not again? How can we bank on the chaining of a loose cannon? Why and how may I not entertain doubts as to his competence and his sanity?

129 How am I to know if he was in good conscience, or if he had repented, confessed, and been absolved? I certainly hope so. But I must question his public actions. I cannot be charitable to him at the Church’s expense. And his “declaration before the whole world” came well after further irrational and irresponsible actions, probably in an attempt to justify some of them. He defended his actions of the previous year on grounds of heresy held by those who should have issued mandates for his wildcat consecrations, and on his supposed status as a Catholic bishop. Why would he not have advanced his patriarchal status and the special powers attached thereto if these were factual? Would they not have constituted a far better argument? Or could he have been so far off base that he could not realize this?

Guest Argument Corner – Leonard Giblin Non sequitur—I am not a Sedevacantist; I am a Catholic. Reply—Nor am I a sedevacantist. But I recognize that to claim sedevacantists are not Catholic one must reject Church history, law, and what the eminent Church Doctor, St. Robert Bellarmine, demonstrated to be the teaching of “all of the ancient Fathers.” If serious, your statement raises doubts about your own Catholicity. Furthermore, your Society of Pius X is schismatic whether or not JP2 is a real pope. If he is a true pope then $$PX has been excommunicated by his decree and by Canon and Divine Law because $$PX denies the jurisdiction of the proper authorities and assumes (fictitious) jurisdiction, e.g. marriage annulments. Yes, I have heard the desperate, contorted “$$PX is not excommunicated because of Epikeia” argument, but that dog doesn't hunt. The argument is basically, “The pope has power and jurisdiction only when we agree with him. For instance, he can change Christ’s words and intention (Novus Ordo Mass) and we must accept it as valid, but he cannot validly excommunicate us, etc.” $$PX defies all common sense. How can a pope have authority over the mind of Christ and not over $$PX? The Society recognizes the violation Christ’s rights as a valid (if sinful) use of authority but it will not recognize the validity of what it considers to be a violation of its own rights by the same authority. Every one of $$PX’s uncatholic theories about how JP2 et al. can both be and not be popes defies explicit Church teaching and Canon Law (not to mention plain ole common sense). Unless $$PX condemns the errors and heresies of the N.O. hierarchy and demonstrates that they have thereby deposed themselves (see below), $$PX has absolutely no claim against their Jurisdiction. $$PX apologists like selectively to quote Bellarmine, as in the immediately following excerpt. Bellarmine is a very great authority, with regard to the Roman Pontiff. Pius IX, the Pope upon whose authority the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was promulgated, declared him a Doctor of the Church. His De Romano Pontifice was part of the corpus for which he was declared a Doctor. Therefore, Pius IX, the Pope of Infallibility recommends that we consult Bellarmine for guidance in questions regarding the Roman Pontiff.

130 Commonly quoted by $$PX and others: “Just as it as it is licit to resist the [Roman] Pontiff who attacks the body, so also it is licit to resist him who attacks souls, or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, him who tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.” - St. Robert Bellarmine: De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, c.29. But why do $$PXers and defenders of JP2’s validity stop their quotation there? Bellarmine did not mean to say that a heretic retained the papacy or even membership in the Church. To quote only the above reverses Bellarmine’s intended point that a heretical pope deposes himself, which is the “sedevacantist” position. After reading more of Bellarmine’s work (below); will you say that Bellarmine and “all of the ancient Fathers” are not Catholic?! Here are more quotes from the same work, cap. 30: “The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. de great. Christ. cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.). and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” “...therefore, also the Pope heretic ceases to be Pope by himself, without any deposition.” “Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are ipso facto deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity.” “Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4@ epist. 2) who speaks as follows of , who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: ‘He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.’ “According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.” Clearly, what the Church doctors, laws and history teach is that a heretical pope is judged and deposed, ipso facto, by his own actions. He thereafter becomes an antipope usurper of the Holy See, the authority of which he has irretrievably

131 lost, completely independently of whether or not the faithful acknowledge the fact. Furthermore, as Bellarmine demonstrates in the following quote, regarding Papal history, we must accept that the burden of proof is upon the claimant to the Roman See, even if he is not a public heretic and only fails, like Liberius, in his “constancy in defending the Faith.” If this is not true, then the venerated Felix II was actually an antipope and papal succession was broken and lost long ago. Bellarmine states that, “In addition, unless we are to admit that Liberius [a true pope] defected for a time from constancy in defending the Faith, we are compelled to exclude Felix II, who held the pontificate while Liberius was alive, from the number of the Popes: but the Catholic Church venerates this very Felix as Pope and martyr. However this may be, Liberius neither taught heresy, nor was a heretic, but only sinned by EXTERNAL ACT [emphasis in original Latin], as did St. Marcellinus, and unless I am mistaken, sinned less than St. Marcellinus." (fib. IV, c. 9, no. 5) Bellarmine recounts Liberius’ loss of office (no. 15): “Then two years later came the lapse of Liberius, of which we have spoken above. Then indeed the Roman clergy, stripping Liberius of his pontifical dignity, went over to Felix, whom they knew to be a Catholic. From that time, Felix began to be the true Pontiff. “For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.” Why do $$PX and “traditionalist” JP2 defenders quote Bellarmine out of context, insinuating that he taught something in direct opposition to what he intended? If that isn’t fraud, then the word has no meaning. Bellarmine demonstrates that it is the teaching of “all of the ancient Fathers” that a heretical Pope, automatically, ipso facto and without declaration, deposes himself. It is also Canon Law (e.g. 188). Not only that but we are bound to believe that Liberius’ “peace” with the Arian heretics merits the “presumption” of heresy and the loss of office, even while he was still alive. If we reject the “sedevacantists” position out of hand then we reject our own Catholicity because we must also reject the post Liberius Papacy. So, why does $$PX reject and obscure the teaching of “all of the ancient Fathers,” Canon Law, and Church history? How can one reject these and remain Catholic? I would hope that you would not buy a used car from such frauds and, even more so, I pray that you would not trust your soul to them. If, as evidenced by the Bellarmine quotes and their manifest heresies and their false “peace” and “unity” with heretics, JP2 et al. are antipopes then $$PX is recognizing usurpers against the true Papacy; which is either waiting in exile or

132 waiting to be chosen by a council (see, again, Bellarmine and others). In this case $$PX is a huge obstacle to the Church and the Papacy because of the fraud that it is perpetrating in confusing well meaning Catholics. Whatever the reality of the post-1958 Papacy, $$PX is in opposition to the Church. $$PX has taken a position that is schismatic whether or not JP2 et al. are real popes! And they have rejected and obscured the Church’s laws and teaching on the crisis that we face today. In riding the fence $$PX has refused to side with the Church (wherever it is) and has thereby rejected it. Our Lord said that he would vomit out the lukewarm. Whatever the reality of the Papacy, $$PX’s fence riding must be awfully bitter gall in His mouth. Given the diabolical, double-minded disorientation resulting from trying to hold $$PX’s mutually exclusive contradictions and $$PX’s vicious destruction of countless Catholic groups and chapels, one can only conclude that they are part of the attack on the Church and definitely not the solution. While I recognize the Catholicity of the position, I am not a “sedevacantist.” However, I have no doubt that Paul VI and JP2 are antipopes. According to the teaching of the Church & Canon Law, if they ever were true popes, then by their public heresies and defection from “constancy in defending the Faith” (easily the greatest “papal” defection in the Church’s history) they have deposed themselves. I am not “judging” them. I am only acknowledging what I can not honestly deny to be the Church’s judgment. If the Church’s condemnation of Liberius is valid then She can not possibly accept the “postconciliar Popes.” For if it is valid for the Church to reject Liberius (a rejection that we must accept) on the “presumption” that he was a heretic due to his “peace” with the Arians then I can not honestly believe that Paul VI and JPII have escaped the same judgement. If Liberius never taught anything that could be confused with heresy then how can the Church accept a “pope” whose teachings smack so strongly of heresy and sometimes even use the very words by which the heresy was previously condemned? And if, as Bellarmine says, “Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him,” then it is not possible that the same Church recognizes the pontificate of a “Pope” who boldly promotes false, political “peace” and “unity” with heretics, schismatics, Communists and devil worshipers. The duty of the Papacy is to promote and secure unity in the Faith not the purely political “unity” of false Ecumenism, which has been so clearly condemned as antithetical and destructive not only to the Faith but to even the concept of Truth itself. I say that I am not a “sedevacantist” because when such papal crises have occurred in the past, it has been found that the suspect pontiffs were in fact antipopes. Some even appear to have been canonically elected. St. Bernard opposed antipope Anacletus II, who had been properly elected by a group of Cardinals. After witnessing Anacletus’ destruction of tradition, Bernard became convinced that Innocent II, who had been elected by another group of Cardinals a bit earlier, was the true Pope. St. Bernard had quite a battle because of the

133 almost universal acceptance of Anacletus II. This must have convinced him that the reign of antipope Anacletus II prefigured the foretold Great Apostasy when the faithful, out of false obedience, will refuse to suspend their obedience to an antipope, even after his apostasy and heresy are made manifest. We must remember that for an antipope to be successful, the great majority of the faithful must believe that he is a true pope, no matter what he says or does. But he is not going to say, “Everyone who wants to apostatize and reject the Church of Christ, follow me.” Rather, his message will be exactly the opposite. It will be those who remain faithful and refuse to join the apostasy that will be called “disobedient” and schismatic”; not for believing heresy but for refusing the novelties of the antipope which contradict previous condemnations. We are being tested as to whether we will accept, out of a false, sinfully blind obedience, the most blatant antipopes in the Church’s history. The only alternative is to acknowledge the Church’s clear condemnation of them and defend and preserve the Faith. The most commonly heard defense for JP2 et al. is that the Holy See can not be usurped and that a Pope can not depose himself because “that would mean that the ‘gates of hell’ have prevailed.” This is not a defense but rather, a rejection of the Church’s teaching, law, and undeniable history and therefore a rejection of the Church itself. Ironically, it is because of this widely held false faith that the ‘gates of hell’ have made so much progress against the Faith. This false faith plays right into the hands of the Adversary. Sts. Augustine, Jerome, Bernard, Francis, and many many other Fathers and saints have taught that the only way that the Great Apostasy, foretold in Scripture, could occur is by usurpation of the Holy See. Of course, for it to work, the faithful must refuse to believe that the Holy See can be usurped so that they excuse the apostasy and heresy and the lack of their condemnation. And they must accept the destruction of what the Church has built and preserved over so many centuries; especially, most especially, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Whether we are witnessing the Great Apostasy or just a very good foreshadowing of what is to come, we will be judged on our obedience. If we blindly turn our back on the Church and refuse to accept that the Holy See can be usurped or that a heretical Pontiff deposes himself then we proclaim obedience not to Holy See but to its usurpation by Antichrist’s false prophets. Our Lady of La Salette only repeated the warning of the Fathers and Saints when she told us “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist ... The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.” It requires no real faith to believe blindly that the Holy See can not be usurped, thereby rejecting and denying the actual history and reality of the Church. But, it does require true faith and hope to believe that our Lord has given us the means to know and preserve the Faith and His Church.

#37, August 1995 Leonard Feeney himself ascribed such concepts as , invincible ignorance, and allied matters to the influence of Cardinal Gibbons and Archbp. Ireland, who were scoring brownie points with Protestants at the turn of the century. These ideas were at that time introduced 134 into the Church, which then, under the influence of liberals and Freemasons, adopted them and baptized them with desire. But these ideas are among the oldest in our Church, and seem to fit the requirements of St. Vincent of Lerins, that we believe only what has been held by all Catholics of all times and places. At just this point, Feeney’s innovation falls down: So far as I can determine, it is held by only a few people in this century in . In my immense correspondence and acquaintance around the world, I have found no one in the rest of the world who has heard of Leonard Feeney or his great cause. Any time I have brought him up outside of the U.S.A. I have had to spell out the doctrine, with which I am familiar because of the missionary zeal of Feeneyite friends and correspondents. No one, cleric or lay, outside the United States had ever heard such nonsense until I mentioned it. Where the Council of Trent clearly said “baptism of water or its desire” Feeneyites argue that this deliberate fraud was originally “baptism of water and its desire.” The almost automatic response is: “They’ve done away with infant baptism!” The Feeneyites’ blind bravery amazes me. All not in agreement are heretics, therefore hellward bound, along with all upon whom the water has not been poured. They limit God’s power and mercy. They also make unnecessary judgments on all us heretics, while they expect safe passage by the Judge Whose power and mercy they have limited, and Who has said: “For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matt. vii, 2). How do I benefit if my rich neighbor goes broke? Nor will his damnation benefit me. Especially is there no benefit for the Feeneyite, who, even should he be correct in his innovation, can err with the best of us. On his own principles, then, though he believes himself correct on every slightest point, an even slighter error of which he is innocently unaware will condemn him to eternal punishment. Now for the evidence: THE CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTED in the Sacraments, Sacrifice, Ceremonies, and Observances of the Church By Way of Question and Answer, by the Rt. Rev. Richard Challoner, D.D. V.A. &c. Sixteenth Edition, Revised and Corrected. Dublin: James Duffy, 7, Wellington Quay and 22, Paternoster Row, London 1861 (First edition 1737) Page 42. Question. May not a person obtain the remission of his sins, and eternal salvation, without being actually baptized? Answer. In two cases he may. The first is, when a person not yet baptized, but heartily desiring baptism, is put to death for the faith of Christ, before he can have this sacrament administered to him; for such a one is baptized in his own blood. The second case is, when a person that can by no means procure the actual administration of baptism, has an earnest desire of it, joined with a perfect love of God, and repentance of his sins, and dies in this disposition; for this is called the Baptism of the Holy Ghost; Baptismus Flaminis. THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol III, 564d: Challoner’s “success as a teacher was probably due rather to his untiring industry and devotion to his work than to any extraordinary mental power, for he was never an original thinker, but his gift lay in enforcing the spiritual reality of the doctrines he was

135 expounding. His fervent piety was his chief characteristic, and this appears even in his controversial works.” John ix, 41: Jesus said to them; If you were blind, you should not have sin : but now you say, We see; Your sin remaineth. xv, 22: If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin. 24: If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin: but now they have both seen, and hated both me and my Father. Luke xxiii, 42. And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me, when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. 43: And Jesus said to him: Amen, I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. Canon 737: §1. Baptismus, Sacramentorum janua ac fundamentum, omnibus in re vel saltem in voto necessarius ad salutem, valide non confertur, nisi per ablutionem aquae verae et naturalis cum praescripta verborum forma. [Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, necessary to salvation for all in fact or at least in desire, is not validly conferred, if not through ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words.] Charles Augustine, O.S.B.: A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol 4, p. 33: Baptism is called the gate to, and the foundation of, the other Sacraments, because without it no other Sacrament can be validly received. The Church has ever taught that Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation,—either really or by desire—and that consequently no other sacrament can be validly received without it. Thus ordination would be invalid and imprint no indelible character if the ordinandus had not been baptized. This necessity of Baptism is called necessitas medii, necessity of means, because without it salvation cannot be obtained. The reason for this absolute necessity lies in the words of Our Lord, John III, 5. Either in re or in voto signifies that the baptismus fluminis or flaminis or sanguinis is sufficient. Henry J. Davis, S.J., Moral & Pastoral Theology, Vol III, p. 40: ..... since Baptism by water is not always possible, its place can be supplied by Baptism of desire or of the Holy Spirit, and by Baptism of Blood. Baptism of the Spirit means the reception of sanctifying grace, and therefore of spiritual life through an act of perfect charity or of perfect contrition for sin, and these acts include, at least implicitly, the desire to receive actual Baptism, inasmuch as they include the desire to fulfil all the commands of Christ. This Baptism of the Spirit remits mortal sins and the eternal punishment due to them. Baptism of blood means martyrdom endured by an unbaptized person for Christ or for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue, faith being presupposed. The martyrdom of children, who cannot exercise a human act, supplies in their case the place of actual Baptism by water. In an adult, some act of sorrow for mortal sin, if present, is necessary for fruitful reception, and some intention of receiving Baptism for valid reception. Baptism by water or the desire of it (in re aut in voto) is necessary for the salvation of all adults. H. Noldin, S.J. (Prof Moral Theology, Innsbruck, till 1909) Summa Theologiae Moralis, De Sacramentis, Editio XXV (1938), 55. 2. From the

136 sacrament which is called baptismus fluminis is distinguished baptismus flaminis and baptismus sanguinis. a. Baptismus flaminis (or of the Holy Ghost) is perfect charity or contrition, in which is contained the desire of receiving the sacrament of Baptism; but perfect charity and contrition have the power of conferring sanctifying grace. Baptismus flaminis does not imprint the character and in the same way does not always wipe out all consequences of venial sin and temporal punishment, nevertheless according to the intensity of the act of love it remits now more, now less, now even all consequences. b. Baptismus sanguinis is martyrdom suffered for the sake of the Faith...... does not imprint the baptismal character but wipes out all sin and punishment. Heribert Jone, Moral Theology, p. 341: 470—II. Baptism of water is necessary for the attainment of salvation as an indispensable means for reaching that end. Only in exceptional cases can it be substituted by Baptism of desire or of blood. Baptism of blood consists in suffering death for Christ. It operates quasi , i.e., no subjective act is required, and hence, even infants can be justified in this wise. The Baptism of desire consists in an act of perfect contrition or perfect love, which acts somehow include a desire for Baptism.— Neither Baptism of desire nor of blood imprint an indelible character. The obligation to be baptized by water still remains. Denzinger 388: ..... We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and ) that the priest whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the faith of holy mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland. Read in the eighth book of Augustine’s “City of God” where ..... it is written, “Baptism is ministered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes.” Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the priest mentioned. Denzinger 413 [From the letter “Debitum pastoralis officii” to Berthold, Bishop of Metz, August 28, 1206]: You have, to be sure, intimated that a certain Jew, when at the point of death, since he lived only among Jews, immersed himself in water while saying: “I baptize myself in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.” We respond that, since there should be a distinction between the one baptizing and the one baptized, as is clearly gathered from the words of the Lord, when He says to the Apostles: “Go baptize all nations in the name etc.” [cf Matt. 28:19], the Jew mentioned must be baptized again by another, that it may be shown that he who is baptized is one person, and he who baptizes is another...... If, however, such a one had died immediately, he would have rushed to his heavenly home without delay because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.

137 Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, pp. 62-3: In adults the baptism of desire or of blood may supply the place of baptism by water. Thus an act of perfect love of God remits sin, original and actual, and confers sanctifying grace. Our Lord in St. John’s Gospel (John xiv, 21: He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them : he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved by my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. 23. If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.) promises that He will love those who love Him, a promise that would not be fulfilled if a man who loved God above all things and for His own sake, were still allowed to remain God’s enemy in consequence of unforgiven sin. The baptism of blood—i.e. martyrdom—not only forgives sin but remits the temporal penalties of sin also. St. Cyprian says of catechumens who died before being baptized with water, that they had in fact been baptized “with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood,” and Tertullian witnesses to the belief of the early Church that the Holy Innocents were sanctified by their blood. Denzinger 796. Council of Trent, Sessio VI, Cap 4: In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the “adoption of sons” [Rom. 8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, .....(Quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto, fieri non potest.) Walter Farrell, O.P., A Companion to the Summa, Vol IV, pp. 282-3: Besides this, there are two abnormal or emergency exits from the death of sin into the life of grace. One, the path taken by the martyrs is known as the Baptism of blood, and is a complete destruction of sin along with full infusion of the life of grace accomplished by the infallible power of God in return for the supreme witness of martyrdom. The other, baptism of fire or desire, destroys sin and brings life to the soul by reason of the very dispositions of the individual; he has turned to God in his unconditional desire to do all that must be done for salvation. All three —of water, of fire, and of blood— concur in their common effect of sanctifying grace, in birth to the divine life. But only one of the three is a sacrament; for only one produces its effect of its very nature by reason of its institution, only one is a sensible sign signifying and producing grace—the Baptism of water. This is, therefore, the only one of the three which produces that indelible mark of fellowship with Christ which is the character of the sacrament. Consequently, it is only the Baptism of water that requires a living instrument of divine power, a minister; surely, it is clear that there is no minister of the desires that spring from the depths of a man’s heart, while to classify a lion in a Roman arena as a minister of Baptism would be stretching things somewhat...... while baptism of fire and of blood share with baptism of water the honor of ushering a man into divine life, the first two reach only to the barest essentials. Wherever it is at all possible, Baptism of water must be received, for

138 Christ has commanded it and with good reason. It is only by Baptism of water that a man receives his badge of membership in Christ, his titles to the reception of the other sacraments, and his incorporation into the visible Church; ..... Baptism of fire may stop far short of a total remission of sin since it is so dependent on the dispositions of the subject; while Baptism of water is a complete remission both of sin and the punishment due to it, a secure remission infallibly producing its effects, not by reason of the dispositions of the subject, but by reason of the institution of Christ. A Compendium of Catechetical Instruction, Edited, Rt. Rev. Msgr. John Hagan, Rector, Irish College, Rome, Vol. II, p. 60 [Raineri’s (1761-1840) Instructions]: Great, however, as is the necessity of Baptism, it is certain, according to the teaching of the Church, that it can be supplied in two other ways—by desire and by martyrdom. First, by desire—a kind of Baptism which applies to adults only. If an unbaptized adult, finding himself at the point of death, or even at any other time, has a lively contrition for his sins, along with an ardent desire of receiving Baptism, his desire, accompanied by charity, would accomplish in him what the sacrament accomplishes. And in fact the Church has always looked favourably on the eternal salvation of those catechumens who, while seriously preparing to receive Baptism, were cut off by sudden death. Nor would it be useless even for us to conceive such a desire; for this reason, that while Catholics born of Christian parents and in Christian countries have usually no reason for doubt as to the Baptism received by them, yet no one can be infallibly certain that he has been validly baptized. True, a faint doubt of the kind should not be allowed to trouble us; but at the same time each one is wisely advised to excite in himself, now and then, the desire of being baptized, and renew an act of perfect love of God, with sincere sorrow for the sins he may have committed, and along with this the wish to be baptized in case the Baptism already received was null and void. Secondly, by martyrdom—and this applies to both adults and infants. Hence if a child or an adult is put to death for the cause of Jesus Christ and His holy Faith, that death holds for him the place of Baptism. Nor does it matter that a child is not able to suffer death for Jesus Christ without full knowledge of the cause, and with free act of the will—to be put to death even without knowing it is enough for God to be pleased to consider him a martyr and save him, as He saves other children by means of ordinary Baptism without their knowledge and without any consent of their will. Of this we have an example in the children the impious Herod put to death in Bethlehem and its neighbourhood on the occasion of the birth of Christ. The Church celebrates their feast and honours them as martyrs. In like manner also the Church honours as martyrs numbers of Gentiles who, in times of persecution, presented themselves before the tyrants, proclaimed themselves Christians and on that account suffered death even before they were baptized. We can, then distinguish three kinds of Baptism—of water, of blood, and of desire. This does not mean that there is not properly only one single Baptism, according to St. Paul’s expression: One faith, one Baptism; for Baptism as a sacrament is only one, that is Baptism of water, while the other two are not

139 properly Baptisms nor sacraments conferring grace, but are improperly called Baptism for the reason, that in defect of the Baptism of water, the other two take its place, and through the merciful disposition of God produce the same effect. Hence it is that an adult, justified by the Baptism of desire, is not dispensed thereby from receiving the Baptism of water; just in the same way as a man who, by virtue of perfect contrition, has obtained of his sins is not dispensed from the obligation of confession. Gaume, The Catechism of Perseverance, 1842, Vol II, pp. 388-9: We distinguish three kinds of Baptism. The first is Baptism of water: this is the Sacrament. The second is the Baptism of fire: this denotes a movement of the Holy Ghost which produces Faith, Charity, and Repentance in the soul— consequently a desire, at least implicit, of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. The third is the Baptism of blood: this is martyrdom. The second and third are not Sacraments. We give them the name of Baptism, because they purify the soul from sin, and supply for the want of the Sacrament when it cannot be had. Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884: 1. The one is the Kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and they who desire from their heart to be united with it, so as to gain salvation, must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten Son with their whole mind and with an entire will. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, [William H. W. Fanning, S.J., Professor, Church History & Canon Law, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Mo.] Vol. II, p. 266: X. Substitutes for the Sacrament.—The Fathers and theologians frequently divide baptism into three kinds: the baptism of water (aquae or fluminis), the baptism of desire (flaminis), and the baptism of blood (sanguinis). However, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits sins. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire or the baptism of blood. (1) The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism. The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The “baptism of the Holy Ghost” is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book “De Rebaptismate”. The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John, iii), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John, xiv): “He that loveth me, shall be loved by my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” And again: “If anyone love Me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him.” Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins. This doctrine is set forth clearly by the Council of Trent. In the fourteenth session (cap. iv) the

140 council teaches that contrition is sometimes perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God, before the Sacrament of Penance is received. In the fourth chapter of the sixth session, in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it says that men cannot obtain original justice “except by the laver of regeneration or its desire” (voto). The same doctrine is taught by Pope Innocent III (cap. Debitum, iv, De Bapt.), and the contrary propositions are condemned by Popes Pius V and Gregory XII, in proscribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius. [31. Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a “pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned” (I Tim. i,5), can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins. 32. That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins. 33. A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfils the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.] We have already alluded to the funeral oration pronounced by St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. The doctrine of the baptism of desire is here clearly set forth. St. Ambrose asks: “Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it.” St. Augustine (IV, De Bapt., xxii) and St. Bernard (Ep lxxvii, ad H. de S. Victore) likewise discourse in the same sense concerning the baptism of desire. If it be said that this doctrine contradicts the universal law of baptism made by Christ (John, iii), the answer is that the lawgiver has made an exception (John, xiv) in favour of those who have the baptism of desire. Neither would it be a consequence of this doctrine that a person justified by the baptism of desire would thereby be dispensed from seeking after the baptism of water when the latter became a possibility. For, as has already been explained the baptismus flaminis contains the votum of receiving the baptismus aquae...... some of the Fathers of the Church arraign severely those who content themselves with the desire of receiving the sacrament of regeneration, but they are speaking of catechumens who of their own accord delay the reception of baptism from unpraiseworthy motives...... only adults are capable of receiving the baptism of desire. (2) The baptism of blood (baptismus sanguinis) is the obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ. The term “laver of blood” (lavacrum sanguinis) is used by Tertullian (De Bapt., xvi) to distinguish this species of regeneration from the “laver of water” (lavacrum aquae). “We have a second laver,” he says, “which is one and the same, namely, the laver of blood.” St. Cyprian (Ep. lxxiii) speaks of “the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood” (sanguinis baptismus). St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, XIII, vii) says: “When any die for the confession of Christ without having received the laver of regeneration, it avails as much for the remission of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism.” The Church grounds her belief in the efficacy of the baptism of blood on the fact that Christ makes a general statement of the saving power of martyrdom in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew: “Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I shall also confess him before my Father who is in heaven” (v. 32); and: “He that shall lose his life for me shall find it” (v. 39)...... these texts are so broadly worded as to 141 include even infants, especially the latter text. That the former text also applies to them, has been constantly maintained by the Fathers, who declare that if infants cannot confess Christ with the mouth, they can by act. Tertullian (Adv. Valent., ii) speaks of the infants slaughtered by Herod as martyrs, and this has been the constant teaching of the Church. Another evidence of the mind of the Church as to the efficacy of the baptism of blood is found in the fact that she never prays for martyrs. Her opinion is well voiced by St. Augustine (Tr. lxxiv in Joan.): “He does an injury to a martyr who prays for him.” This shows that martyrdom is believed to remit all sin and all punishment due to sin. Later theologians commonly maintain that the baptism of blood justifies adult martyrs independently of an act of charity or perfect contrition, and, as it were, ex opere operato, ..... The reason is that if perfect charity, or contrition, were required in martyrdom, the distinction between the baptism of blood and the baptism of desire would be a useless one. Moreover, as it must be conceded that infant martyrs are justified without an act of charity, of which they are incapable, there is no solid reason for denying the same privilege to adults. (Cf. Suarez, De Bapt., disp. xxxix) The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, [Joseph Pohle, S.T.D., Ph.D., J.C.L., Professor of Dogmatic Theology, University of Breslau] Vol VIII, p. 577, Justification: only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man, and this even before the actual reception of baptism or penance, although not without a desire of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. iv, xiv). But, not to close the gates of heaven against pagans and those non-Catholics, who without their fault do not know or do not recognize the sacraments of Baptism and Penance, Catholic theologians unanimously hold that the desire to receive these sacraments is implicitly contained in the serious resolve to do all that God has commanded, even if His holy will should not become known in every detail...... The Council of Trent decreed that the essence of active justification comprises not only the forgiveness of sin, but also “ and renovation of the interior man by means of the voluntary acceptation of sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts” (Trent, 1.c., cap. vii: “Non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntarium susceptionem gratiae et donorum”). The Catechism Explained, Spirago-Clarke, p. 99: Heresy is one of the greatest of all sins, when it is not the result of invincible ignorance. St. Paul writes to the Galatians that if an angel from heaven preached to them any gospel different from that they had received, he was to be anathema or accursed (Gal. i,8). St. Jerome says that there is no one so far removed from God as a wilful heretic. At the same time, he who lives in heresy through ignorance for which he is not himself to blame, is not a heretic in the sight of God. Thus those who are brought up in Protestantism, and have no opportunity of obtaining a sufficient instruction in the Catholic religion, are not heretics in the sight of God, for in them there is no obstinate denial or doubt of the truth. They are no more heretics than the man who takes the property of another unwittingly is a thief.

142 St. Thomas Aquinas, , III, Q. 66, A. 11: Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Eph. iv. 5): One Faith, one Baptism. Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms. Objection 2. Further, Baptism is a sacrament, as we have made clear above (Q. 65, A. 1)...... (Reply): ..... Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ’s Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ’s Passion, insofar as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him...... In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood; forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance...... each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum, iv): The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: “Today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise” that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable. Reply Obj. 1. The other two Baptisms are included in the Baptism of Water, which derives its efficacy, both from Christ’s Passion and from the Holy Ghost. Consequently for this reason the unity of Baptism is not destroyed. Reply Obj. 2...... a sacrament is a kind of sign. The other two, however, are like the Baptism of Water, not, indeed, in the nature of sign, but in the Baptismal effect. Consequently they are not sacraments. A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, III, 518. (C) Rat. theol. From the things said, Baptism of Water is indeed necessary by necessity of means, but only extrinsically, from the positive will of God; yet what is necessary only extrinsically can be supplied by something else, and it was generally fitting that it would be supplied by perfect charity or contrition, which in themselves contain all inner dispositions required for justification. The proponents of the Feeneyite heresy set great store by Pope Boniface VIII’s Bull “Unam Sanctam” of November 18, 1302: With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: “One is my dove, my perfect one. One she is of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her” [Cant. 6:8]; which represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, of Christ indeed, as God. And in this, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” [Eph. 4:5]. Certainly Noe had one ark at the time

143 of the flood, prefiguring one Church which perfect on one cubit had one ruler and guide, namely Noe, outside which we read all living things on the earth were destroyed. Moreover this we venerate and this alone, the Lord in the prophet saying: “Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword; my only one from the hand of the dog” [Ps 21:21]. For on behalf of the soul, that is, on behalf of himself, the head itself and the body he prayed at the same time, which body he called the “Only one” namely, the Church, because of the unity of the spouse, the faith, the sacraments, and the charity of the Church. This is that “seamless tunic” of the Lord [John 19:23], which was not cut, but came forth by lot. Therefore, of the one and only Church (there is) one body, one head, not two heads as a monster, namely Christ and Peter, the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Peter, the Lord Himself saying to Peter: “Feed my sheep” [John 21:17]. He said “My,” and generally, not individually these or those, through which it is understood that He entrusted all to him. If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they were not entrusted to Peter and his successors, of necessity let them confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says in John, “to be one flock and one Shepherd” [John 10:16]. And we are taught by evangelical words that in this power of his are two swords, namely spiritual and temporal..... Therefore, each is in the power of the Church, that is, a spiritual and a material sword. But the latter, indeed, must be exercised for the Church, the former by the Church. The former (by the hand) of the priest, the latter by the hand of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest. For it is necessary that a sword be under a sword and that temporal authority be subject to spiritual power..... It is necessary that we confess more clearly that spiritual power precedes any earthly power both in dignity and nobility, as spiritual matters themselves excel the temporal...... For, as truth testifies, spiritual power has to establish earthly power, and to judge if it was not good...... Therefore, if earthly power deviates, it will be judged by spiritual power; but if a lesser spiritual (power) deviates, by its superior; but if the supreme (spiritual power deviates), it can be judged by , not by man, as the Apostle testifies: “The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one” [I Cor. 2:15]. But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter—himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when He said to Peter himself: “Whatsoever you shall bind” etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, “whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God” [cf. Rom. 13:2], unless as a Manichean he imagines that there are two beginnings, which we judge false and heretical, because, as Moses testifies, not “in the beginnings” but “in the beginning God created the heaven and earth [cf. Gen. 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff. This Bull asserts the right of the papacy to the loyalty and allegiance of all Christians. Nowhere does it abrogate, derogate, obrogate, or deviate from the words of Jesus Christ, the doctrines and traditions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, or the definitions of previous popes as cited in Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, with all of which it must agree or it is wrong. It 144 simply covers different ground. If interpreted, against all appearance or likelihood, as by Leonard Feeney and his followers, it was obviously an innovaton, therefore necessarily wrong. If the innovation is correct, the Church has been wrong from the earliest times. If so, it has not been the infallible Church founded by Jesus Christ for many centuries. How, then, may we identify this Church? Where is it? Who have been its popes (to whom we must adhere to be saved)? If it identifies itself, where has it hidden? How can it prove its secret existence? How can it command our belief? [As I read Unam Sanctam, Boniface VIII lectured a pack of obstreperous princes who had all been baptized, but were reluctant to admit the doctrine of the two swords, and to submit to the supreme authority of the pope. He warned that their salvation depended upon their submission. Since they were already baptized with water, nothing was to be gained by referring to two ways by which they may in conscience have dodged this submission. Certainly they were not invincibly ignorant. Equally certainly no one would kill them for their faith. Here a law was made to apply to an existing situation. It in no way ruled out what it was never intended to cover. If you read this document with this point of view in mind, you will almost necessarily agree that it can be taken as I take it. If it can be taken in this way, it cannot bind anyone to the interpretation attached to it by Father Leonard Feeney, and by no previous theologian on record. Innovation, of course, is error.] Twin! #37 inevitably drew reaction (but not much), which raised no issue not already treated, and demonstrated failure to pursue some of my shorter arguments. Had the objector, for instance, researched the climate surrounding Unam Sanctam? I quote the article on Philip IV (1268-1314) in Chambers Biographical Dictionary: “His great struggle with Pope Boniface ..... grew out of his attempt to levy taxes from the clergy. In 1296 Boniface forbade the clergy to pay taxes; Philip replied by forbidding the export of money or valuables. A temporary reconciliation in 1297 was ended by a fresh quarrel in 1300. Philip imprisoned the papal legate, and summoned the Estates. Boniface issued the bull Unam Sanctam. Philip publicly burned the bull” (He burned a bull—not necessarily Unam Sanctam.), “and confiscated the property of those prelates who had sided with the pope. Boniface now excommunicated him” (applying the bull and confirming its intent), “and threatened to lay the kingdom under interdict, but the king sent to Rome William de Nogaret, who seized and imprisoned the pope, with the aid of the Colonnas. Boniface soon afterwards died. In 1305 Philip obtained the of one of his own creatures as Clement V, and placed him at Avignon, the beginning of the seventy years’ ‘captivity’.” Boniface ..... had no time to consider such concepts as Baptism of desire, which had nothing to do with the case, the time, or the Bull. Baptism of desire or blood, wholly in God’s province, is not subject to Church regulation. No certificates are available. It is usually a matter of academic interest only; neither we nor the Church know to whom this doctrine applies, though several Fathers of the Church have assured us that such people have died. Boniface was too busy fighting King Philip IV of

145 France over who would run the Church. The Bull was one of his weapons. It was not meant to cover all bases. When it comes down to it, Father Feeney prescribed how God must treat His creatures in this matter of whose application we can know nothing, and at the same time refused to face the impossibility of a public heretic holding the papacy. He put himself out of the Church over this useless argument on Baptism of desire (not even a sacrament) but swallowed whole the impossible legitimacy of four usurpers, thereby clearly denying the defined dogma of papal infallibility, and adhered publicly to these same schismatic heretic apostates in their public position outside the Church. Few of Father Feeney’s followers take my orthodox position in this far more serious matter which concerns every baptized Catholic. But all embrace this narrow, literal interpretation of the words of Boniface, who dealt with a genuine current problem concerning baptized kings. Oh for the good old days! The Church legislates only for Catholics. It is incompetent to enforce rules and laws on those who are not members of the Church officially through the sacrament of Baptism. It recognizes the existence of those invincibly ignorant and in good conscience. Some object that these may be justified but not saved. They play with words. I quoted men from all times and places who taught Baptism of desire and of blood, I quoted from several catechisms, all bearing nihil obstat and , none of whose authors or contributors was ever condemned for these doctrines. But Father Feeney was tossed out for denying them, because Cushing couldn’t cope. So the postconciliar “Church” let him back into the public heresy without demanding recantation. The usurpers never exclude anyone for heresy. None but modernist heretics are in our updated times ever appointed bishops. How do we interpret Christ’s own words? He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved : but he that believeth not, shall be condemned. Literally? If I believe (Satan believes!) and am baptized (Luther and Hitler were baptized!), and spend all my life cheating, stealing, lying, and murdering, shall I be saved? Christ did not cover all bases in this one line. One base He did not cover here is the case of the man who has never been given the choice of belief in Christ’s message, who is utterly and inculpably unaware of that choice. The new Ecumania no longer evangelizes this man. His tribe is encouraged to increase at the expense of the true religion in a warped, perverted missionary effort. Let not the Faith be preached but propagated rather by dilution. Henceforth only swimmers with the tide will be saved. The Christians to the sharks!—probably the loan sharks. Innovation (even Father Feeney’s) is error.

Obviously, if there is no salvation outside the Church, then everyone who is saved is saved through the Catholic Church. It is not necessary that he knows that he is saved through the Catholic Church, especially if ignorance of the Church contributes to his salvation. Sin is deliberate choice of recognized evil. If

146 one lacks free choice, or cannot appreciate the evil nature of the thought, word or deed, there is no sin— therefore no punishment. Since Vatican II’s fragmentation of our unity and its cancellation of the missionary effort, it becomes harder and harder to discover and discern the truth of the Catholic Church, which has in any case become a laughing stock. Who will seek truth in the haunts of self-contradiction? What may we expect from guides who deceive and lead astray their own people? In our situation, who can deny the geometric progression of invincible ignorance? From Desire and Deception, by Thomas A(quinas?) Hutchinson, Press, Arcadia, Calif. TAH (p. 20): ..... later missionary experience has shown that every culture has some “preparation for the Gospel.” [There remain to this day regions in which the Gospel has not been preached. If their cultures are to some extent prepared for the Gospel, what must be said of those who passed on the culture and its preparation? Must they be damned because no one has hired them? Can they have refused Christ and His Gospel before hearing it? No guilt, no punishment.] TAH (p. 21): What once could be a justifying preparation for the Gospel is, under the New Law, no longer sufficient for salvation “..... the will of God is man’s salvation, and this will is called the Church, which consists of those whom God called and saved” (The Pedagogue, Bk. 1). [Then, as one priest remarked, it all depends on who is Catholic. All who are saved are saved through the Catholic Church, even if they never heard of it. If they place no barrier between themselves and God, God will not arbitrarily repulse them. If such an obstacle exists, placed by neither themselves nor God, the guilt devolves upon the creator of this obstacle, as, e.g., the postconciliar “Church” which has jettisoned the missionary effort and vitiated the message. Dogmatic? Is not TAH dogmatic? He has skipped over a logical step to arrive at an untenable conclusion and have us believe that from the time of Christ no Franks before Clovis, no Irish before St. Patrick, no Scots before St. Columba, no English before St. Augustine, no Germans before St. Boniface, no Slavs before Sts. Cyril & Methodius, no Americans before Columbus, no Filipinos before Magellan, no Japanese before St. , etc. could have been saved, all because of an arbitrary decision of God and Father Leonard Feeney.] Next Origen is suborned to state an absolute, irrelevant truth: “if anyone should go out of (the Church), he is guilty of his own death.” [How apply this to one never formally in the Church who had never heard of it and could not know that it existed? An apostate is by definition a former member.] TAH (p. 22): We could go on and on citing Church Fathers [until we reach Tertullian, Sts. Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas, and even Tanquerey, who adheres strictly to Aquinas and to St. Alphonsus Liguori. The Athanasian Creed, of course, reacted to the Arian heresy, and spelled out the doctrine which the Arians specifically denied after having known it.] TAH: A cursory reading of the Roman reveals a small number of catechumens who, despite having apparently been put to death for the Faith

147 without Baptism, were accounted Saints in Heaven. To account for this supposed discrepancy, even some few of the later Church Fathers [Cyprian? Tertullian?] came to believe in a theory of baptism of blood; that is, that those who died unbaptized for the Faith somehow partook of the graces of Baptism, of the regeneration of the soul which takes place therein...... Certainly it is a notion which has no scriptural foundation: [except Matt. x, 32 & 39] ..... no place among the Ultra-Realist early Church Fathers to whom one’s own fallen blood ..... simply could not have the salvific effects of Christ’s Precious Blood ..... If it did, why would Christ have come? [Perhaps to save us slobs who have not been martyred. St. Cyprian had no difficulty over the consistency of several statements, one of which TAH cites in support of his own position while ignoring the others which destroy Feeney’s stance on baptism of blood.] TAH (p. 26) accuses St. Ambrose of a political speech and St. Augustine of having subordinated love of truth to friendship: As Valentinian had not, to public knowledge [let’s interject a little doubt], been baptized before his death, his soul was despaired of by many. [but not by St. Ambrose who may have known that Valentinian had been baptized but withheld this truth for the purpose of introducing a heresy]: “Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it, because he asked for it.” [And the entire congregation doubtless heard the same overtones: “Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened” (Matt. 7:8). “And all things whatsoever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive” (Matt. 21:22). “And whatsoever you shall ask the Father in My name, that will I do : that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you shall ask Me any thing in My name, that I will do” (John xiv, 13-14).] Very many people throughout the centuries, his own disciple St. Augustine included [who should, of all men, know best], have taken those three terse lines to mean that St. Ambrose believed that Valentinian had been saved without actually passing through the waters of Baptism. [Had St. Ambrose not believed that he would not have said it. There was no pressing necessity, even political, to say it.] TAH then quotes St. Augustine on the necessity of Baptism, again, as in Cyprian’s case, refusing to entertain the obvious meaning of St. Augustine’s words supporting baptism of desire, and the fact that this supertheologian discerned no inconsistency in holding positions which, according to TAH, oppose each other. TAH continues to quote St. Augustine: Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification before the external Sacraments be received. But here we also learn one necessary lesson: that such persons, nevertheless must of necessity receive the Sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemns can never be justified. [In the event then (TAH would have us believe) that these men of enormous charity and contrition, who could never scorn the Sacrament which they so eagerly desired,

148 were through circumstances beyond their control (beheading?) denied the water, God would take back his friendship, unremit their sins, dejustify them, cancel His sanctifying grace, and deny them salvation.] On page 34 TAH throws out Denzinger 413 as obviously not an authoritative statement, the inclusion of which in Denzinger is rather more interesting than the subject matter itself. [Need it be emphasized that his cavalier treatment of matter which, though he disapproves, has been included in this Handbook of Creeds licenses others so to treat his own pet texts? But perhaps this text was inserted to agree with Pope Pius IX’s Singulari quadam, which TAH quotes (p. 69) from Denzinger (1647)]: For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein shall perish in the flood; but on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains “we shall see God as He is” [I John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond and justice are united; but, as long as we are on the earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is “one God, one faith, one baptism” [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry. [This papal pronouncement clearly supports the concept of invincible ignorance, but TAH takes it as condemning it. It is almost as though he deliberately quotes all the mountain of evidence against his position so that he may give the impression that, since he has considered all these arguments yet will not believe them, they are of little or no account. Then we are not to pursue the matter because further pursuit is unlawful, when obviously we pursue it in recorded tradition and doctrine only to offset the unlawful, spiritually blunted Feeneyite pursuit.] The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, [Joseph Pohle, S.T.D., Ph.D., J.C.L., Professor of Dogmatic Theology, University of Breslau] Vol XIV, pp. 766-7: The foolish and unchristian maxim that those who are outside the Church must for that very reason be eternally lost is no legitimate conclusion from Catholic dogma. The infliction of eternal damnation pertains not to the Church, but to God, Who alone can scrutinize the conscience. The task of the Church is confined exclusively to the formulating of the principle, which expresses a condition of salvation imposed by God Himself, and does not extend to the examination of the persons, who may or may not satisfy this condition. Care for one’s own salvation is the personal concern of the individual. And in this matter the Church shows the greatest possible consideration for the good faith and the innocence of the erring person. Not that she refers, as is often stated, the eternal salvation of the heterodox solely and exclusively to “invincible ignorance”, and thus makes sanctifying ignorance a convenient gate to heaven for the stupid.

149 She places the efficient cause of the eternal salvation of all men objectively in the merits of the Redeemer, and subjectively in justification through baptism or through good faith enlivened by the perfect love of God, both of which may be found outside the Catholic Church. Whoever indeed has recognized the true Church of Christ, but contrary to his better knowledge refuses to enter it, and whoever becomes perplexed as to the truth of his belief, but fails to investigate his doubts seriously, no longer lives in good faith, but exposes himself to the danger of eternal damnation, since he rashly contravenes an important command of God. Otherwise the gentle breathing of grace is not confined within the walls of the Catholic Church, but reaches the hearts of many who stand afar, working in them the marvel of justification and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of numberless men who either, like upright Jews and pagans, do not know the true Church, or, like so many Protestants educated in gross prejudice, cannot appreciate her true nature. To all such, the Church does not close the gate of Heaven, although she insists that there are essential means of grace which are not within the reach of non-Catholics. In his allocution “Singulari quadam” of 9 December, 1854, which emphasized the dogma of the Church as necessary for salvation, Pius IX uttered the consoling principle: “Sed tamen pro certo pariter habendum est, qui verae religionis ignorantia laborent, si ea est invincibilis, nulla ipsos obstringi hujusce rei culpa ante oculos Domini” (But it is likewise certain that those who are ignorant of the true religion, if their ignorance is invincible, are not, in this matter, guilty of any fault in the sight of God). (Denzinger-Bannwart, 11th ed., Freiberg, 1911, n. 1647.) As early as 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull “Unigenitus” the proposition of the Jansenist Quesnel: “Extra ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia”, i.e., no grace is given outside the Church (op. cit. n. 1379), just as Alexander VIII had already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld: “Pagani, Judaei, haeretici aliique hujus generis nullum omnino accipiunt a Jesu Christo influxum” (Pagans, Jews, heretics and others of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ) (op. cit. n. 1295).

TAH (p. 44) displays St. Thomas Aquinas in support of the Feeneyite absolute, supposedly against his own treatment of the three baptisms. He succeeds in proving that another classic logician finds no inconsistency in holding both doctrines. TAH (p. 47) cites another “proof,” Eugene IV’s Cantate Domino (Denzinger 715), which consigns to hell all outside the Church “unless before death they are joined with Her” [which condition is filled by baptism of blood or desire]; “..... No one ..... can be saved unless he remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” [This literally anathematizes those who leave the Church.] TAH (p. 48) appears to excuse the Church’s “failure” to evangelize the Americas, “lands it never heard of,” but cannot excuse the people thereof who had never heard of the Church. Page 51 mentions West Texan and Eastern New Mexican tribes instructed by a bilocated Ven. Maria de Agreda, and therefore asked for Baptism when they first encountered Franciscan . Why these tribes? “Good Will, one must suppose.” Why, then,

150 were they not already baptized? If Maria de Agreda had known the Feeneyite dogma, it follows that she would necessarily have insisted on their Baptism at some point in the reported nine years of instruction, at the end of which they were left with a desire for Baptism. This is the very deficiency for which TAH raps Marcel Lefebvre on p. 91. P. 53 relates a similar story, in which Mrs. Cartwright is left for years in good conscience without Baptism. Nor is there mention of her dead husband’s Baptism. Why were these holy people, reportedly communing with angels, unaware of this absolute requirement of Baptism of Water? And the Chinese priest who first brought the sacraments to Korea (1795) found four thousand neophytes—unbaptized, though conversant with the religious writings of Father Matteo Ricci, S.J., who had also forgotten to mention this vital requirement. It is almost as if this requirement never existed until Father Feeney found it. “God will indeed get the Faith to anyone of Good Will, wherever t(he)y may be.”—apparently a defective Faith without that absolute necessity of Baptism of Water. St. Francis Xavier is cited (p. 54) as insisting “that all who die without the Faith go to Hell.” But if he ever denied the possibility of a soul holding the Faith implicitly, or dying for it without Baptism of Water, we may be sure that TAH would have provided the quotation. Obviously it is far more difficult to achieve salvation without the assistance of the sacraments and instruction in the Faith. No Catholic would agree that all, or even many, (the count is irrelevant) outside the visible Church attain salvation. But no one who would benefit from it arbitrarily limits God’s mercy. Many will agree that no one is saved outside the Faith, but will not limit possession of the Faith to those formally baptized with water. God, not His Church (as the Church itself teaches), is our Judge. I quote a letter dated October 24, 1991: “Enclosed for your information is material reflecting my research into the Theory of Baptism of Desire. Your knowledge of Latin should help you confirm my analysis of the Canon which says that ‘translation of the soul’ into the state of grace cannot be effected without the lava of regeneration or the desire thereof. The English rendering from the Latin, in books published in the United States, changes the sense from ‘both are required’ to ‘either one will do.’ “This erroneous rendering, which has the effect of neutralizing the Dogma, outside the Church there is no salvation, must have surfaced during the 1800’s some place where it became a foundation for the ‘three kinds of baptism’ as promulgated in the Baltimore Catechism. Almost universally studied in the American Church, this catechism was contemporary with modernism in the United States. “..... An American priest ..... persists in declaring Fr. Leonard Feeney a heretic because of his unwillingness to subscribe to the theory of baptism of desire...... he has insisted that Baptism of Desire is a dogma of the Church, and he bases his position on the rendering of the Latin sine not as without but as except through.” (sine lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto —Denzinger 796) [How these renderings differ in meaning escapes me.]

151 TAH (p. 54) ignores these last two “arguments” but comes eventually to the crux. We cannot believe the Council of Trent because a vital word has been universally mistranslated into English [thus accounting for the location of this sect?] We shudder to think of all the confusion generated in all those other tongues. Votum, it seems, means vow. So Trent should read “in fact or in vow,” which makes sense to Feeneyites. It makes hash, however, of law and logic. Whoever vows to be baptized will almost certainly fulfil his vow. No one makes rules for the isolated exception. But who ever vows to be baptized? I never heard of anyone, nor probably had the Trent Fathers. Nor can one who vows to receive baptism possess invincible ignorance or implicit desire. So let us to the lexicon for a reasonable equivalent. A Latin Dictionary, Lewis & Short, p. 2015, votum, -i, n. B. Transf. 1. (Acc. to voveo II) A wish, desire, longing, prayer. (citations: Livy, Petronius, Horace, Quintilianus, Pliny, Curtius Rufus, Seneca, Suetonius, Persius Flaccus.) The White Latin Dictionary, p. 648, votum, i, n. 2. (That which is wished, hence) A wish, desire, longing: Cic(ero); Hor(ace) A Smaller Latin-English Dictionary, Sir William Smith, p. 815, votum, i, n. [voveo]. 2. Transf. a wish, desire, prayer: (citations: Cicero, Livy, Horace, Pliny) Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, p. 626, votum, -i, n. (voveo), II. a wish, desire; vota facere, to wish, Cic.; hoc erat in votis, this was what I wished, Hor.; voti potens, having gained his wish, Ov. Lexicon of the Latin Language, F. P. Leverett, p. 985; –Also, that which has been wished, a wish (citations: Ovid, Petronius, Livy) –Also, a wishing, wish (citations: Cicero, Ovid, Horace, Persius Flaccus, Pliny) So we see that Davis, Fanning, and the official translators of Canon 737 and Denzinger 796 somehow managed to translate correctly. The very fact that TAH proposes his preferred, absurd translation without mention of the alternative used everywhere as Trent’s obvious meaning and intention considerably weakens confidence in his objectivity elsewhere. St. Anthony Mary Claret is quoted: He who is not with Peter is not with the Church [which works as well backwards], and he who leaves the Ark will perish in the flood [again, the schismatic or apostate]. Page 68 quotes St. Ignatius: “if anyone follows a schismatic” [out of the Church], “he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God.” and the Council of Cirta (412): “Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church ..... will not have eternal life ..... because ..... he abandoned his union with Christ.” Pp. 69-72 ring in Pope Pius IX in support of the Feeneyite innovation, despite irreconcilable excerpts from his official writings (Denzinger 1647 & 1677), using condemnations from his : 16. Men can, in the cult of any religion, find the way of eternal salvation and attain eternal salvation. 17. One ought at least to have good hope for the eternal salvation of all those who in no way dwell in the true Church of Christ.

152 18. Protestantism is nothing else than a different form of the same Christian religion, in which, equally as in the Catholic Church, it is given to please God ..... All these are irrelevant to baptism of blood or desire, as, it would seem, is the whole controversy—if we can force ourselves to believe Pius IX as quoted in Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, to the bishops of Italy (Denzinger 1677): ..... We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God Who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER, to whom “the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,” cannot obtain eternal salvation. Clearly, like Cyprian, Augustine, and Aquinas, Pius IX saw no conflict between these doctrines. One is a general law; the other, a necessary exception. Even as TAH quotes it, he admits difficulty, which the next item surmounts, in reconciling this with his thesis. Now we are treated to the Pope’s “personal view,” (relevant?) which we “must assume” identical with his official view (which allows invincible ignorance and other components of baptism of desire). A group of clerics, at least technically heretics, insisted on existence of some proper form by which the pope could bless them. So he appropriated the blessing of at High Mass: “May you be blessed by Him in whose honor you will be burned.” Obviously both request and “blessing” were jokes. You ask a silly question, you get a silly answer. Even TAH was joking here, we may hope. Page 77 quotes Father Michael Mueller, C.Ss.R.: “3. in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith, Hope, Charity, the true sorrow for sin with the firm purpose of doing all that God requires the soul to believe and do, in order to be saved; 4...... this preparation of the soul cannot be brought about by inculpable ignorance.” [Of course not! But God may consider this ignorance a mitigating circumstance, and in His knowledge of the soul’s dispositions grant those graces which the soul implicitly desires and would request if it realized their availability or necessity.] TAH continues: Elsewhere in the book cited, as a result of this teaching, Fr. Mueller tells us that we cannot speculate as to who do or do not die in their sins,

153 since no one “knows what passes between God and the souls of men at the moment of death.” Here we see again, the question of Good Will [which I tend to confuse with baptism of desire]. Father Feeney correctly diagnosed a doctrinal dilution, which burst all bounds at Vatican II, especially in its documents on Ecumenism (), on Non-Christian Religions (), and on Religious Freedom, (Dignitatis humanae). In his attempt to bolster orthodoxy, he reacted too strongly, inventing history to apportion blame, and trying to explain away the doctrine expressed by most reliable Fathers and Doctors of the Church, as well as by several popes. No one can expect Boniface VIII in his exhortations to the lay rulers of Christendom, particularly the French king who subsequently kidnapped the papacy to Avignon, to digress into the already established doctrine (simply not at issue) of the three “baptisms.” Nor when Pius IX twice officially teaches invincible ignorance should it be seriously, or even facetiously suggested that he did not himself believe what he had taught. Nor is it fitting that St. Ambrose should be depicted as subordinating salvific doctrine for the whole Church to for one man, and St. Augustine, as sacrificing God’s eternal truth on the altar of friendship; when the more obvious explanation for their agreement on this matter is identical with their reasons for their universal agreement on all religious doctrine, chiefly, that their doctrine had been passed to both, from, or as necessary conclusions from, the original Revelation. Or do men exceed God in justice and mercy?

#45, May 1998 We thought we had laid our differences with Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J. to rest. Some things die hard. We have received objections which we shall not quote but shall answer as one, which in essence they are. Father Michael Müller would have written his book with conversions in mind. He tried, I believe, to scare those outside the Catholic Church with the precariousness of their position. But the reader would lose all claim to invincible ignorance. He ended his book leaving the matter to the teaching authority— which neither incorporated nor propagated his conclusion literally, as shown by official catechisms both before and after his book. We need not exceed him in pertinacity; we may leave the matter to the same authority. You imply that God is not only stupid but malicious, for creating men who have no chance to be saved because of time and/or location. You limit God’s power, His will and capacity to save whom He will by what means He will. You apply the parallel of Noe’s Ark to the Church beyond its usual meaning, as shown in Pope St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians. The fact that all but those on the Ark were physically destroyed precludes no individual man’s, woman’s, or child’s salvation, any more than that of those killed in war-time bombing intended for factories or rail junctions.

154 Nor is the argument about explicit desire, which rules out invincible ignorance, relevant. “When infallible Tradition has spoken,” you say. So whatever supports our position cannot be infallible Tradition? You are a bit shaky on Tradition, on Revelation, on the Bible. “The Bible is the sole source of infallible REVELATION. Church Tradition does not introduce new revelation, .....” Wrong! Tradition consists of words and actions of Jesus Christ and His Apostles which were not included in Holy Scripture, such as our forms of worship, or, e.g., oral information referred to in such writings as II Thessalonians. Christ’s mandate was to preach, not necessarily to write. Our religion would be the same had not one word of the New Testament been written. The authority of the entire Bible itself depends on Tradition—what the Church in the late fourth century decided, on the basis of Tradition, belongs to the inspired writings, out of much more available writing. Nothing guarantees itself. You challenge us to produce papal support for traditional doctrine. Not much has ever been defined until queried. You have already rejected citation of pre-Pius IX catechisms, St. Thomas Aquinas’ treatment of the three baptisms, and related papal condemnations in Denzinger. In the nature of things God gives everyone sufficient grace for salvation. To attain it one must co-operate to the extent to which co-operation is possible. If the few examples of miraculous intervention were ordinary they would not be miraculous. Those who insist on literal Catholic baptism with water lack understanding of God’s revealed plan. God wishes all men saved. So He makes it impossible for most? A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Dom Bernard Orchard, page 190 (on Noe’s Ark): “The fact that the Church is appointed by divine providence as the ordinary means of grace does not exclude God’s extraordinary providence by which all who are not members of the visible Church but sincerely desire to do God’s will so far as it is known to them also receive His grace and all that is necessary for salvation.” I Timothy 2: 1. I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men: 2. For kings and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. 3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, 4. Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Dom Bernard Orchard, page 1146: “ ‘Who will have all men to be saved’—the clearest anti-Calvinistic text in the New Testament. Here we have a doctrine of the highest importance and consolation for each one of us, since there is no indication in the text of anyone being excluded. On the contrary the discourse is emphatic and the universality of God’s will to save is reinforced by the fourfold repetition of the word all in

155 the first few verses; cf. Prat, II, 78, ‘It is vain to object that the divine wish to save is necessarily limited by the addition ‘that all may come to the knowledge of the truth’; for, we are assured, since this second proposition cannot be absolutely and universally true, the first one cannot be true either. The reply is easy: all human beings have not the use of reason, but all, without a single exception, are capable of eternal salvation; thus, while the phrase referring to the knowledge of the truth limits itself naturally to men who are capable of knowing it, the other is limited by nothing and should, according to the rules of sound exegesis, retain its full significance.” Haydock Bible commentary (page 1566): “All men to be saved. They contradict this, and other places of the Scripture, as well as the tradition and doctrine of the Catholic Church, who teach that God willeth only the salvation of the predestinated, of the elect, and as they say, of the first-begotten only: and that He died only for them, and not for all mankind. But if it is the will of God that all and everyone be saved, and no one resists, or can frustrate the will of the Almighty, whence comes it that everyone is not saved? To understand and reconcile divers places in the holy Scriptures, we must needs distinguish in God a will that is absolute and effectual, ..... and a will which ..... is conditional, ..... by which He hath prepared and offered graces and means to all men, whereby they may work their salvation; and if they are not saved, it is by their own fault, by their not corresponding with the graces offered, it is because they resist the Holy Ghost. Acts vii. 51. If in this we meet with difficulties, which we cannot comprehend, the words of S. Paul, (Rom. ix. 20) O man, who art thou, who repliest against God? may be sufficient to make us work our salvation in fear and trembling.” Pope St. Clement to the Corinthians: “7. We are writing this, beloved, not merely for your admonition, but also to serve as a reminder to ourselves; for we are in the same arena and face the same conflict. Let us, then, give up those empty and futile aspirations, and turn to the glorious and venerable rule of our tradition. Let us attend to what is noble, what is pleasing, what is acceptable in the sight of our Maker. Let us fix our gaze upon the and understand how precious it is to the Father, because, poured out for our salvation, it brought to the whole world the grace of conversion. Let us pass in review all the generations and learn the lesson, that from generation to generation the Master has given an opportunity for conversion to those who were willing to turn to Him. Noe preached the need of conversion, and such as heeded him were saved. Jonas announced destruction to the Ninevites: they did penance for their sins and by their prayers propitiated God and gained salvation, although they were not of God’s own people. “8. The ministers of the grace of God exhorted through the Holy Spirit to conversion, and the Master of the universe Himself exhorted to conversion with an oath: As truly as I live, says the Lord, I do not desire the death of the sinner, but his conversion; and He added a kindly declaration: House of Israel, be converted from your iniquity. Say to the children of my People: should your sins reach from earth to heaven, and should they be redder than scarlet and blacker than sackcloth, and should you turn to me with all your heart and say,

156 ‘Father!’ I will listen to you as a consecrated People. And in another passage He says as follows: Wash and be cleansed and put away from your souls the wickedness which offends my eyes, rid yourselves of your evil doings, learn to do good, strive for justice, rescue the oppressed, sustain the rights of the orphan, and see justice done to the widow. Then come and let us argue together, says the Lord; and should your sins be like purple, I will make them white as snow; and should they be like scarlet, I will make them white as wool; and if you are willing and listen to me, you shall eat the good things of the land; but if you are not willing and do not listen to me, the sword shall devour you. Thus has the mouth of the Lord spoken. It follows that He wants all His beloved to have a chance to be converted, and this He has ratified by His Almighty Will.” I John 2:2. And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. Wisdom 11:24-27. But thou hast mercy upon all, because thou canst do all things, and overlookest the sins of men for the sake of repentance. For thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made: for thou didst not appoint, or make any thing hating it. And how could any thing endure, if thou wouldst not? or be preserved, if not called by thee?. But thou sparest all: because they are thine, O Lord, who lovest souls.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) Vol VI, pp. 699-701: Wherever Divine omnipotence and domination extend, and souls are to be found, the will to grant salvation extends; it cannot exclude any human being...... it is as true that the will to grant salvation extends to all men as it is that God is the God of all men, and that Christ as mediator assumed the nature of all men and redeemed them on the Cross. In 1851 Passaglia brilliantly demonstrated the universality of this Divine intention from 200 Fathers of the Church and ecclesiastical writers...... where a duty of conversion exists, the necessary grace must be at hand...... God does not order the impossible...... The Divine readiness to grant assistance also to the heathen (Denz 1295, 1379) is a certain truth confirmed by the Church against Jansenists Arnauld and Quesnel. To question it is to deny the above-demonstrated intention of God to save all men; for the overwhelming majority of mankind would fall outside its range...... The Fathers of the Church ..... do not doubt the dispensation of sufficient graces to the nations “that sit in the darkness and in the shadow of death”...... God will not refrain in extraordinary cases from miraculous intervention in order to save a noble-minded heathen who conscientiously observes the natural law...... these different ways cannot be considered as everday ordinary means. For the multitude of heathen this assistance must be found in a universal means of salvation equally independent of wonderful events and of the preaching of Christian missionaries. Some theologiamns discover it in the circumstance that the two dogmas mentioned above were already contained in the primitive supernatural revelation made in Paradise for all mankind. These truths were subsequently spread over the whole world, survive as a meager remnant, in the traditions of pagan nations, and are orally transmitted from generation to generation as supernatural truths of salvation. The knowableness of these

157 dogmas by unaided reason does not constitute an objection, for they are simultaneously natural and revealed truths...... the attainment of the state of grace and of eternal glory becomes possible for the heathen who faithfully co- operates with the grace of vocation. However all this may be, one thing is certain: every heathen who incurs eternal damnation will be forced on the last day to the honest confession: “It is not for want of grace, but through my own fault that I am lost.” (heavily cut) This entire matter should concern us not in the least. None of it applies to us, or even to the Church. It may safely be left to God. It never stopped the missionary effort. That was accomplished by Vatican II’s Ecumenism and Religious Freedom.

#48, October 1999 Crying in the Wilderness #3 has erupted from Fillmore, N.Y. Seldom have I seen an apter title; these Criers are lost, disoriented followers of a heresy only half a century old, confined for most of that time to a small district in the northeast corner of the United States. Very few outside this country have ever heard a word about it. Indeed the Criers themselves clearly demonstrate its impossibility in their complaint that not one traditional priest in the entire country agrees with their heresy. It would be hard to surpass such a clear, unanimous condemnation. Can anyone cite another issue on which all traditional priests agree? Most heresies arise from overemphasis on one facet of an undeniable truth to the obscuring of proper balance. Theirs is typical in this respect. Where does such a heresy acquire all those lay adherents? It is not only an impossibly illogical innovation confined to a small area; it was condemned early by the Holy Office headed at the time by Pius XII. The chief heretic, Leonard Feeney, S.J., was excommunicated for refusal to defend his doctrine before the Holy Office, set up by the Church to evaluate doctrine. But never mind such trivial considerations; the Criers will jam it down our throats again. They lack consistency in refusing to entertain the notion of inculpable invincible ignorance, when just that type ignorance is the only thing that can possibly keep them out of hell for heresy. They quote authorities ad nauseam to the effect that Outside the Church is no salvation—as though we didn’t know or had denied this certainty. They then arrogantly consign us to hell for heresy because we have believed the Church when it told us that everyone who is saved is saved through the Church, even though he be ignorant of that fact. They cite us St. Thomas Aquinas as if in agreement with them, when they know how much time and space he devoted to the three Baptisms, fluminis, flaminis, sanguinis. They pretend that our interpretation began with the Baltimore Catechism at the turn of the century. When we cite at least four previous catechisms they somehow contrive to suggest that the entire Church has mistranslated and misunderstood these, until Father Feeney and all his laymen caught on. They go to unconscionable lengths to blacken the name of St. Ambrose. He lied in a matter of essential doctrine, they say, out of sympathy for those who mourned the death of Valentinian, the young Roman emperor killed on his way 158 to receive Baptism. They quote him several times, because they realize the importance of the quotation, and they must crush it out of sight and out of mind. How? “Please note the introductory words of the Saint. ‘But I hear that you mourn ….’ Let us reflect … on what he just said. All of the faithful assembled for the memorial service are mourning. Why ….?” [Perhaps for the loss of an emperor who could prevent the return of the terrible persecutions?] “…. Because there is no evidence that Valentinian, a known catechumen, had been baptized. But if ‘baptism of desire’ was something contained in the ‘Deposit of Faith’ and part of apostolic doctrine, why should they mourn?” [Did my family mourn my wife, or the English mourn George VI because they thought they went to hell?] “…. It is evident from the words of the Saint that Valentinian got what he asked for. And (he) …. asked for water baptism!” [This Crier has a longer reach than Goliath!] “…. Exactly what St. Ambrose meant …. we may never know, but we are, certainly, legitimately permitted to assume that it was not his intention to contradict, in an emotionally charged eulogy, what he had written with so much thought and precision in De mysteriis and elsewhere.” If his sermon and doctrine contradicted each other, why could he not have destroyed the sermon? If any pope since had thought they contradicted one another, why would he not have expunged one or the other? Why has this sermon been preserved if doctrinally incorrect, particularly in a handbook of creeds? He spoke to genuine mourners, for whatever reason they mourned. He was the outstanding Italian bishop of his age. He would never dream of bending dogma for sympathy. The Criers insist that St. Ambrose was the first to mention this type of variation from Christ’s Scriptural teaching: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John iii, 5) But he was not an innovator; he invented no doctrine. He merely applied a lesson from the Gospel of St. Luke (xxiii, 46) when subsequent to His own rule Christ Himself gave us a notable exception: He said to a repentant unbaptized robber: “This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.” We see here the surest canonization ever recorded. So it is part of the Deposit of Faith that an unbaptized man can enter heaven. Therefore the dogma, Outside the Church is no salvation, must be held with that in mind. This was no reward for ignorance. This was a just judgment from our all-knowing, all-powerful God, Who reads our minds and hearts. “But this is an exception!” argues the Feeneyite heretic. So He could never make another exception? If these literal-minded dogmatists would come out of the Wilderness and Cry a bit less, they might hear and see more. They might even quit making rules for our ultimate Judge. We shall all inevitably stand before Him. Catholics, hoping in His infinite mercy and goodness, have always had more sense than to try to limit Him, especially in attributes which constitute the only chance for most of us. If the invincibly ignorant are saved it is not through ignorance but from co- operation with grace, and conformity to God’s will. It is far harder for them so to conform in ignorance than for Catholics who know their obligations. We

159 don’t know who or how many these people are. But we can find the proper attitude in: “When therefore they were come that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive more: And they also received every man a penny. And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house, saying: These last have worked but one hour. and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats. But he answering said to one of them: friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee. Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? Is thy eye evil, because I am good?” – Matt. xx, 9-15

#49, February 2000 Query—Is Brother Richard Ibranyi one of the witnesses of the Apocalypse? Reply—In his new Exurge Michaël he reluctantly admits it (pp. 4-6). “… I am saying that God has called me to be one of the two witnesses mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse. … God could easily annul the mission He has called me to fulfill, if I disobey Him. Over the years, starting in 1986, God has been testing me by fire and bringing me along this long road to prepare me for the day when this mission will directly oppose the Antichrist. I am being tested to see if I have the humility to admit when I am wrong,” [Can an Apocalyptic Witness be wrong?] “and the courage and fortitude to stand up when I am right, and to put into practice the faith I profess. … God has made it clear to me that I must put all my faith in Him and none at all in myself. … belief … that Elias must return in person as one of the witnesses. No, I am not Elias,” [Henoch, then?] “and neither was , But John fulfilled the prophecy of Elias’ return … (cf. Lk. 1:13,17; Mt. 11:13-15)” Then he quotes “a bit of sarcasm” from the St. Benedict Center newsletter. “… Br. Richard … explained that he had a mission from God to warn people about JP2. Phrases like ‘God told me’ were peppered all throughout his conversation. When asked how he meant it, he assured us that God was giving him explicit messages to warn people against the pope.” Richard berates the Center “because they do not really believe God speaks to men today. … Does God no longer speak to any man, especially in these apocalyptic days, as He had in the past to the” [other?] “saints, especially in times of crisis? Is God to have no witnesses present in today’s world to cry out in righteous anger against the evil and evildoers of these days? Is God to have no one speak for Him against the bastard False Prophet JP2 and the harlot religion of the Conciliar Church? And if we agree, God is to have such witnesses, are they to be diplomats, who speak in soft tones with unattached emotions, or in manner of pure intellectualism that just fulfills ones carnal intellectual pride, with no zeal for the glory of God, or utter abhorrence for what they see?” [He thinks we enjoy having been robbed!]

A new publication has joined the war—on whose side? The first issue of “Exurge Michaël”, Jan. 2000, found its way here in the company of a 32- 160 page monograph, “The Faith before the Mass”, produced by the same authority, Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi. Page 1 (EM) establishes his authority. Page 2 excoriates a Feeneyite branch for calumniating him, stores the calumny for future reference, and joins Father Feeney’s local innovation: “Can a Soul be Justified by Explicit Desire without receiving Sacramental Baptism? … my opinion that one cannot be justified, nor saved, without sacramental Baptism by water [which he] will defend …in detail … shortly …” He then quotes the Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter 7, found in Denzinger 799. I cite De Ferrari’s translation: “This disposition or preparation is followed by justification itself, which is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting. The causes of this justification are: the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance, the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, [RJMI quotes only this indented excerpt] the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified [no one is – RJMI] finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, and according to each one’s disposition and cooperation.” From the above indented excerpt RJMI concludes: “Clearly we read no one is ever justified without receiving the sacrament of Baptism. Don’t be fooled by those who misinterpret this passage, and some go as far as to substitute the original word for another. The false interpretation is ‘without faith no one is ever justified.’ The original Latin does not have the word ‘faith’ in this part of the sentence at all. They substitute the Latin word ‘qua,’ which is ‘which’ with the word ‘fidei,’ which is ‘faith.’ Note carefully the original word ‘without which’ does not refer to the word ‘faith’ alone in the preceding part of the sentence, but to the ‘sacrament of faith’ which is the sacrament of Baptism, which is the instrumental cause. The term ‘of faith’ modifies the subject which is ‘the sacrament.’ In the context that the ‘sacrament of faith’ is used in this sentence you cannot separate one from another. The

161 ‘which’ refers not just to the faith but to the ‘sacrament of faith,’ which is the sacrament of Baptism.” According to St. Paul (Hebrews 11:6): But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God must believe that he is: and is a rewarder to them that seek him. (Vulgate: Sine fide autem impossibile est placere Deo. Credere enim oportet accedentem ad Deum quia est, et inquirentibus se remuneratur sit.) Nowhere did he write without the sacrament of faith, etc. Why have I quoted at length? To demonstrate RJMI’s brevity and selectiveness of quotation and his verbosity in explaining what he obviously cannot understand. He comes, as the Jehovah’s Witless to our door, utterly ignorant of the languages of Scripture, canon law, and dogmatic definition. He has repeated ad nauseam an error which no first-year Latin student would make. That indented excerpt which he quoted and misinterpreted at such length is translated from the official Latin of the Council of Trent: instrumentalis item sacramentum baptismi, quod est “sacramentum fidei”, sine qua nulli unquam contigit justificatio. Quod and qua both mean which —they differ in gender and case. Neuter nominative quod refers to neuter sacramentum baptismi. Ablative feminine qua cannot refer to neuter sacramentum but only to feminine fidei. Translation of sine qua as without which, then, was insufficiently specific, and the substitution of faith to which RJMI objected is the more accurate translation. We translate to convey the meaning, not necessarily the literal word. RJMI continues, further down the page: “… until Holy Mother Church infallibly defines this all important question,” [this ridiculous non-issue] “no one can call us heretics who believe in the absolute necessity of sacramental baptism by water to be justified and saved. And we cannot call those heretics, who hold the opinion that explicit desire and blood can sanctify and save, or those who believe explicit desire can justify the soul but not save it. No accusations of heresy can be leveled by either side.” So why has he on page 10 listed me as a heretic? (1) Because it is heresy to advocate invincible ignorance as an occasional substitute for explicit desire? They who reject Baptism of desire define it rather narrowly. (2) Because I “condemn as heresy, the opinion that baptism by water is absolutely necessary for salvation. They also condemn as heresy (?), those who hold the opinion that baptism by water is absolutely necessary for justification and salvation. And those who condemn as heresy (?) those who hold the opinion that explicit desire and blood martyrdom can justify and save a soul. None of those who hold the above opinions can be accused of teaching heresy or of being heretics.” [Not of being heresies?] “Anyone who does so” [does what? Holds opinions? Teaches heresies? Is a heretic? Butter can be clarified, but not an Ibranyi sentence.] “is guilty of a sin that is schismatic in nature – causing an undue division among Catholics.” [Causing undue division is exactly what this local, linguistic Feeneyite innovation has accomplished.] (3) Because “these clerics” [me?!] “do not require an abjuration from those who have adhered to heresy of schism, or have been part of the non-Catholic 162 Conciliar Church or any independent chapel that is in communion with the Conciliar Church. or any non-Catholic Church. They give sacraments to heretics in violation of c. 731,” [O.K., so I’ve baptized a few babies!] “and therefore share in the heresies and/or schism of those with whom they give the sacraments to, and pray in communion with.” [Can my computer catch a virus from this classic prose? Can I catch an extra heresy or schism from the rest of Ibranyi’s Heretics Condemned by Name? Would you like being classed with Piverunas, Dolan, Cekada, Sanborn, McKenna, Kelly, Fulham, and Dimond?] The accompanying monograph, The Faith before the Mass, examines the Implicit Faith Heresy. (pp. 24-5) “A more complicated case exists if it seems that a past pope had non- persistently taught a heresy in his fallible capacity that had clearly been condemned by past popes and councils.. In such a unique case, the said pope’s true intentions could have been misinterpreted, or his original words could have been mistranslated or tampered with. He could not be assumed to be in heresy unless he persisted in the heretical teaching. “Such is the salvation by an implicit faith heresy that Pope Pius IX seems to have taught at one time in his fallible capacity in the encyclical ‘Singulari Quidem,’ 1856. This heresy teaches that men can be saved without an explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Most Holy Trinity. Since Pius IX’s pontificate” [which ended 22 years later without a correction of this heresy] “this heresy has quickly crept into the teaching instruments of the Church (catechisms, encyclopedias, theology books). Your average priest and layman do not deeply study theology; thus they would only be guilty of material heresy for believing in this heretical teaching, only because it was taught to them in the fallible instruments of the Catholic Church.” [Pius IX, says Ibranyi, was not a heretic for propounding this horrible heresy because he propounded it only once. Next he will tell us that he committed this horrible crime before he defined papal infallibility, so it could not have involved his papal infallibility. Actually he committed this crime at least twice, as recorded in Denzinger’s Handbook of Creeds. In his allocution “Singulari quadam” of 9 December, 1854, which emphasized the dogma of the Church as necessary for salvation, Pius IX uttered the consoling principle: “Sed tamen pro certo pariter habendum est, qui verae religionis ignorantia laborent, si ea est invincibilis, nulla ipsos obstringi hujusce rei culpa ante oculos Domini” (But it is likewise certain that those who are ignorant of the true religion, if their ignorance is invincible, are not, in this matter, guilty of any fault in the sight of God). (Denzinger-Bannwart, 11th ed., Freiberg, 1911, n. 1647.) Pius IX as quoted in Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, to the bishops of Italy (Denzinger 1677): We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the

163 hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God Who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin. But the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of PETER, to whom “the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,” cannot obtain eternal salvation. In 1713 Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull “Unigenitus” the proposition of the Jansenist Quesnel: “Extra ecclesiam nulla conceditur gratia”, i.e., no grace is given outside the Church (Denzinger # 1379), just as Alexander VIII had already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld: “Pagani, Judaei, haeretici aliique hujus generis nullum omnino accipiunt a Jesu Christo influxum” (Pagans, Jews, heretics and others of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ) (Denzinger # 1295). Moreover, Ibranyi was sent this information in April 1998 as it appeared in The War Is Now! #37. So he granted Pius IX a fool’s pardon when according to his noble principles he should have declared him a pertinacious heretic. I sent him also The War Is Now! #45, including pages 1 and 2, written in reply to his uninformed statements. No Catholic has ever held that anyone can be saved through a non-Catholic religion, sect, or community. No one is saved by accepting or believing incor- rect religious doctrine. Error has no rights, no privileges, no salvific efficacy. All Catholics can quickly cite the surest, best documented canonization in history—of an unbaptized criminal to whom Jesus Christ on the Cross said: “This day thou shalt be with Me in paradise.” No Catholic in nineteen centuries was fool enough to cast serious doubt on this original ingredient of the Deposit of Faith. Father Leonard Feeney eventually discovered, through his novel interpretation of some papal words, that no such thing could happen; he was excommunicated by the Congregation of the Holy Office, which dealt exclusively with doctrine and condemned only for heresy. Not even he doubted that he could surely have avoided this penalty by dropping his innovation No one condemns a heresy before it is proposed and gains adherents. We look in vain both for ancient condemnations of Father Feeney’s innovation and official approvals of what was always taken for granted. The Church has never claimed jurisdiction in particular judgments. Such matters are safely left in God’s hands. #50, May 2000 Said Father Leonard Feeney: Unless water is physically poured on a man, woman, or child that man, woman, or child cannot hope to be saved. Baptism of Desire or of Blood oppose the teachings of a pope or two, and have never been held by Catholics. Father Feeney postulated non-

164 existent contradiction between two well-known doctrines, concluding without evidence that the two non-sacramental baptisms were of recent invention. If so, why did St. Thomas discuss them at length in the thirteenth century? Why has the Church instituted a feast of the Holy Innocents, none of whom had been baptized? But they were killed in Old Testament times, we are told. They received no mention in the Old Testament, but only in the New. The Feeneyites similarly dodge St. John the Baptist. But what can they say about the thief crucified on Christ’s right hand? There is no doubt whatsoever that he went to heaven; Jesus Christ assured him of this. But he never shed his blood for Christ; he merely desired to be remembered. No one was present that could or would baptize him. And certainly Christ’s crucifixion came after He had offered His Blood of the New Testament, with which He had the previous night replaced the insufficient sacrifices of the Old Testament. He had earlier laid down the general rule that a man must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost. But that was while Christ was still with us, and He could do that, say the Feeneyites; that was only an exception, though exceptionally public. He was only God. He can’t make another exception because Father Feeney won’t allow it? Or wouldn’t the Apostles allow it either? But the Roman Martyrology, one of the official books of the Catholic Church, canonizes at least fourteen unbaptized and assigns them feast days on the Church calendar. This can be checked also in Butler’s Lives of the Saints, in The Catholic Encyclopedia, and in Gueranger’s The . These martyrdoms preceded Sts. Ambrose and Augustine, whom Feeneyites charge with wishful thinking and innovative doctrine. Roman Martyrology, January 23: At Rome, the holy virgin & martyr, St. Emerentiana. Being yet a catechumen, she was stoned to death by the heathens while praying at the tomb of St. Agnes, … The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, 401c, Emerentiana, SAINT, virgin & martyr, … some days after the burial of St. Agnes Emerentiana, who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Roman Martyrology, February 17: At Caesarea in Palestine, … St. Theodulus, in the service of the governor Firmilian, at a great age. Prompted by the example of the martyrs, he confessed Christ with constancy, and was nailed to a cross. … St. Julian the Cappadocian, who, because he had kissed the relics of martyrs, was denounced as a Christian. (According to Butler’s Lives of the Saints, “Theodorus was an old man who had admired the courage of the five Egyptians martyred in this place. Julian was a catechumen arrested while venerating the bodies of those just executed.”) The Roman Martyrology assigns April 12 as the feast day of St. Victor of Braga in . “Although only a catechumen, he refused to adore an idol, and confessed Jesus Christ with great constancy. After suffering many tortures, he was beheaded, and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood.” Butler records that this happened during the persecution of Diocletian (at the end of the third century). Roman Martyrology, June 22: 165 At Verulam in England, in the time of Diocletian, St. Alban, martyr, who gave himself up in order to save a cleric whom he had harbored. After being scourged and subjected to bitter torments, he was sentenced to capital punishment. With him also suffered one of the soldiers who led him to execution, for he was converted to Christ on the way and merited to be baptized in his own blood. St. the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion. The Liturgical Year, Vol XII, Book III, p. 204-5: Alban having reached the brow of the neighbouring hill, the executioner who was to have despatched him, admonished by a divine inspiration, casting away his sword, threw himself at the saint’s feet, desiring to die, either with the martyr, or instead of him. Alban, being at once beheaded, received the crown of life, which God hath promised to them that love him. The soldier, who had refused to strike him, was likewise beheaded: concerning whom it is quite certain that, albeit he was not washed in the baptismal font, still he was made clean in the laver of his own blood, and so made worthy of entering into the kingdom of heaven. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, 457b, Anatolia, SAINT, Virgin & Martyr in the time of Decius. … The executioner Audax shut her up in a room with a venomous serpent, but seeing that no harm was done to her he himself professed the faith and died a martyr.… 9 July Roman Martyrology, July 9: … Anatolia … was cured of the sting of a serpent to which she had been exposed, a miracle that converted Audax to the faith. … was sent to prison, and without delay sentenced to capital punishment, thus obtaining the crown of martyrdom. Roman Martyrology, July 15: … At Sebaste, St. Antiochus, a physician, … beheaded under the governor Adrian. On seeing milk flowing from his wounds instead of blood, Cyriacus, his executioner, was converted to Christ and endured martyrdom. Roman Martyrology, May 11: At Rome … St. Evelius, martyr, who belonged to the household of Nero. By witnessing the martyrdom of St. Torpes, he also believed in Christ, and for Him was beheaded. Roman Martyrology, May 31: At Comana in Pontus during the reign of Emperor Antoninus, St. Hermias, a soldier. Being miraculously delivered from many horrible torments, he converted his executioner to Christ, and made him partaker of the crown which he was first to receive by being beheaded. Roman Martyrology, August 25: … At Arles in France, another blessed Genesius, who, filling the office of notary, and refusing to record the impious edicts by which Christians were commanded to be punished, threw away his books publicly, and declared himself a Christian. He was seized and beheaded, and thus attained to the glory of martyrdom through baptism in his own blood. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, 413b, August 25: (2) Genesius of Arles, a notary martyred under Maximianus in 303 or 308. … While performing the duties of his office the decree of persecution against the Christians was read in his presence. Outraged in his ideas of justice, the young catechumen cast his

166 tablets at the feet of the magistrate and fled. He was captured and executed, and thus received baptism in his own blood. His veneration must be very old, as his name is found in the ancient martyrology ascribed to St. Jerome. A church and altar dedicated to him at Arles were known in the fourth century. Roman Martyrology, September 15: … St. Porphyry, a comedian, who was baptized in jest in the presence of Julian the Apostate, but was suddenly converted by the power of God and declared himself a Christian. By order of the emperor he was thereupon struck with an axe, and thus crowned with martyrdom. [Feeneyites will argue that he was baptized. But there was no intention either to confer or to receive the sacrament, which was being mocked.] Roman Martyrology, September 20: At Cyzicum on the sea of Marmora, … the holy martyrs Evilasius and the virgin Fausta, in the time of Emperor Maximian. Fausta’s head was shaved … and she was hung up and tortured by Evilasius, then a pagan priest. But when he wished to have her body cut in two, the executioners could not inflict any injury upon her. Amazed at this prodigy, Evilasius believed in Christ and was cruelly tortured by order of the emperor; at the same time Fausta had her head bored through and her whole body pierced with nails. She was then laid on a heated gridiron, and being called by a celestial voice, went in company with Evilasius to enjoy the blessedness of heaven. Roman Martyrology, September 25: At Rome, … St. Herculanus, soldier and martyr, who was converted to Christ by the miracle wrought during the martyrdom of the blessed bishop Alexander. After enduring many torments he was put to the sword. These demonstrate the general opinion of the Christians of the early centuries concerning Baptism of Blood. This common opinion was reinforced by the Church’s official action in calling these unbaptized martyrs saints, by which the Church judged that they were saved without sacramental Baptism. The fact that Sts. Ambrose and Augustine caused no reaction among the laity, in the time of great rejection of the Arian heresy mostly by the laity in opposition to their bishops, speaks volumes concerning the prevalence of belief in the Scripturally based Baptisms of Blood and Desire. If some one is saved through either, it is not only no skin off my nose, it is rather a cause for rejoicing. Nor can I imagine God’s mercy, or any other of His attributes, subject to the innovations of Father Feeney, who tolerated the postconciliar changes so detrimental to the Church. If his doctrine was perfect, why did he not trumpet from the housetops the obvious heresies of the Second Vatican Council and of the men who promulgated and implemented its nauseating doctrines? Why accept their rehabilitation? Had he traded silence for rehabilitation? Most of the clergy failed us. What is one more? Let us imagine a battlefield strewn with dead soldiers. They all lie beside their empty rifles. Upon the scene chances an army graves registration unit, which refuses to bury some in a military cemetery because they lack identification tags. Legally inducted or not, they fought the common enemy, and deserve equal treatment.

167 #51, September 2000 Richard Ibranyi, in sixteen pages of his maniac publication, accuses me of not having read his work, which I never received. But he always looses verbal floods to express trickles of thought. He labors both what I have known for decades before his birth and utter nonsense invented by Leonard Feeney or himself. I have better uses for my time. He, on the other hand, has received everything I have written on the subject of non-sacramental baptism. Yet he uses my patently ironical question to tar me with a “heresy”—as I thought he might. For how will he see the irony before he understands the argument? Clearly, I asked why he had declared me a heretic, and gave three absurd choices. Let me quote The War Is Now! #37, page 11: TAH (p. 54) … We cannot believe the Council of Trent because a vital word has been universally mistranslated into English [thus accounting for the location of this sect?] We shudder to think of all the confusion generated in all those other tongues. Votum, it seems, means vow. So Trent should read “in fact or in vow,” which makes sense to Feeneyites. It makes hash, however, of law and logic. Whoever vows to be baptized will almost certainly fulfil his vow. No one makes rules for the isolated exception. But who ever vows to be baptized? I never heard of anyone, nor probably had the Trent Fathers. Nor can one who vows to receive baptism possess invincible ignorance or implicit desire. [Nor will invincible ignorance apply to a man who has either explicit faith or explicit desire, which Ibranyi confuses. Faith and desire are not identical. Had he read my material he must have known that I hold that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. It follows that all who are saved are saved through the Church. No one is saved through any false religion; a false religion has no connection with God or His grace, and cannot mediate with God for its adherents. This is absolutely irrelevant to Baptisms of Blood and Desire, which have been treated by all ages of the Church. Father Feeney may have been the first to perceive a fictitious contradiction in these matters. His followers often define invincible ignorance in terms of refusal of God’s truth, though it depends much more on having never heard it, through no fault of one’s own. Ibranyi is, of course, confused by my use of the language, which is as good a cop-out as any. Perhaps some one should read him my words.] “A first class piece of deception. Hutton infers that …” (He misuses infer right through sixteen pages of baseless charges. He can have no idea what I infer unless I spell it out. He probably means imply in all cases.) “Moreover, Ibranyi was sent this information in April 1998 …” This line followed reference to Singulari quadam, Quanto conficiamur moerore, and Unigenitus. But he needed something like this to distract from the first page of my Twin! # 49 article. When he can’t beat the argument, he attacks the man! Pity he couldn’t use that approach on Pius IX. He merely stated that Pius had taught no heresy while he condemned what Pius taught as heresy. And he calls me a hypocrite! I never denied that Fr. Feeney was mishandled. If Cushing had been a theologian instead of a politician the case need never have gone to the Holy Office. But Feeney preached heresy and the Holy Office tried to shut him up. That is the purpose of the Holy Office—to preserve doctrinal purity. I realize

168 the attraction of a lost cause, but to maintain that flattening Fr. Feeney destroyed the entire Church’s missionary activity comes on a bit strong, particularly when one realizes that outside this country no one had ever heard of Feeney or his lost cause. But Ibranyi insists on historical condemnation by a Church that had never encountered this absurdity. He furnishes quite a formidable list, nonetheless, of popes who had condemned refusal of the known truth and apostasy. In the opposite column he lists one lone pope, as though he had contradicted his fellows. Ibranyi’s own only hope of salvation is invincible ignorance! He quotes me as misquoting him, by introduction of one word, at, which makes little difference to the argument. But he quotes the same paragraph on the next page, without an ellipsis, omitting the words in boldface type: “Such is the salvation by an implicit faith heresy that Pope Pius IX seems to have taught at one time in his fallible capacity in the encyclical ‘Singulari Quidem,’ 1856. This heresy teaches that men can be saved without an explicit faith in the Incarnation and the Most Holy Trinity. Since Pius IX’s pontificate” [which ended 22 years later without a correction of this heresy] “this heresy has quickly crept into the teaching instruments of the Church (catechisms, encyclopedias, theology books). Your average priest and layman do not deeply study theology; thus they would only be guilty of material heresy for believing in this heretical teaching, only because it was taught to them in the fallible instruments of the Catholic Church.” He terms this teaching a heresy, so the Church can teach it fallibly? He opens a whole new door to doctrinal confrontation. Whatever we don’t like is taught fallibly. Please note, however that it was taught, as a matter of common knowledge, by a pope teaching as a pope, who had a vested interest in papal infallibility. Ibranyi’s peculiar behavior gave me every reason to infer that he might use that silly argument that papal infallibility had not yet been defined. No one with sense imagines that Pius IX taught heresy in those two . But he certainly taught what Ibranyi condemns as heresy. Then he accuses me of twisting Scripture. I merely suggested that the proper attitude could be found in a parable, particularly in the last two sentences: … is it not lawful for me to do what I will? Is thy eye evil because I am good? Again he quotes me: “This entire matter should concern us not in the least. None of it applies to us, or even to the Church.” “The Church has never claimed jurisdiction in particular judgments. Such matters are safely left in God’s hands.” Then he “refutes” me with a song and dance about ecclesiastical in the external forum. The Church makes no “final decision regarding the fate of a soul as unfaithfully departed.” Perhaps, as he accuses, I deserve antipopes. Perhaps I deserve him and the Feeneyites. At least they and he have given me the chance to proclaim what I believe—which would probably never have been required of me under normal conditions. (And thanks for naming a prelate. Is he trying to have him killed?) Some may prophesy; no one prophesizes. However traditional priests (wildcats not included) may differ (largely on non-doctrinal issues), Ibranyi and his ilk themselves complain that not one traditional priest in the entire country agrees

169 with their heresy, and for that alone he lumps all together as heretics. How can my sarcasm alter that fact? And what groups have I lined up to support me? I have all the support I need in the pre-Feeney, preconciliar Catholic Church Next he introduces evidence that I attend Mass on Sundays. Then the priest left us. Relevant? He can go where he wants. No one threw him out. What is Ibranyi’s point? He must introduce those abjurations, further to demonstrate my heresy. He won’t let us into heaven without his heresy. Now he won’t let us into Mass without an abjuration—of what? Even novus ordo people come to the true Mass out of recognition that something is missing in the novus ordo missae. Hardly any layman is a conscious heretic. Let me quote Ibranyi again, as above: Your average priest and layman do not deeply study theology; thus they would only be guilty of material heresy for believing in this heretical teaching, only because it was taught to them in the fallible instruments of the Catholic Church.” But his idiots will repel people, for (1) charity is not in them; and (2) presence of such people at a genuine Catholic Mass places us in violation of Canon 1258 which forbids communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics. Ibranyi again proves his ignorance of both Latin and law. This canon prohibits participation in non- Catholic rites. In my 82 Catholic years I have never seen a guard at the Church door ask those entering what religion they believed, or whether they were prepared to receive Holy Communion. But all must conform to standards of ignorant zealots. How did we survive till Ibranyi arrived? With great difficulty, I suppose.

The War Is Now! #54, June 2001 4/11/01 Dear Mr. Ibranyi, In your April, 2001 issue of Exurge Michaël, page 45 you gratuitously grant the obvious point that Pius IX did not deny, nor redefine the dogma, “Outside the Church there is absolutely no salvation.” “This dogma …” (you write) “must be believed in the same sense as it always was. A sentence in one of Pope Pius IX’s encyclicals is poorly worded—if the translation can be trusted—so that taken alone (out of context) it can lend itself to the heresy that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church that he elsewhere condemns as all past popes have. This poor use of words is found in his fallible encyclical Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856.” So you quote his poorly phrased sentence as translated by some one whose competence you doubt: “Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.” You comment: “It is not a matter of him teaching the heresy that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church for the invincible (sic) ignorant, but it only seems as if he did if one does not take all his other teachings on the same topic into context. If the translation can be trusted,” [relevant?] “he could not 170 have meant that souls can be saved outside the Catholic Church, because not even the implicit faith heretics teach this, … Pope Pius IX’s previous and posterior teachings put forth the orthodox teaching in direct contradiction to the heresy he was attributed to have taught by the liberals who have taken his words out of context.” You then quote him in this same encyclical, and in two of his earlier documents, Qui pluribus (1846) and Singulari Quadam (1854), translated by a recognized translator of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum , Roy J. DeFerrari. (Denz. 1647): “For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein shall perish in the flood; …” At this point you introduce an ellipsis, probably to pretend that the missing words have no relevance to the subject. In truth you thereby hid evidence that you had just lied egregiously. To demonstrate this I continue the quotation: “but on the other hand, it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things? For, in truth, when released from these corporeal chains ‘we shall see God as He is’ [I John 3:2], we shall understand perfectly by how close and beautiful a bond divine mercy and justice are united; but, as long as we are on the earth, weighed down by this mortal mass which blunts the soul, let us hold most firmly that, in accordance with Catholic teaching, there is ‘one God, one faith, one baptism’ [Eph. 4:5]; it is unlawful to proceed further in inquiry.” You treat another encyclical of Pope Pius IX, Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863, to the bishops of Italy, in the same fraudulent manner (Denzinger 1677): “..... We should mention again and censure a very grave error in which some Catholics are unhappily engaged, who believe that men living in error, and separated from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. Indeed, this is certainly quite contrary to Catholic teaching. …” Again I provide the long sentences which you omit: “It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God Who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.” You quite happily skipped past these “heresies” to: “But the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well known; …”

171 Obviously Pius IX taught on at least three official occasions doctrine which you condemn as heresy. Is it not strange that when he convoked the Vatican Council and signed the promulgation of Papal Infallibility as defined dogma of the Catholic Church, not one of the bishops at the Council brought up this particular instance of papal fallibility? Is it not inconsistent of you not to have excommunicated Pius IX under provisions of Canon Law and of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio? * * * * * * * Page 1 of this same Exurge Michaël admits that God has given Richard Joseph Michael Ibranyi “a sign, so that you might believe.” [God gives him a sign that you might believe! This is the same man that admits that he is the returned Henoch or Elias—and he may have the birth records to prove it.] “He has showed me what was, what is, and what shall come. What was is the Second Vatican Council was an apostate, heretical non-Catholic Council. What is, is the apostate, Antipope John Paul II and the non-Catholic Conciliar Church invented by the robber’s Second Vatican Council are both pretending to be Catholic.” [But not too well.] “What shall come is their utter destruction along with all those that are part of it in anyway! I prayed for a sign and God quickly sent me many, the Catholic interpretations of Holy Scriptures, past papal bulls/encyclicals, and the Holy Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Then God had me read the documents of the Second Vatican Council and John Paul II’s writings and showed me his acts of idolatry, blasphemy, apostasy, heresy, and sacrilege, and the proof of their heresy and apostasy lay open before my eyes, as crystal clear as a polished diamond. He then placed the infallible teachings before me that a manifest heretic cannot be the pope.” [For this he needed signs? I, too, might have had signs! What’s in it for me? Credibility?]

#55, October 2001 Perils of Private Correction 6/26/01 I wrote to R.J.M.Ibranyi in reply to nonsense he published in Exurge Michaël. Unable to overcome my lengthy arguments against his pet heresy, he chose to misquote and misinterpret lesser parts of my letter in attempts to show me in heresy. Whether or not he succeeded, he himself remains a heretic. The letter follows: What you did was to quote Pius IX where he seemed to favor your heresy, and to omit the far more numerous words in which he disagreed with you, and to publish this warping of his intent as agreement with your heresy. Your action was not only dishonest but stupid, and your excuse was stupider yet. Do you imagine that everyone hangs on and treasures your words, and will remember when and where you included his words of disapproval? He at least could demonstrate agreement with his position with such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and Jesus Christ. You exhibit one 20th-century priest. Consistently you must either abandon your Feeneyite nonsense or condemn Pius IX for heresy. But you can’t succeed at that, so you twist, wriggle, and warp—all so you can divide Catholics who won’t accept the last four usurping antipopes.

172 And you send me citations from The Catholic Encyclopedia which record the duties of deacons and door-keepers during the times of overt persecution. You expect an apology from me because I have never encountered a man who performs these duties in my life. I have assisted at Sunday Mass regularly since the age of six.. I have gone to Mass in Canada, France, New Caledonia, Fiji, Italy, England, Ireland, Scotland, Australia, and even the United States. In all these places I went often to Mass where I was unknown, as well as in my own parish. No one has ever stopped me at the door to ask whether I was Catholic, and no priest ever wanted me to produce identification as I knelt at the communion rail. Nor have I seen anyone else so tested. I knew one priest who would pass by a woman with her head uncovered, but even he did not ask if she was Catholic. Nor have I heard anyone else whose entry was questioned. I have myself taken a few to task for their misbehavior in Church. I received no support from the parish priest, who stated expressly to complainers: “We have no official wardens to enforce proper behavior. Perhaps you should come along with your family members and supervise their conduct.” When I requested permission to address a dozen teenagers who decided to infest the loft and hold their meetings during Mass, I was told that the parish priest would not permit it. But he took care of it. Times have changed, however. If priests still kept their oaths and performed their duty I would not have been put to the trouble of preserving the faith. [In his Exurge #6, September 21, Ibranyi: “Before Vatican II, when I attended a church outside of my parish I was stopped by the usher who had asked me what parish I belonged to and said I must go back there and attend Mass, and forbid me to enter.” (What a disreputable appearance he must present!) “Not only does Hutton not care about the faith of those that attend his church” (It’s not my church.) “he does not care about the faith of the priest either. He admits that he attends the Masses of priests he is educating and may not yet be Catholic.” He then quotes my following paragraph in part as evidence of his monstrous imputation.] One of the aspects that I try to preserve is the missionary effort. I try to convert, among others, former Catholics, even priests. If we can interest a priest in returning to the true Mass we do so. We are permitted to do this under Canon Law, specifically Canon 2261 §2: Except as provided in §3 the faithful can for any just cause ask for sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated especially if there is no one else to give them; and in such cases the excommunicated person so asked may administer them and is not obliged to ask the reason for the request. After years in the postconciliar “Church” he may need educating, but we are willing to take the trouble, for his sake as well as our own. Sometimes we fail, as The War Is Now! #54 details. [“Hutton readily admits that the priests at his church are excommunicated heretics by appealing to Canon 2261.2. He also adds the word ‘Mass’ to Canon 2261.2.” (Here, as in his usher story, Ibranyi lies! One reason to cite Canon 2261 is to argue that since we may ask sacraments of an excommunicated priest we may certainly ask them of priests in good standing. Ibranyi then goes on to interpret the law for us Catholics who own commentaries, who understand the

173 language in which our laws were written, and can remember several decades in which the Church was not subjected to activities of postconciliar apostates.] I know my duties, my permissions, my limitations. But even if I did not, I would not take advice from a man who has never seen the Church in action. At this point I took time out to read your argument with Gordon Bateman. I marvel that two men innocent of Latin, one of whom lacks proficiency in English, can waste so much paper on useless argument. I shall not detail your errors in English usage because (1) it would waste another page or two, and (2) it might improve your presentation and credibility. But I shall repeat my own Latin dictionary quotations as published in The War Is Now! #37 (devoted entirely to Leonard Feeney’s local, utterly new heresy.) [Here I omit six paragraphs previously published in this book.] You accuse Bateman of ignorance of Scripture. He could well accuse you of ignorance of St. Thomas Aquinas and of papal encyclicals. You have managed to wrest them into incomprehensibility. According to you, if anyone has never heard of Christ and His Gospel he will not be condemned for that but he will be condemned anyway, whether or not he is in the state of grace. You insist that all Protestants, Jews, Moslems, etc. are corrupt, steeped in mortal sin, predestined for hell. This is utterly absurd, and is additionally none of our business. The Church preaches but God judges. Some things He keeps to Himself. [Ibranyi quoted the italicized words in the last paragraph as examples of “pure heresy, apostasy and blasphemy!” and continued in the same vein for a long paragraph, which he ended with: “Referring to my comment that there are no unforeseen accidents with God, Hutton disagrees.” To substantiate this lie he quotes a paragraph below—marked with **. Meanwhile he quotes my next three lines, for which he freely consigns me to hell—along with any who share this sentiment.] You will probably counter: Without faith it is impossible to please God. But I have known Protestants with faith enough to move mountains. But, you may say, their faith is misplaced; it is faith in error. So that will send them to hell? Then what do you expect as you hold your Feeneyite errors, against all ages and places of the Catholic Church? Should you have faith in Father Feeney? Will he go to hell for you? He may well go with you. Further down the same page 11, you write: “Yes saints have taught this (Baptism of blood) but I believe they were in error. Saints are not infallible in all they teach. … Books with are not infallible.” You apparently believe nothing unless it is infallibly stated. Can you believe your uneducated self? Are self-elected prophets infallible? You accuse Bateman of implying that God is not omniscient. But anyone can see that he called you a loose canon (he probably meant cannon) not for your loyal adherence to this doctrine but for your irresponsible application of God’s omniscience to assign Him the task of sending a preacher to all men of good will. You seem to expect the Church to increase by a never-ending series of miraculous private revelations, rather than by His Apostles and their successors, as He commanded. Has he sent you? To whom? Who must accept an incredible witness? 174 You are either too obtuse to recognize Bateman’s charge, or you have deliberately misunderstood it, that you might manufacture a spurious reason to question his orthodoxy. Here, as so often, you are not honest. Gordon Bateman’s God does not allow evil men into heaven; nor does He exclude good men. If “Mr. Bateman admits there is a dilemma in identifying the exact status of a justified catechumen, who has not been baptized by water, in relation to the Church,” as you write, you have not so demonstrated. Perhaps the “recent studies” to which he referred are some of my own. Certainly there are no ancient studies which examine the Feeney heresy because no one controverts a heresy not yet proposed. The Feeney heresy is recent, as well as local. Why should its refutation not be even more recent? To attack such an aspect further reveals your own shortcomings in the field of logic. Yet you continue to repeat and repeat the same useless arguments. Eventually, on page 28, you demonstrate your superiority to the Trent Catechism in use of specific terms. You reduce your argument to the absurd. “The point is that God sees the adult who is in danger of death, God knows his heart, and God has the power to prevent it if He wills it so. Dare anyone say any different! Who is man, but dirt and dust to try to usurp God’s judgments? Who is man to try and disallow what God has allowed? Who is man to pretend to give man, what God has not seen fit to give him in his one lifetime?” ** Every man dies, in the manner which God has foreseen and permits. Unless he kills himself, or was hit by a truck from the path of which he pushed another person, [Here Ibranyi inserted a period and omitted the rest of my sentence and paragraph. He can’t be that stupid. He has misquoted me with malice aforethought, and capitalized on his deliberate mistake. I shall never again write him privately.] this has no direct effect on his salvation. What is your point? Who is man to usurp God’s judgments to condemn? Who is man to disallow the mercy which God may have allowed? Who is man to understand what God has seen fit to grant any other man? What ails you muleheads? You have lost your entire argument centuries ago to Sts. Ambrose and Augustine, to the Roman Martyrology, to an unbaptized criminal on the next cross to Christ’s. [Here I quoted the following articles, previously published in The War Is Now! I see no need to repeat them, especially since Ibranyi could not answer the arguments—and chose, therefore, to misquote the heretofore unpublished letter by which I tried to bring him to his senses. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, [William H. W. Fanning, S.J., Professor, Church History & Canon Law, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Mo.] Vol. II, p. 266: X. Substitutes for the Sacrament. … The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, [Joseph Pohle, S.T.D., Ph.D., J.C.L., Professor of Dogmatic Theology, University of Breslau] Vol VIII, p. 577, Justification. …

175 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q. 66, A. 11. Objections 1 & 2 …] Note particularly the words of Jesus Christ quoted in these articles. You must accept His words or you are not in good faith. You cannot then continue to claim status as a prophet. So whence your authority? Who sent you? When will you quit purveying heresy? (end of letter) Except for the wildcat “clergy” most traditionalist writers can be trusted to argue aspects of facts. Some may misunderstand, or miss the point, but they try to resolve differences. Very few descend to deliberate misquotation to swindle a conclusion. Ibranyi may deny that he has misquoted me, and pretend that I have “corrected” my letter to refute his attack. But I, at least, would know what to correct, and would have corrected it before mailing it. Should anyone feel an (Ex)urge to write him, publish prior to posting!

#57, August 2002 Ibranyidiocy # 13, June 2002 continues to prove that its publisher cannot understand what he reads. He writes: “‘Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation’ is a different topic from the Baptism Controversy.” He must have lost an argument somewhere. He quotes Gregory XVI, Mirari vos: “13. … … fraud of wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion …” and Pius IX, Qui pluribus: “15. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion …” Then he applies these perfectly true statements to convict others of heresy for our reasoned adherence to Baptism of Desire, which has its first foundation in the undoubted salvation of a thief crucified with Jesus Christ. Ibranyi imputes heresy to us who agree with the authorities by which he presumes to condemn us. No Catholic believes that salvation can be obtained through the profession or practice of another religion. Should a Catholic so believe, he would logically select an easier religion for himself. But Ibranyi in his arrogant ignorance presumes to misunderstand our argument that those who merit (as far as humanly possible) salvation in no way benefit from practice or profession of a non-Catholic religion. No man-made religion can speak for God to promise salvation. Salvation is only through the Catholic Church. Baptism of Desire, recognized by the Council of Trent, clearly implies that those saved by it are saved in spite of faulty (but sincere) profession or worship. Denzinger 796. Council of Trent, Sessio VI, Cap 4: In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the “adoption of sons” [Rom. 8:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration [can. 5 de bapt.], or a desire for it, .....(Quae quidem translatio post Evangelium promulgatum sine lavacro regenerationis, aut eius voto, fieri non potest.) But Ibranyi (as well as the Feeneyites) will usurp a divine prerogative and pronounce damnations. He tells God who may be saved. Nor will he be bound

176 by definition of doctrine. He continues to flout Holy Scripture. Why is he himself not a pertinacious heretic? Have we sunk so low as to deserve him? In July 1998 Feeneyite St. Benedict Center published an article which accepts Baptism of Desire in catechumens who die without Baptism. This article appears also to furnish the basis for Richard Ibranyi’s recent statement: “‘Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation’ is a different topic from the Baptism Controversy.” Ibranyi hasn’t enough brains to invent such a dodge. He obviously read the aforesaid 1998 article. The letter introducing the 1998 article: “… we of the SBC have always held that BOD (Baptism of Desire) in the limited sense of being unto salvation for catechumens is not ‘heresy’. … SBC says BOD in this limited sense is “an academic difference to be settled by the Church”, [whenever it can be found] not “heresy”. BOD is not the issue … those obsessed with BOD are missing the point. From the article itself in MANCIPIA, July 1998, The Angelus, et alia vs. SBC: [Joseph Pfeiffer, SSPX’s] article attempted two things: (1) to show that the Council of Trent taught that baptism of desire was sufficient for salvation; and (2) to show that, after roughly the year 1000, the teaching of the “three baptisms” was the most common opinion among theologians. In his first goal Father Pfeiffer failed, since this is clearly not the teaching of the Council of Trent. [Whether or not Pfeiffer proved his point, the Council of Trent said just that.] …This teaching indeed was and is the common teaching of theologians since the early part of the millennium. [Father Feeney himself blamed it on Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland. (1890’s)] … Does this mean it is true? Does this mean we have to believe it? … on both scores … no! [To back this opinion, SBC drags in an irrelevant “parallel,” controversy over the Immaculate Conception.] … If the Father Pfeiffer article, which limits itself to our conflicting theologies on the sacrament of Baptism, has stated the only point of disagreement between us, and if they would keep their opinion from leading us to any further speculation on salvation outside the Church, we would have what amounts to an academic difference to be settled by the authority of the Church. … … most people do not believe in the necessity of one of the requisites for baptism of desire: belief in the Catholic Faith … [If one believes in the Catholic Faith he is bound to embrace it, and to be baptized if possible. But Feeneyites define terms in their own ways, which exclude invincible ignorance.] …some …defend the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus by starting with the issue of Baptism, as if that were the beginning. We follow Father Feeney’s program, which was to start with what was most certain: the necessity of divine and Catholic Faith, since it is taught so clearly in Scripture, Tradition, and by the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. Faith is the beginning of salvation and it is where our presentation should begin. To start an argument about the dogma by discussing hypothetical catechumens was not the way of Father Feeney. He addressed the issue when it was put to his attention, but it still remained of lesser importance in the “big picture.” [Father Feeney addressed the issue, but he came up with the wrong solution.]

177 … To say “there is salvation outside the Church,” or “ Lutherans can be saved,” or “the Catholic Faith is not absolutely necessary for salvation for every human creature,” is clearly to utter heresy. [$$PX “clergy” may say such things, but all are schismatics and/or heretics. No Catholic holds that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church. Lutherans can be saved, but not through Lutheranism or any other man-made religion. Everyone saved is saved through the Catholic Church, though he may never have heard of the Catholic Church, or though he may sincerely believe the Catholic Church in error because he was so taught by his erring parents and preachers. His position is termed invincible ignorance. Feeneyites should believe in it gratefully; it is the only route by which they themselves can enter heaven.] #56, April 2002 Expurge Ibranyi! Richard Ibranyi has made a name for himself. He has pushed his brand of beyond its native habitat, and encountered his equal in the art of invective, one Prakash John Mascarenhas of Bombay, India. He could easily have avoided this confrontation, but he had refused repeated demonstrations that his pet heresy is both local and contemporary—that it has been held only in the twentieth century and in North America. Persistence may be a virtue; ignorance and obstinacy, especially when combined, are not. Nor is fanatical devotion to heresy. Nor is this latest rebuff likely to bring him to his senses, granted that he ever had any. He will defend his grievous errors and his atrocious manners publicly at supererogative length just as long as he receives financial backing. He could save well over half his printing costs by hiring some one who can write English. Nor would it hurt him to avoid Latin, in which language he is at least equally incompetent, e.g., in the title of his superfluous publication, Exurge Michaël, which he equates, I believe, with Exsurge Michaël. Exsurge = Arise. Exurge = Squeeze out, usually. Context? #58, 2003 Finis Feeney Some people demonstrate real dedication—disproportionate to the worthiness of their cause. One man has reproduced The Catholic Dogma, an 1889 book written by Father Michael Muller. In his accompanying argument he has again rested his case. Has he overcome all arguments against the Feeneyite heresy? He cites an extract from a novel as “That one teaching alone is the reason why the Catholic Church has been reduced to only a handful of true believers today.” But all official Feeneyites today still maintain their good standing in the “Church” of Vatican II, said to be founded upon this “modernist” idea of baptism of desire. And we who most reasonably and logically oppose this same postconciliar “Church” and its four antipopes disagree entirely with the chief distinctive Feeneyite tenets. How has our opposition to novel Feeneyite versions of no salvation outside the Church brought on the modernist revolution of Vatican II? Why did this catastrophe not overtake us in the days of St. Ambrose, or even those of St. Thomas Aquinas? How designate a modernist heresy that which St. Thomas discussed at length in the thirteenth century? Why would he treat seriously what did not exist? 178 What is gained by pointing out that Baptisms of Desire and Blood are not sacramental? Everyone knows that! How is that fact relevant to any argument raised by either side? The entire issue is so novel and local that no one overseas has ever encountered it. Its importance arises only from (1) divisions it creates among traditional Catholics, (2) the time and effort devoted to irrelevancies, (3) the allegation that it is held by traditional people. It is certainly not a tradition of the Catholic Church. I have managed to stagger through Father Muller’s 207 pages, their peculiar attitude to controversy, their endless reiterations (possibly from several sermons) of the same useless opinions, their admissions of St. Ambrose, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the thief crucified on Christ’s right (and implied irrelevance of all three), their incomplete quotations which arrive at conclusions unwarranted by their insufficient arguments. This book hammers selective truth—selection = heresy. One endlessly reiterated “fact”: all Protestants agree that men can be saved through the Catholic Church. Father Muller and I know different Protestants. Mine have held since their origins that Catholics follow all those papal antichrists, and additionally court damnation by worship of the Virgin Mary and pieces of bread. They even attempt my conversion so that I may have a chance to be saved, like they are, through accepting Jesus Christ as my personal Savior. Muller “proves” endlessly the non-existence of invincible ignorance by denial of its possibility to group after group and opinion after opinion through a species of logic. Invincible ignorance is logical? Pope Pius IX said (Denzinger 1647): “…it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not stained by any guilt in this matter in the eyes of God. Now, in truth, who would arrogate so much to himself as to mark the limits of such an ignorance, because of the nature and variety of peoples, regions, innate dispositions, and of so many other things?” Who would arrogate so much to himself? Michael Muller would! But even he dodges the issue by damning the ignorant for other reasons. Can he know the state of a man’s soul? For the record—No Catholic: (1) denies that salvation is obtainable through the Catholic Church exclusively. (2) maintains that Baptism of Desire is common—only that it exists. (3) maintains that it is an easier route to salvation. Obviously salvation is much harder to achieve without the ordinary means of grace. (4) Just as an indulgence is not a license to commit sin, so is not Baptism of Desire a license to hold heresy. Must men quarrel over what lies solely in God’s hands? Feeneyites never quit. They continue to press their heresy, which directly concerns the salvation of no baptized Catholic. They reel off repetitive argument by the hundreds of pages of partial quotations and point-missing. They obscure issues by poor grammar and usage. They refuse to face often- demonstrated facts incompatible with their obstinate opinions. They distract from the real fight. They waste our time and energy, but must be refuted for the sake of the people they bamboozle. They pretend to zeal for souls—but whose?

179 They pretend to zeal for truth, and mis-define their points at issue. They go so far as to blame the whole post-conciliar mess, and the wretched council itself, on the “erroneous” baptisms of blood and desire. When beaten down, they lie low long enough for all to forget how badly, and then return with the same useless arguments as though never refuted. If not again refuted, Feeneyites often credit themselves with the last word, and howl off in triumph. They belong with the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witlesses—off my pages! A reader sent me A Voice Crying in the Wilderness newsletter #2 featuring A Short (four 8" x 11" pp. with ¼" margins and print half this size) Refutation of the Theory of Baptism of Desire by Bro. Peter Dimond. Theory, is it? The reader had replied to the newsletter in little more than three pages, detailing fifty errors in the (not very) original article. Peter Dimond wasted his time repeating Feeney-type comments, and brought on a highly competent refutation, of the nature of shooting fish in a barrel. I could almost feel sorry for Dimond. After wasting time producing an unnecessary article he is rolled over and pounded into the ground. But his unnecessary article (highly unoriginal, may I repeat?) caused the loss of sufficient time to refute it. Time invested in this issue is time lost. We have enough real problems which can elicit profitable discussions for baptized Catholics. Since both the Feeneyites and their sedevacantist imitators present their same arguments so often, refutation tends also to become repetitious. Until I hear some argument not refuted by what I have published, I shall drop all further controversy on this heresy from these pages. Its noisiest proponents, however, are prone to espouse an unrelated new or resurrected heresy at any time. On Recommendation of Lay Cardinals Caesar Borgia, it is said, never became a priest, even though he enjoyed the office of Prince of the Church. So when he wished to marry, it was no trick at all to be laicized. Better red-blooded than red-hatted? Rumor had it that Paul VI intended to raise Jacques Maritain to the Sacred College. Maritain supposedly refused the honor, possibly because he was already red enough. Besides, he might then be forced to recant the dissatisfaction with the new Church displayed in his book, The Peasant of the Garonne. But the offer itself may have charmed him out of further public pursuit of his divine discontent. Legion are the uses for the red hat. It has been conferred to honor the people of metropolitan sees, to involve regional or national pride, or even to relax the hold of national heroes on their flocks by setting up rivals such as Newman and Wojtyla. When his family secured Archbishop Kung’s release from Red China he was quickly awarded the hat to ease the Vatican into contact with the genuinely Catholic underground Church, and to betray its leaders into the hands of the Reds. The recent rash of promotions to the college included several prelates from Eastern Europe’s “former Communist” regions, in obvious attempts to allay distrust of the postconciliar “Church” among those isolated by persecution. Rome thus asserts its influence over those likely to rebel at the suddenness of

180 major change, the successful acceptance of which was secured in the “free” world by graduality of imposition. We must express surprise that the captive “Church” in Rome has not used the same approach to conservative Catholics. Imagine the points it could have gained had it elevated Michael Davies to the cardinalate. There exists a successful precedent for neutralizing a rebellious group, and retaining it in the new “Church.” These rebels continue to create diversity and friction, to fragment and paralyze from within, as intended. All needed was rehabilitation of Father Leonard Feeney. The Church had at last “come to its senses,” so Feeney and his followers, in their gratitude to the new and resentment of the old, joined the innovators who bear the real responsibility for their chief complaint—death of the missionary effort. They continue to ascribe this dread result to an apparent doctrinal contradiction diagnosed only half a century ago when missionary activity still continued to thrive as it had for nineteen centuries. Baptism of Blood and Desire, held from Apostolic times, never impeded the Apostolic effort. Obviously all missionary activity ceased with official adoption of Ecumenism and Religious Freedom, as implemented since the illegitimate Second Vatican Council by a series of antipopes.

* * * * * * 1/9. For any one plain text of scripture sufficeth for the proof of any truth, except any man be of the mind that he will have God tell His tale twice ere he believe Him. – A Book for all Seasons, St. The War Is Now! # 35 STANDARD OF UNITY A Florida subscriber agrees that we lack a standard of unity—a pope. She suggests that Catholics in our crisis have another standard of unity: . St. Thomas Aquinas (S.T. III, Q. 73, art. 3): “..... the reality of the sacrament (Holy Eucharist) is the unity of the Mystical Body, outside which can be no salvation.” So our fragmentation can be attributed also to lack of the Holy Eucharist, which is not produced outside a true Mass of a truly ordained priest. Both Mass and priest are now unavailable to most. St. Thomas continues (same article): “..... before receiving a sacrament, the reality of a sacrament can be had through the very desire of receiving it, just as before Baptism through the desire of Baptism.” (see Q. 68, art. 2). There can be no doubt that in Holy Communion, or its desire, we all receive the one reality. Though we must keep the Faith in unity with all our forebears (Communion of Saints), even if physically alone, it is not good for man to be alone. The regular practise of spiritual communion requires no prior fast, nor are we limited to once a day.

181 St. Thomas (reply, Obj. 2): “One can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this sacrament.”

Another Vacuum Filled In Is The Pope Catholic? Page 26, second last paragraph, we find Dr. L. P. Fitzgerald, O.P., who had in The Catholic Weekly (7 Dec. 72) referred to “a possibly new vocabulary” on which to base transignification and transfiguration to replace that horrendous stumbling block to ecumenism, . Transfiguration was already taken, but that creates no obstacle for the dedicated, definition-perverting modernist. Transignification is not in my 1971 unabridged Oxford Dictionary. So it was never used before, or (more likely) it defies definition. FitzGerald has returned, this time with a whole pamphlet, an ACSJC Occasional Paper, No. 18: The Justice God Wants, Islam and Human Rights, December 1993. From the back cover: “Father FitzGerald, a leading Christian scholar of Islam, provides readers with a simple and eye-opening introduction to the Islamic faith and its teachings on human rights. … Dr. Laurence FitzGerald OP has a doctorate in philosophy in Islamic theology from the Australian National University, and a doctorate in theology from the Angelicum University (Rome). On behalf of the Australian Catholic Bishops and the , he has been engaged in dialogue with Australian for many years.” Who are these “readers?” The Muslims already know. FitzGerald proved 21 years earlier that he was not Catholic, despite his Roman doctorate. But why on earth should a priest, in these days of acute priest shortage, waste time that should be dedicated to spreading God’s true Gospel in the study—at a university yet—of a false and idolatrous religion spread, not as Christianity through the power of its message, but by the power of its messengers bearing fire and sword, and indulging in hashish to implement their missionary activity. “Scholars such as the Reverend Dr. Laurence FitzGerald OP, who has devoted many years to a study of Islamic beliefs and customs, can help others to replace ignorance with knowledge,” writes “Bp” William Brennan (Wagga Wagga), Chairman Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, on page 5. Granted that both men have wantonly squandered and embezzled time given them for propagation of the Faith, why has it taken them years to study a sect geared to the most ignorant of men? Catholics are to replace their own ignorance with knowledge of Islam! The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Vol. X, 426a: “Mohammed’s religion … contains practically nothing original; it is a confused combination of native Arabian heathenism, Judaism, Christianity, Sabiism (…), Hanifism, and Zoroastrianism.” Vol. I, 186c: “Since Islam is at once a religious doctrine, a social system, a political principle, a commercial interest, a civilization that arrogates to itself all manner of rights against the ‘infidel’, it follows that each Mussulman is intimately possessed by the spirit of proselytism. To this end he may, and does, make use of every means; all is permissible against the ‘unbeliever’. Islam, therefore, imposes itself by force, by 182 persuasion, by interest, by alliances, by the spirit of imitation, by fashion. … the extreme simplicity of its doctrine, the easy yoke of its liturgical discipline, its liberal indulgence in respect of morality, all sustained by the hope of a Paradise made up of well-defined and attractive pleasures, combine to make Islam an ideal religion for the childish intelligence and sensual nature … Islam as it were crystallizes the heart and mind of man. It is not a step upward, but a wall that arrests all progress. … the absolute freedom with which it preys on the ‘infidel’ by means of polygamy, slavery, thefts, and all kinds of injustice, the utter corruption and the spread of venereal diseases to which it gives rise, the pride, hypocrisy, and laziness which it engenders in its disciples, the formidable cohesion which it gives to them, make the expansion of ‘Mussulman civilization’ … anything but desirable.” FitzGerald’s pamphlet, page 15: “From time to time in Australia, Muslims are reported as asking that they be tried by Muslim courts and law.” But we can’t keep our transubstantiation. The pamphlet deals with idealized nonsense from the Koran and the good intentions of a congress of legal experts—a waste of time. But after all his time wasted, FitzGerald evidently believes that we also have time to waste. Latin Ordinariate? In 1994 I received a request to sign and support a petition to be submitted to the vacant Holy See for a separate ordinariate for traditional Latin Catholics. Will the package include a catechism, a canon law, and valid ordinations? I had replied April 24, 1992 to similar suggestions: Not enough economic pressure. Modernists simply fold up operations and sell off property paid for by generations of Catholics. They close or secularize our schools, our parishes, our patrimony, and demand our support for their continuing malfeasance and destruction. They borrow their models from the Turk (Janissaries) and F. D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Please recall his dictum that in politics nothing happens by accident—it was planned. Then apply it to the modernist seizure of the Church, which could not wander into our situation accidentally. The antipopes never intended to regularize Lefebvre and his half-educated “ordained” simpletons—easier to fight them than real Catholics. Leave them at large in mock opposition to disorganize the battle. With them in characteristic operation, no one need fear that traditional Catholics will ever agree, unite, or fight Rome effectively. I believe that Lefebvre consciously cooperated in counterfeiting a battle to split and defuse the traditional effort. We should have won easily; we have changed nothing in the unchangeable. Compromise beats us. Some changes are acceptable? No! May they all go back to hell! The enemy stands behind the novus ordo—not Catholic worship but a tool of ecumenism. Now, when this idolatrous innovation has ousted the true Mass worldwide, JP2 will graciously permit the 1962 modification of the true Mass to those who will admit that the novus ordo abomination is a real Mass. Can the brainwashed clergy who have presided thereat for all these years remember the Church’s intention? The indult is of the conciliar “Church,” and has its intention—to destroy and supplant the true Mass. 183 You quote the wrong code of canon law. The four antipopes automatically lost all offices in the Church, according to the code in effect at the time of their apostasy. … John Paul II lacked competence to replace the 1917-18 code with the 1983 code, even could the change be otherwise legitimate. It was introduced after the facts in a futile attempt to justify the facts. … A heretic, not being in the Church by definition, is superior to no one in the Church. Catholics must reject heresy and those who propound it. Nor may laws be changed to impede or prevent this necessary condemnation. The innovations forced upon us were not pastoral in character. They concerned moral and dogmatic definitions. They destroyed our divinely instituted Mass and sacraments, and replaced them with man-made empty forms and ceremonies incapable of conferring grace. Had John Paul II really wanted justice he would have restored the Mass and sacraments and condemned Vatican II in 1978, instead of dedicating his pontificate to Vatican II’s further implementation. He might never have published his horrible “encyclicals,” or even contributed so willingly to ecumenism, religious freedom, and . If he wanted us or our traditional views respected he could both legislate (incompetently) to that effect and provide an example. He has done neither. He never will. Nor would it concern us had this apostate such plans. Catholics need not criticize him, but to keep the faith we must condemn all his “official” words and actions.

ANTI-SEMITISM ITS HISTORY AND CAUSES Bernard Lazare; The International Library Publishing Co., 23 Duane St., New York 1903 (Translated from the French) Page 126: “The only country where the Jews could claim the dignity of human beings was closed to them at the opening of the sixteenth century. The capture of Granada and the conquest of the Moorish Kingdom had deprived the Jews of their last refuge...... Spain, now free from the Moors, wished to get rid of the Jews, whom the Catholic king and queen expelled the very year of Boabdil’s fall, while the Inquisition doubled the severities against the Marranos and the descendants of the Moriscoes.” [The only country? This Jewish author ignores the Jews’ privileged position in the entire Moslem world, well merited in Spain, where they had promoted the Moorish invasion from its beginning. But he never asserts that the Inquisition had hounded any Jew. In theory they all left in 1492 with the Moslems.] Pp. 128-33: “Still the Jews did not change. Such as we have seen them right in the Middle Ages, we find them also at the moment of the Reformation; morally and intellectually the mass of the Jews was perhaps even worse. But if they had not changed, those by their side had changed. People were less believing, and therefore less inclined to detest heretics. Averroism had prepared this decadence of faith, and the part played by the Jews in the spread of Averroism is well known; so that they had thus worked for their own benefit. The majority of Averroists were unbelievers, or more or less assailed the Christian religion. They were the direct ancestors of the men of the 184 Renaissance. It is owing to them that the spirit of doubt, ..... of investigation, had worked itself out. The Florentine platonists, the Italian Aristotelians, the German humanists came from them; ..... “The Humanists were (the Reformation’s) promoters. Everything turned them away from Catholicism. The Greeks of Constantinople, fleeing from the Turks, had brought them the treasures of the ancient literatures...... They were finding new reasons for combatting , that old servant- maid of the Church. The humanists were becoming skeptics and pagans in Italy, but in Germany the emancipating movement which they helped to bring about was becoming more religious. To beat the scholastics the humanists of the empire became theologians, and went to the very sources in order to arm themselves better; they learned Hebrew ..... in order to find therein arguments against their opponents. “During these years which ushered in the Reformation, the Jew turned educator, and taught the scholars Hebrew; he initiated them into the mysteries of the kabbala after having opened to them the doors of Arabic philosophy. Against Catholicism he equipped them with the formidable exegesis which protestantism, and later on rationalism, would make good use of...... the Jews, who had ..... supplied humanism with weapons, had also given it the pretext for its first serious battle. The contest for or against the Talmud was the fore-runner of the disputes over the Eucharist...... “Luther issued at Wittenberg his ninety-five theses, and Catholicism ..... was forced to fight for its essential tenets. For a moment the theologians forgot the Jews, they even forgot that the spreading movement took its roots in Hebrew sources. Nevertheless, the Reformation in Germany and England as well was one of those movements when Christianity acquired new force in Jewish sources. The Jewish spirit triumphed with Protestantism. In certain respects the Reformation was a return to the ancient Ebionism of the evangelic ages. A great portion of the protestant sects was semi-Jewish, the anti-trinitarian doctrines were later preached by the protestants, by Michael Servet and the two Socins of Sienna among others. Even in Transylvania anti-trinitarianism had flourished since the sixteenth century, and Seidelius had asserted the excellence of Judaism and of the Decalogue. The Gospels had been abandoned for the Old Testament and the Apocalypse. The influence exercised by these two books over the Lutherans, the Calvinists and especially the Reformers and the English revolutionists, is well known. This influence continued to the nineteenth century” [in which this book was written]; “it produced the Methodists, Pietists, and particularly the Millenaries, the men of the Fifth Monarchy, who in London dreamed with Venner of a republic and allied themselves with the Levellers of John Lilburne. “Moreover, Protestantism, at its inception in Germany, endeavored to win over the Jews, and in this respect, the analogy between Luther and Mohammed is striking. Both had drawn their teachings from Hebrew sources, both wished to have the remains of Israel stamp with approval the new dogmas which they were formulating......

185 “..... the social and religious conditions had quite changed, and this change was advantageous to the Jews, who saw other preoccupations keep their enemies busy.” Pp. 302-304: “The Jews ..... preached the materialism of the Arabian philosophers which was to prove so destructive to the Christian faith, and carried abroad the spirit of skepticism. Their activity was such as to give rise to a general belief in the existence of a secret society sworn to the destruction of Christianity. During the thirteenth century, ..... which witnessed the rapid development of that complex of humanism, skepticism and paganism which we call the Renaissance ..... the Jews occupied the first place among scholars and rationalist philosophers. At the court of the Emperor Frederick II, ‘that hotbed of irreligion,’ they were received with favor and respect. It was they, as Renan has shown, that created Averroism; it was they who established the fame of that Ibn Roshd, that Averroes whose influence was destined to become so great...... Truly has Darmesteter written: ‘The Jew was the apostle of unbelief, and every revolt of the mind originated with him, whether secretly or in the open.’ ..... “..... also worthy of notice. If the Jews as followers of Averroes, or as unbelievers, skeptics and blasphemers, sapped the foundations of Christianity in spreading the doctrines of materialism and rationalism, they were also the creators of that other enemy of Catholic dogma, pantheism. In fact the Fons Vitae of Avicebron was the well at which numerous heretics drank...... It is certain that Giordano Bruno borrowed from the Fons Vitae, whence his pantheism came in part...... “Moreover the Hebrew genius worked not only through them, for their Bible became a powerful aid to all advocates of freedom of thought. The Bible was the soul of the Reformation, just as it was the soul of the religious and political revolution in England...... through the Bible Luther, Melanchthon and others broke the yoke of Roman theocracy and overthrew the tyranny of dogma. But they made use, too, of that Jewish scholarship which Nicholas de Lyra had transmitted to the Christian world. Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset, it used to be said, and Lyra had studied with the Jews; in fact he was so steeped in the science of Hebrew exegesis that he was taken for a Jew himself.” Pp.306-307: “We must not forget that in the seventeenth century, scholars like Wagenseil, Bartolocci, Buxtorf and Wolf, had brought forth from oblivion old volumes of Hebrew polemic, written in refutation of the Trinity and the Incarnation and attacking all dogmas and forms of Christianity with a bitterness entirely Judaic, and with all the subtlety of those peerless casuists who created the Talmud. They gave to the world not only treatises on questions of doctrine and exegesis, ..... but published blasphemous tractates and pseudo-lives of Jesus, ..... The eighteenth century repeated, concerning Jesus and the Virgin, the outrageous fables invented by the Pharisees of the second century; we find them in Voltaire and in Parny, and their rationalist satire, pellucid and mordant, lives again in Heine, in Boerne and in Disraeli; just as the powerful logic of the ancient rabbis lives again in Karl Marx, and the passionate thirst for liberty of

186 the ancient Hebrew rebels breathes forth again in the glowing soul of Ferdinand Lassalle.” [Over the next ten pages Lazare admits that Jews flooded into the revolutionary socialist groups and secret societies, but denies that Jews founded them. He makes a couple of notorious exceptions, but by and large the Illuminati, Carbonari, and freemasons just happened to attract Jews by similarity of ideas and interests.] Page 320: “Has the Jew retained his ancient notions; is he still in his actions anti-Christian? I say in his actions, because he is necessarily anti- Christian, by definition, in being a Jew, just as he is anti-Mohammedan, just as he is opposed to every principle which is not his own.”

Lazare, having catalogued centuries of anti-Christian aggression, asks whether it had ceased. Only fourteen years later in Russia it crested beyond all precedent. The Jew, says Lazare, is by definition necessarily anti-Christian. History shows that when he can, he backs his principles with action. Why the surprise at reaction? Had he never undermined a government, nor enriched himself at the expense of his neighbors, he might have been left in peace to hold his anti- Christian principles. Is the Christian allowed his principles? Is he not by definition anti-Moslem, anti-Judaic, anti-Hindu, anti-dream time, against every principle which is not his own? Not according to JP2 or Vatican II.

Robert Bergin’s Authority Alden Hatch’s biography of Paul VI: “It is possible that of all the popes of modern times Pope Paul VI is the only one who desired the office.” (page 8) “..... John inspired Montini to succeed him.” (page 9) “When the Council first met in October, 1962, Montini was the only non- resident cardinal whom John invited to live in the Vatican, thereby having him at hand for unofficial, unpublicized, and intimate talks on the problems presented day by day. … Pope John became convinced that he would not live to see its end. “… it was well known that John felt that the one person capable of fulfilling his plans and realizing his hopes for an open Church and a united Christendom was Montini.” (page 9) “It is even said ..... that John coached Montini in the matter of getting elected, … the brilliant and progressive Archbishop of Milan … took virtually no part in the debates. By remaining uncommitted, he made it possible for cardinals of all opinions to vote for him in good conscience.” (page 10) “Pope John’s first great gesture, which he always attributed to the Holy Spirit, came on January 25, 1959, when at St. Paul’s Outside-the-Walls he announced to eighteen cardinals his intention of calling an . The

187 cardinals sat in stunned silence ..... made no move and spoke no word of approval.” (page 110) “The Cardinal-Archbishop of Milan was the first member of the Sacred College publicly to hail the Pope’s move towards renewal of the Church...... Montini exultantly greeted the Council that was to open windows to the world. Others might fear the draught, but he looked out at the fair prospect of ‘history opening with immense and centuries-old visions before our eyes.—’” (page 111) “Montini’s enthusiasm for the Council stemmed from his ardent wish to bring the Church into harmony with the thinking of the modern world without losing any significant tradition.” (page 111) “..... the Holy Father then made it perfectly plain that he hoped Montini would be his successor to guide the Council towards the achievements they both anticipated for it..... the Holy Father seemed to have greater confidence in the Cardinal’s ability to bring the Council to a successful conclusion than in his own—if Montini were elected pope. Roncalli took the name John XXIII, last used (1410-15) by antipope Baldassare Cossa, possibly because, according to Pier Carpi (Les Propeties de Jean XXIII), under that name he joined the masonic Rosicrucians in Turkey (1935). Charles Riandey, a masonic sovereign , contributed to a preface to “Ecumenism as Seen by a Traditionalist Freemason” (Paris, 1969) by Yves Marsaudon, State Minister of the Supreme Council of France (Scottish Rite): “To the memory of Angelo Roncalli, priest, Archbishop of Messamaris, Apostolic Nuncio in Paris, Cardinal of the Roman Church, Patriarch of Venice, Pope under the name of John XXIII, who has deigned to give us his benediction, his understanding, and his protection.” Robert Bergin of Fatima International complains of the thinly veiled contempt for the Fatima message at Vatican II under the leadership of John XXIII. He has now discovered that John XXIII was a Freemason before his therefore null election to the papacy. He quotes Virgilio Gaito, Grand Master of Grand Oriente: “It seems that Pope John XXIII has been initiated in Paris and has participated in the works of the Lodges in Istanbul.” Bergin assures us that “The Grand Master of Italy’s Masons would be in a position to know with certainty if Angelo Roncalli had been initiated into the Order in Paris. It would be incredibly reckless of him to make such a sensitive statement, if he did not.” The automatic excommunication then incurred would have invalidated Roncalli’s subsequent election, which, writes Bergin, would mean that Vatican II, which he convoked without papal authority, would have been equally invalid. Bergin continues: “There is considerable evidence that Angelo Roncalli was a formal heretic, long before he became a Freemason. He was known to have vigorously opposed … the reforms that St. Pius X was introducing in the struggle against Modernism.” … “as Nuncio in Paris, Roncalli bestowed exceptionally lavish praise on Marc Sangnier, founder of the Sillon …” condemned by St. Pius X for grave errors and culpable obstinacy of its leaders. Yet Roncalli in the late forties praised Sangnier fulsomely. “Clearly … Roncalli 188 was as much opposed to the efforts of St. Pius X to destroy Modernism as he ever was, …no accident that the Anti-Modernist Oath taken by bishops and priests, disappeared at the Second Vatican Council. There is much evidence that Angelo Roncalli, right throughout his life, had an extraordinary affinity for communists, left-wingers and socialists of all kinds … He would not tolerate any criticisms of the Communists, just as he would not tolerate any criticisms of Communism at the Council. If anyone would refer to these enemies of the Church in his presence he would say curtly, ‘The Church has no enemies.’ This statement, besides being insane, is probably one of the most heretical statements ever uttered.” Mr. Bergin then sums up and again concludes that if his summation is correct then Vatican II was invalid. But he has not, to my knowledge, drawn the equally obvious conclusions that: (1) All Roncalli’s appointments were equally invalid, specifically all his promotions to the cardinalate, including that of Giambattista Montini and the enlargement of the Sacred College from seventy to one hundred fifteen. (2) Therefore Montini, elected by a packed conclave, was equally ineligible, and had no power to reconvoke a council, even if properly convoked in the first place. (3) Therefore Montini’s replacement of the Mass and sacraments, as well as his further packing of the formerly Sacred College, were even less valid than Roncalli’s preliminary assaults on the Mass. Can Mr. Bergin recall the article I presented in refutation (15 Feb. 1975) of Father Flanagan’s “The Novus Ordo, A further Comment,” published in his 4 Feb. issue? Mr. Bergin replied (13 June): “… I have always felt that the novus ordo is valid —much as I dislike it. And I do not wish to be responsible for dissuading our readers from attending a valid Mass. The debate had to be handled with that in mind.” Obviously, no debate exists when only one side is presented. Bergin is responsible that his readers, brainwashed by that great theologian-Latinist- canonist, Father Flanagan, never read or weighed our traditional argument— that they continue to participate in the Great Idolatry instead of the true Mass. Why? He feels! He also appears to have felt the traditional argument unanswerable, or at least sufficiently convincing to disssuade his readers from attending the novus ordo, in which modernism, Arianism, and Judaism run rampant. Mr. Bergin has at last partially awakened. But after many years of documented argument, some quoted in his own article, what has accomplished his rude awakening? After such public arguments as those of Fathers Barbara and De Nantes, such books as Piers Compton’s The Broken Cross, the poisonous fruits of Vatican II, and the unmistakable admissions of actions of Roncalli himself, Mr. Bergin seems to have seen the light through the disinterested representation of one single Freemason. Would that I had such credibility!

189 The War Is Now! # 36 Christian Apologetics, De Vivier & Messmer, Benziger, 1903 (minimally edited) “Such alteration would have been impossible in books so widely known and respected from the beginning. When could it have taken place? In the time of the apostles? They would not have permitted it. After their death? Their disciples would have seen and protested. A little later? The copies of these writings were so numerous and such a great check on one another that any alteration would have excited violent protest on the part of the Christians, the heretics, the Jews and pagans. ‘At the present day,’ says August Nicolas, ‘it would be impossible to alter the Holy Scriptures, for they are in the hands of all Catholics, of the pope, bishops, priests and laity; ..... of heretics and Jews; ..... of unbelievers: and one or other of these would be sure to brand the imposture as soon as it appeared. Now what is impossible today, because of this triple rank of incorruptible surveillants, has always been impossible for the same reason.’”(page 147) [Good News for Modern Man would have astounded Nicolas and Devivier.] “During the first period of its existence either the Church of Christ was buried in error or it had preserved the integrity and purity of its doctrine. In the first case, the promises which guaranteed the stability and perpetuity of the Church were not fulfilled, consequently the Author of these promises was not God nor was He sent by God. Hence we have no need to concern ourselves with His work, still less with the work of Luther or Calvin. If, on the contrary, the Church of Christ remained pure in its doctrine, this Church was the Church of Rome or it was another. If it was another Church, Protestantism ought to have allied itself with that other Christian society, which was the true Church. Now this it did not do. If this true Church was the Church of Rome, then Protestantism had no right or reason to separate from her, and in rebelling against her it proclaimed its own illegitimacy. “May our separated brethren remember that their ancestors were Catholics, and that in adopting the Catholic faith they are not changing to a new religion; (but) only returning to the bosom of the Church which their fathers unfortunately abandoned three centuries ago.” (page 359) [How conform this attitude with Vatican II Ecumenism?] Should not Bernardin’s proposal, then, to correct God’s inspired Scripture surprise us? Not after the postconciliar correction of His prescribed worship. Even the same hallowed method, ridiculous translation, can and will contribute. Translations of St. Augustine and St. will hew to the line, because, well acquainted with Jewish activism, they should bear the blame for criticizing it. But St. John will probably benefit from the figurative sense the new “Church” and its antipopes confer on the first few chapters of Genesis. We shall surely read learned justifications based on better educated guesses on St. John’s real meaning, or more accurate definitions of his sloppily inspired words. With the synoptic Evangelists, he too will bask in the corrective attention heretofore lacking because he included no account of Jesus Christ’s words and actions in instituting the Holy Mass and identifying it with Calvary’s Sacrifice. 190 The linguistically skilled, highly inventive innovators, we may recall, discovered that Christ meant for all when He said for many because the language (whichever) lacked a word for all, which He had used in the previous sentence (All of ye drink this). Incorrect translation by those who deny its content is as old as the New Testament itself, and was worked to death by Martin Luther and the highly literate translators of the Authorized (King James) Bible. It has seen yeoman service as recently as 1994 in the finally available Australian version of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, in which all Scriptural references but one are quoted from the Revised Standard Version— the even less accurate update of the King James version, sometimes identified by more than 8,000 mistranslations and its omission, in agreement with post- Christian Jewry, of seven Old Testament books and significant parts of two more. It might seem silly to eliminate the sexist language in the Bible. How many other books have been judged by the same feminist standards? When we read of some major battle in which thousands of men were killed, do we quickly substitute persons? History could compensate by referring to Barbarossa or Genghis Khan as she. When the militant nun achieves admission to the clerical state must we call her a presbyteranna? (Priestess has such a pagan flavor.) When, inevitably, she is placed in charge of a diocese, will she become an episcopaine? If she is called a priest or a bishop, will there not be insufficient recognition of her sexuality—that essential quality which receives such emphasis in the vaporings of JP2 and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church? But all can appreciate the deadly seriousness and nobility of correcting God’s revelation in order not to offend the tender sensibilities of those who refuse to believe it. He (she?) that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mark xvi,16) To stand on principles is admirable, but a stand on wrong principles merits no consideration. REPLY TO TWO PAPAL ELECTORS In 1958 we were given this excuse that the College of Cardinals contained no one of papal calibre, so it had seated this aged incompetent, Roncalli, to appoint Montini a cardinal to be eligible at the next opportunity. The whole concept is heretical. Was a fisherman of papal calibre? Christ seems almost to have gone out of His way to choose a pope and apostles for jobs clearly beyond their capabilities, thus proving that the power was in the message, not in the messenger. But they had the Holy Ghost, and so has a genuine pope, which is one proof that Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, and Wojtyla have never been popes. Any fool can be pope; the Holy Ghost will preserve him in truth. He cannot wander accidentally into heresy. Our lack of a pope does not constitute a mandate for laymen to elect one. A good case exists for our generation’s unworthiness of a pope and the ordinary means of salvation. If we were obliged to compensate for God’s “oversight,” how? What would qualify an elector? The Faith? Who will examine him? Who, where, what is the standard? If we could pull it off, who guarantees the

191 result? Where is our authority? Who will accept our pope? There must be some prospect of success, or the effort is unjustifiable. If we have a pope somewhere your project cannot produce a pope. If we have none it is not the first time. If your project can produce a pope, why cannot Elizabeth Gerstner’s project have produced a pope? Why cannot any one of a dozen projects produce a pope? What can we do with a dozen popes? Are we not better off with none? As your lay-elected Vicar follows Christ “to uphold and show the truth and glory of all the laws of His Church, not one tittle of which shall be overlooked” how will he have obeyed the laws governing papal elections? You write: “Another fact which follows from these declarations is that, if the successors of St. Peter are perpetual, then the electors of a Pope are also perpetual.” We could conclude from this conditional statement that there would always be a college of cardinals, or at least a Roman clergy. But let us confine ourselves to the declaration that “the Vatican Council, with the infallibility of Pope Pius IX, made the statement that the Church will have perpetual successors of St. Peter.” This quotation is simply untrue. The Vatican Council in 1870 stated that St. Peter has (not will have) perpetual successors. The Church can oblige us only to Scriptural prophecy (such as St. Paul’s revolt). The pertinent quotation is found in Denzinger, # 1825: Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi domini institutione seu iure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores; ..... anathema sit. Habeat = he has (present tense—subjunctive because it follows dixerit according to sequence of tenses). Future tense (he will have) = habebit. He must have = debeat habere. Again, if God wills “perpetual successors” He therefore wills perpetual electors. If He wills perpetual successors where is the successor that we should have had for 36 years? Without a need for him, where is the need for perpetual electors? When St. Paul predicted the revolt in the last days, he wrote that some one (probably a pope) would be taken out of the way. He exhorted us to keep to the traditions which we had from him and his fellow Apostles. There had been as yet no papal election. This may be why he never recommended one. The apostasy could not happen without the permissive will of God. Nor could our extended popeless period, almost necessary for our current fragmentation. It could be advanced, rather shakily, that we are popeless because God may not want us to have a pope. One man held a Conference on Church problems, then complained of the poor attendance. It might be relevant to know the objections of that 75% who failed to attend “out of personal pride.” And why had these defections provoked limitation of all those presumably serious problems to just one issue? Why was it the issue for which the conference was supposedly convoked? Perhaps it was the most important issue? Then we have no real problems. After a 36-year survival without a visible pope, where is the urgency? In his endeavor to elicit votes from all Catholics he differs little from David Bawden and Teresa Benns, 192 to whose fiasco I objected partly because they would surely have less than 5,000 electors. (They had six!) If he succeeds in holding an election I doubt that he can drum up 500 voters. But they will, of course, constitute all the world’s Catholics; if for any reason we will not vote, he decrees, we are heretics, because the devil is responsible for all objections to the projected election. Such an election cannot be prudently projected without some possibility of general recognition and acceptance of its result. It seems essential for success of any such project that it first be established that there will be a sufficient vote. I can think of no method of insuring this except to open a register of qualified (how?) voters. These must then be apprised of location, time, and names of suitable candidates. In a matter of such imputed importance there must be no absentee ballots; they are subject to loss, forgery, supplementation, or miscount. How will the winner assume office? Terms of popes not bishops when elected date from their episcopal consecrations. Where find a genuine Catholic bishop or three to consecrate him? The process must be shown proper and fool-proof, and must have undeniable authority. But leave me out of it!!

“CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH” This catechism, concocted originally in French, translated for Englishmen and Americans for some time, finally appeared (late 1994), in a presumably different form, for Australians and New Zealanders. It carries no imprimatur but that lack is more than compensated by JP2’s introductory five-page Fidei Depositum (Oct 11, 1992). This overweight tome (over 800 pages) is dated by its content. It could not have been printed before Vatican II. This is demonstrated by a page and line count, which develops that of its 599 pages (omitting the In Brief summations) of catechetical text just over 25% is copied from documents of Vatican II and official pronouncements of its four “papal” authorities and implementors. What can be said for the orthodoxy or necessity for salvation of a catechism one fourth of which was available to no Catholic from 33 to 1958? Vatican II was, on its convoker’s authority, a pastoral, non-infallible council. Its practical infallibility was imposed after it shut down. This “catechism” by its voluminous citations of Vatican II documents as, and in support of, supposed doctrine attempts to establish Vatican II’s legitimacy as an infallible teacher. Any such attempt is doomed by the citations themselves. According to JP2 (Fidei Depositum) “the contents are often presented in a ‘new’ way in order to respond to the questions of our age...... The Catechism of the Catholic Church ..... the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the , and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the

193 Kingdom! ..... This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the Diocesan bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially” [exclusively?] “if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms,” adapted to local situations and cultures. [amply demonstrated urgent need.] Page 17: “In defending the ability of human reason to know God,” [thus contradicting Paul VI] “the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions,” [non sequitur] “with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.” [This would bring to mind Christ’s mandate to teach all nations, and perhaps even Pius XI’s condemnation of dialogue with false religions. Here is also demonstrated the non-capitalization throughout the book of pronouns which refer to God.] Page 23: “Yet even if Revelation is already complete,” [Paul VI ever looked to the future for its completion.] “it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.” [For nineteen centuries Catholics have humored those incompetent Apostles in the sure knowledge that eventually an enlightened council would rationalize the Deposit of Faith.] Page 26: “The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament,” [but they had the Mass] “and the New Testament itself demonstrates” [How?] “the process of living Tradition. “Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time.” [The Mass?] “These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed.” [Some connection, then?] “In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified, or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium.” [A perfect excuse for modification or abandonment of traditional worship or catechisms. The papacy, established to preserve, arrogates to itself power to modify or abandon.] Page 27 quotes a “Dogmatic Constitution” of pastoral, non-dogmatic Vatican II: “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office in the Church alone.” [Forget all those dead Apostles, Popes, and Councils!] “Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” It continues: “This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” [Infallibility and indefectibility belong to the Roman See, not to bishops in conferences. But the innovator needs all the support and divided responsibility he can manage.] Then we find that we “receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” [I can well remember the days

194 when if you questioned a thousand priests on a doctrinal or moral matter you received the same answer from each.] Pp. 28-29: “The whole body of the faithful ..... cannot err in matters of belief...... The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.” [This is why the new People of God all agree in their various beliefs. As soon as anyone so errs he leaves the body of the faithful.] ..... “the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church: ‘through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts’; ..... in particular ‘theological research deepens knowledge of revealed truth.’ [as in the cases of process and liberation theology?] ..... ‘from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.’ [Surely, no one has ever heard of a bishop in heresy!] ‘It is clear therefore’ [non sequitur] ‘that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.’” [Here in the Vatican II “Dogmatic Constitution” the innovators convict themselves. Traditional worship is necessary for traditional belief.] Page 45 furnishes a notable translation from St. Paul to the Hebrews (xii: 1-2) [All Scriptural quotations but one are taken from the Revised Standard Version, a Protestant translation.]: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith.” Douai version: “And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over us, laying aside every weight, and the sin that surroundeth us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: Looking on Jesus the author and finisher of faith.” [This entire “Catechism” is far more concerned with elegance of phrase than with accuracy. Most of it, like Vatican II’s documents, reads like a pious Protestant sermon whose author was paid by the word. Even were it orthodox, it would be a nearly complete waste of time.] Page 52 throws in a short list of creeds merely to include mention of Paul VI and his Creed of the People of God, for which it is hard to see a need, except the glorification of Islam and post-Christian Judaism. Pp. 58-60 provide eight RSV mistranslations. Page 71: “If God is almighty ‘in heaven and on earth,’ it is because he made them.” A footnote refers us to Gen xlix:24; Isa i:24 etc.; Ps xxiv:8-10; cxxxv:6, in none of which in any version is found because. Page 74 establishes a little groundwork for querying the Genesis account of creation. This is to be expected; the entire renewal, of which this tome is the latest fruit, is based on the theory of evolution. Page 84: “Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day.” To keep these seven symbolic, page 89 introduces an eighth day of Christ’s Resurrection, and the new creation. Page 98: “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, .....” 195 Page 101 provides yet another Pauline mistranslation, with an interlarded misinterpretation, in an attempt to legitimize a mistranslation of Jesus Christ in His consecration at the . Page 134: “The flight into Egypt and the massacre of the innocents make manifest the opposition of darkness to the light: ‘He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.’” This fraudulent, anachronistic mistranslation and misapplication is designed to circumvent a major part of the message of the beginning of St. John’s Gospel, thereby attempting to remove the opprobrium from the Jews in their refusal of Jesus Christ. Page 144: “‘Blessed be he who comes in the name of the LORD,’ is taken up by the Church in the ‘’ of the Eucharistic liturgy that introduces the memorial of the Lord’s Passover.” [Obviously the novus ordo missae! Of course the authors can pretend that they intend to include Calvary, but their use of memorial instead of sacrifice convicts them.] Page 152: “Jesus asked the religious authorities of Jerusalem to believe in him because of the Father’s works which he accomplished. But such an act of faith must go through a mysterious death to self, for a new ‘birth from above’ under the influence of . Such a demand for conversion in the face of so surprising a fulfillment of the promises allows one to understand the Sanhedrin’s tragic misunderstanding of Jesus: they judged that he deserved the death sentence as a blasphemer. The members of the Sanhedrin were thus acting at the same time out of ‘ignorance’ and the ‘hardness’ of their ‘unbelief.’” [Their ignorance was simulated; their trial unjust, their verdict malicious—else we can disregard the testimony of our divinely inspired Holy Scripture. The proof lies in how they treated eye-witnesses of Christ’s Resurrection. They paid these soldiers to say that His body had been stolen while they slept.] 37 And last of all he sent to them his son, saying: They will reverence my son. But the husbandmen seeing the son, said among themselves: This is the heir, come, let us kill him, and we shall have his inheritance. And taking him, they cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard shall come, what will he do to those husbandmen? They say to him: He will bring those evil men to an evil end: —St. Matthew’s Gospel, xxi Haydock Bible note: Ver. 38. Heir. From this text, it appears that the princes of the Jews knew Jesus to be the Messias, and that it was only through envy and malice they were so blinded as not to acknowledge him for the Son of God. When, therefore, the apostle says, (I Cor. ii. 8,) If they had known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; this, it is probable, must be understood of the common people, since we can hardly believe that the princes of the people were ignorant of it, as Christ had so repeatedly inculcated this truth, that he even says himself they had no excuse, and were only actuated by hatred against him and his Father. S. John xv. 22. (which says: If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin.) Page 154: “Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd’s cry: ‘His blood be on us and on our children!’ a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.” [It would seem, then, that the crowd deliberately ratified the sentence, thus contributing to the

196 greatest criminal injustice in all history. But their descendants, who are identified as their descendants by their own ratification of the sentence, cannot be guilty because they were not present. But we are all born with original sin and its consequences. How many of us were present when it was committed? Excuse me! I forgot! Vatican II, its Renewal, and this “Catechism” are all based on the theory of evolution, which does away with original sin, thus leaving no reason for redemption.] Page 158: “This is my body which is given for you.” “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” [If you tie this “Catechism” to the Revised Standard Version you are stuck with its words.] Page 166: “The first element we encounter in the framework of the Easter events is the empty tomb. In itself it is not a direct proof of Resurrection; the absence of Christ’s body from the tomb could be explained otherwise.” [With the huge rock, the seal of the Jewish priests, and the posted guard? Could the guards have removed the body, then deceived the priests for the money which they could not have expected? Were the guards closet Christians? Had an earthquake caused the body to drop out of sight? Then how was Christ subsequently seen by more than five hundred people who knew Him, according to our divinely inspired Holy Scripture?] Page 169: “But no one was an eyewitness to Christ’s Resurrection and no evangelist describes it.” [According to our divinely inspired Holy Scripture (Matt. xxviii, 11-15) some of the guards from the empty tomb came into the city and told the chief priests what had happened. This caused the priests in consultation with the ancients to pay the soldiers a great sum to change their story. The guards were necessarily eyewitnesses; no one would have paid them to suppress what they had not seen. How truthful is this “Catechism?”] Page 175: “Already the final age of the world is with us, and the renewal of the world is inevitably under way.” - Vatican II’s . [This would seem the place for St. Paul’s second Epistle to the Thessalonians and its infallible prophecy of a revolt (discessio, αποστασια) toward the end. But here the innovators recognize themselves, as did the Jewish princes of the people in the husbandmen of Christ’s parable who killed the heir.] Page 191: “It was quite correct for the angel Gabriel to greet her (Mary) as the ‘Daughter of Zion’: ‘Rejoice.’” [Is there some obscure point to be made by reference to Mary as the Daughter of Zion? This phrase is used in such connection nowhere in the New Testament in Latin, Greek, or any of the seven English versions in my possession. Nor can I extract any sense from the line on page 204, ascribed to JP2 in Mulieris dignitatem. Perhaps it supports or advocates ordination of women?] “This is why the ‘Marian’ dimension of the Church precedes the ‘Petrine.’” Page 206: “At all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him.” – Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 9, cf. Acts x, 35 [Haydock Bible footnote: That is to say, not only Jews, but Gentiles also, of what nation soever, are acceptable to God, if they fear him, and work justice. But then true faith is always to be presupposed, without which, (saith S. Paul, Heb. xi. 6.) it is impossible to please God. Beware then of the error of those,

197 who would infer from this passage, that men of all religions may be pleasing to God. For since none but the true religion can be from God, all other religions must be from the father of lies; and therefore highly displeasing to the God of truth.] Pp. 216-217 quote Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism, abetted in short bursts by Lumen Gentium: “..... dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” [One is either Catholic or not; there are no degrees of communion. And those who preserved the faith somehow deserve blame because they opposed those who rejected the faith?] “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities” [that resulted from such separation] “and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ,” [partial?] “and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers” [He that is not with Me is against Me: and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth. – Matt. xii, 30] “..... All who have been justified by faith” [partial?] “in Baptism are incorporated into Christ;” [into His Mystical Body, which is the Church, to the faith of which a Catholic must subscribe in its entirety] “they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” [We often call non-Catholics Christians by courtesy, but they have no such right. A Christian is one who accepts Christ’s doctrine as one integrated whole, not one who subjects that doctrine to his own judgment or preference on a selective basis —who insists that Christ join him.] “‘Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth’ are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: ‘the written Word of God’ [Revised Standard Version?]; ‘the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.’ Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesiastical communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to ‘Catholic unity.’” [That these last two words appear in quotation marks occasions no surprise. Can Catholic unity include unbelievers? Faith is tossed like a football throughout this “Catechism” but never once defined; for this would certainly restrict its use. Faith is the divine virtue by which we believe everything that God has revealed because He has revealed it. Jesus Christ put quite a premium on it: He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth, not shall be condemned. – Mark xvi, 16 He established a Church to propagate and preserve His Deposit of faith (complete at the last Apostle’s death), administer His sacraments, and enforce His precepts. Outside of His Catholic Church no one can be saved. But this wretched book, and the more wretched council it cites, would have Him operate inconsistently, peddling salvation at a discount through those who have rejected Him, in self-contradiction. How can God, Who is all truth, contradict Himself without opposing truth, thereby demonstrating that He is not all truth, and therefore not God? In Him is all perfection. This absolutely precludes change or error. If He disagrees with Himself He changes, and is necessarily in error on at 198 least one side of the contradiction. Now God and this “Catechism” cannot both be true, correct, reasonable, or credible. Have we then a lunatic God as portrayed by this “Catechism?” Or have we an apostate “papal authority” promulgating an impossible “Catechism?”] Page 217: “The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit...... required ..... to respond adequately .....: a permanent renewal ..... the driving force of the movement toward unity.” [The Catholic Church is founded on an immovable Rock; all movement toward unity must originate outside.] “– prayer in common, because ..... public and private prayer for the unity of Christians should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement.” [Prayer in common would hardly include our Mass, because Protestants are Protestants chiefly because they refuse our Mass. And Catholics are forbidden to participate in non-Catholic worship. So “Catholic authority” substituted new rites which Protestants quickly perceive are not Mass and can consequently accept and even use, and which Catholics accept as essentially unchanged on deceptive assurances of the imposing “authority,” while their undoubtedly true Mass is illegally, and sinfully proscribed, supposedly pursuant to consent of the faithful. Our consent justifies every abuse; who cares what God wants?] “– ecumenical formation” [something new in our by definition changeless Church] “of the faithful and especially of priests.” [that we may compromise with those who have rejected Christ.] “– dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities.” [Going therefore, dialogue with all nations, accepting them with their errors in fraternal charity. He who believes will be saved, and also he who will not believe. What am I doing here?] Page 222: “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” – Lumen Gentium Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” – Decree on Ecumenism With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.” – Paul VI, Discourse, Dec. 14, 1975 [Such obvious error requires no comment.] Page 223: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham,” [though when they adopted it the faith of Christ had been available nearby nearly six centuries] “and together with us they adore the one, merciful God,” [while denying the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Christ] “mankind’s judge on the last day.” Pp. 232-234 weave fantasy concerning episcopal collegiality, in an effort to find some base for this crippling innovation in Scripture or Tradition. Episcopal conferences and the issues Rome provides for their discussion occupy the time and undermine the authority of the diocesan bishop. They also, incidentally, provide another buffer between the faithful and their pope-substitute.

199 Page 235: “In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a ‘supernatural sense of faith’ the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith.’” [This sense will surely make a liar of St. Paul when he had the nerve to prophesy an apostasy before the end. And where was this sense during the spread of Islam and the Reformation through immense totally Catholic regions?] This amazing “Catechism” even provides me and my fanatic ilk status, standing, and authority, and bases these benefits on Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium. See Pp. 238-239: “Since, like all the faithful, lay Christians are entrusted by God with the apostolate by virtue of their Baptism and Confirmation, they have the right and duty, individually or grouped in associations, to work so that the divine message of salvation may be known and accepted by all men throughout the earth. This duty is the more pressing when it is only through them that men can hear the Gospel and know Christ.” [I am also empowered “to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside over liturgical prayers, ..... and to distribute Holy Communion.”] “Christ ..... fulfills this prophetic office, not only by the hierarchy ..... but also by the laity. He accordingly both establishes them as witnesses and provides them with the sense of faith [sensus fidei] and the grace of the word.” [Hot dog! I’m infallible!] “In accord with the knowledge, competence, and pre-eminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors” [if we can find them!] “their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors,” [wherever] “and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.” [The Renewal tries to involve everyone.] Page 281: “From the beginning until the end of time the whole of God’s work is a blessing. From the liturgical poem of the first creation to the canticles of the heavenly Jerusalem, the inspired authors proclaim the plan of salvation as one vast divine blessing.” [From poems to canticles! How better to convey that Revelation is one great pipe-dream? This is supposed to be a catechism, not a lyric appreciation. If the Biblical account of creation and fall is a mere poem it need not engage our belief. That leaves room for impossible evolutionary theories, which strike at the root of human responsibility, while consigning the fall of man to figurative fiction which requires no redemption.] Page 290: “Through Baptism and Confirmation the priestly people is enabled to celebrate the liturgy ..... The ordained ministry or ministerial priesthood is at the service of the baptismal priesthood.” [In typical modernist fashion terms are generalized, diluted, fogging their definition and confounding discussion. This follows pages of poetry in praise of the liturgy, and leads into] Page 291: “The Church’s faith precedes the faith of the believer who is invited to adhere to it. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, she confesses the faith received from the apostles – whence the ancient saying: lex orandi, lex

200 credendi (or: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi, according to Prosper of Aquitaine [5th cent.]). The law of prayer is the law of faith: the Church believes as she prays. Liturgy is a constitutive element of the holy and living Tradition.” [Why, then, was our Traditional Mass replaced with new rites, untraditional and heretical, if not to destroy our proper worship and to accommodate those who reject it into one great ecumenical “unity?” If our Mass is changed, how is our belief unchanged?] Page 292: “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.” [But not for all the unbelievers who are saved through other channels? Again, why have the sacraments been replaced by new ceremonies with new forms and new names?] On page 310 we read that our sacraments, instituted by Jesus Christ, have parts not divinely instituted, says JP2, which can and occasionally must be changed “to adapt to the cultures of recently evangelized peoples.” Let us hope that we have recently taken in no pederasts or cannibals. Witch doctors at Papuan ordinations are ridiculous enough. Page 336 applies a traditional term, offertory, to the Preparation of the Gifts wherein are offered the work of human hands, and fruits of the earth and of the vine, the pitiful Old Testament substitutes (which Christ replaced) for what the Church has traditionally offered—“this spotless Victim.” Page 338 dodges the invalidating change in the consecration [for all replaces for many—the law of prayer is the law of belief] by quoting St. Luke’s Gospel instead of two others or the Mass itself, which preceded them all. Page 346 features the Revised Standard Version: “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead.” The King James Authorized Version, which it revised, says “that is risen.” Rheims-Douai, in accurate translation of both the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Κοινη, reads “who rose.” Even the Jerusalem Bible says “He rose.” Knox translates: “has risen again.” Latin is like that; it abounds in redundancies. Page 348 tries to place the tabernacle in a “worthy place” while ignoring its banishment from the worthiest place of all, the missing altar. Page 351: “The sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” [And the sign of sacrifice would appear more clearly if the army sent around a platoon to crucify the celebrant.] Page 353 reiterates Paul VI’s error on page 222 and permits it in practise. Page 379: “Like all the sacraments the Anointing of the Sick is a liturgical and communal celebration, ..... it is very fitting to celebrate it within the Eucharist, the memorial of the Lord’s Passover. If circumstances suggest it, the celebration of the sacrament can be preceded by the sacrament of Penance and followed by the sacrament of the Eucharist. As the sacrament of Christ’s Passover the Eucharist should always be the last sacrament of the earthly journey, the ‘’ for ‘passing over’ to eternal life.” [Communal, like Baptism, in which the individual is baptized; like Penance, in which the individual confesses his sins; on the occasion of his individual death the Church comes to him and

201 celebrates. Why call the priest with his new type sacraments? Why not a brass band? Extreme Unction has traditionally followed Confession and Communion if the dying person could receive them. But change keeps liturgical commissions in business. So it must be legitimate?] On “Orders” [What happened to “Holy?”], page 384: “The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign” [Page 393 refers to the essential rite. Form?] “of this ordination.” [Sign or form, it has been changed = invalidated.] Page 385 quotes the “ordination” rites from the new introduced with the new rite of “mass” (Easter, 1969): [You] “did not leave your sanctuary without ministers to serve you.....” [This replacement prayer almost openly taunts God—“You didn’t but we did!”] Page 390: “One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.’ The character and collegial nature of the episcopal order are evidenced among other ways by the Church’s ancient practice which calls for several bishops to participate in the consecration of a new bishop.” [The innovators can tie their collegiality and episcopal conferences to nothing until the last half of this century, but they surely try. By citing Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium?] We find (page 396) that the new consecratory prayer grants the bishop, even an , “the governing spirit.” This is a change from the change. Till August 12, 1977 it was “the perfect spirit.” He is further granted the power to forgive sins, which was somehow forgotten in the new presidential “ordination,” and to loose every bond. Luckily, he is permitted to bind nothing; some one might believe him. Page 403 quotes St. Paul (RSV) on Matrimony: “This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church.” – Eph. v, 32 [Douai: “This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the church.” Vulgate: sacramentum. Greek: μυστηριον = secret rite. The other emphasized four words grew from dico and λεγω.] Page 403: “I do.” At our wedding we said: “I will.” At the only Latin wedding I ever saw the spouses said: “Volo,” which means either I will or I fly. All could deduce which from their continued stationary positions. From celebrating the last rites we go to the funeral celebration, in which (page 419) the liturgy of the Word [presumably God’s] demands very careful preparation because some of the crowd may rarely attend the liturgy, or may not be Christians. Can the corpse pass these tests? Page 439: “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.’” [Any traditional Catholic cut off by “authority” from his Mass and sacraments is prevented from acting according to his conscience in his obligation to public worship. When he requests his rights under this Vatican II proclamation he is seriously told that Catholics have no such right; the proclamation concerns human freedom.] 202 Page 463-464: “Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature.” [All power comes from above. Daniel 4:23. … thy kingdom shall remain to thee, after thou shalt have known that power is from heaven. Romans 13:1. … there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God.] “If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order,” [as, for instance, to proscribe legitimate worship of God] “such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, ‘authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.’” Page 510 tells us that our duty to seek and adhere to religious truth does not contradict sincere respect for false religions. Page 512: The natural right to choose error should be acknowledged juridically as a civil right. Page 526 quotes two new canon laws which oblige participation in the “mass” on the prescribed days or the preceding evenings. Page 540 prescribes the duties of citizens. We are morally obliged to pay taxes, which are levied needlessly and mercilessly for immoral purposes by authorities which completely ignore the common good; to exercise the right to vote, when we are given no choice; to defend our country which needs defense first against its own authorities. It could be easily demonstrated that tax evasion (listed on page 579 among violations of the seventh commandment) under these circumstances is a major duty. Page 560: “Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.” [Thank you, Sigmund! Webster: affectivity, Psychol.—That aspect of mental life which is composed of affects, emotions, and feelings of pleasure and displeasure, closely bound with motor or sensory innervations; sexuality—Quality or state of being distinguished by sex. This word is used almost every time in place of sex, possibly to classify it with homosexuality, which this “Catechism” separates from its practitioners.] Page 566: “They do not choose their homosexual condition.” [Even if true, they choose to practise.] “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” [Logically, we suppose, we next hale God into court for destroying Sodom and Gomorrha.] Page 570: “The state has a responsibility for its citizen’s well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures.” [The state is gratuitously granted this right of interference by that great champion of the family, Paul VI, in his sainted Humanae Vitae. The “objective and respectful” presentation of family limitation literature and methods unnecessarily, deliberately, and fraudulently suggests (urges!) frustration of the purposes of marriage as a legitimate choice. None of these purposes is subject to the state. Families preceded states.]

203 Page 574: “Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.” [Obviously this regression can be traced to pre-human ancestors, otherwise it is not regression but tendency.] Page 578: “Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.” [And is communism not, by definition, for the common good?] Page 585: “On the international level, inequality of resources and economic capability is such that it creates a real ‘gap’ between nations. On the one side there are those nations possessing and developing the means of growth and, on the other, those accumulating debts.” [This is pure nonsense. No nation is free of debt, most of it fictional and unnecessary—a direct consequence of the universal crime of usury, traditionally condemned by the Church, but untreated in this “Catechism.”] Page 586 saddles “rich nations” burdened with unrepayable public debts with the support of poor nations, which are classed as poor because their people are comparatively inefficient, lazy, or oppressed by their own governments. “Peasants, especially in the Third World, form the overwhelming majority of the poor.” [Peasants traditionally grow their own food, build their own shelter, and clothe themselves with their own products. They are generally better off than the urban poor, who must cope with unemployment, landlords, banks, and tax authorities which call themselves governments while helping the banks cause unemployment. Charity and duty begin at home.] Page 588: “Those who are oppressed by poverty are the object of a preferential love on the part of the Church which, since her origin and in spite of the failings of many of her members, has not ceased to work for their relief, defense, and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere.” [Since Vatican II what passes for the Church has oppressed Catholics with unwarrantable privation of their ordinary means of salvation, Mass, Sacraments, and true doctrine, of which last privation this “Catechism” is an outstanding example.] Page 592: “Truth as uprightness in human action and speech is called truthfulness, sincerity, or candor.” [The Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon who comes to my door is as sincere as can be, or he would not continue in the face of massive rebuff. But the truth is not in him. And the tax collector candidly told a friend (through his attorney) that he knew he could not legally confiscate my friend’s home, but that he would do it anyway.] Page 600 taxes bishops with “promotion of sacred art, ..... remove from the liturgy and from places of worship everything which is not in conformity with the truth of faith and the authentic beauty of sacred art.” [e.g., the aboriginal illustration at the beginning of this “Catechism” and the childish mosaic commemorating John XXIII at the door of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. in action!] From page 612 to 666 only ten lines are taken from Vatican II, but there are a few suspect lines anyway. On page 624 we discover that Jesus learns to pray, and that He said when 12: “I must be in my Father’s house.” Whereas Douai, Vulgate, and Κοινη render this passage: “I must be about the things that are 204 My Father’s.” On the following page “He includes all men in his prayer.” This appears inconsistent with John xvii, 9 & 20: I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given Me: because they are Thine. .... not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in Me; Page 661 quotes The Lord’s Prayer as translated and imposed by Henry VIII. Then it presents Greek and Protestant additions as improvements on the perfect prayer. On page 681 we are told, in reference to give us this day our daily bread that the word here translated daily () occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. But there are twenty other instances of daily, all of which are translated from variations on the usual word for day = ημερα. Επιουσιον, however, is translated daily (quotidianum) only once (Luke xi, 3). In Matthew vi, 11 it is supersubstantial (supersubstantialem). It is almost as if St. Jerome, undecided about the derivation of the word, had a bob each way. He had a choice, επ−ιουσιον = sufficient for the day, or επι−ουσιον = over and above essential or substantial. With no hyphen to guide him he had to decide how to break the word. “Catechism”: “Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical” [redundant?] “repetition of ‘this day.’ Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence. Taken literally (epi-ousios: ‘super-essential’), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the ‘medicine of immortality.’” Why all this fuss? Page 679: “‘Give us’ also expresses the covenant. We are his and he is ours, for our sake. But this ‘us’ also recognizes him as the Father of all men and we pray to him for them all, in solidarity with their needs and sufferings.” But only if daily is taken in the redundant temporal sense. Page 687: From the 1969 Roman Missal: “Deliver us, Lord, we beseech you, from every evil and grant us peace in our day, so that aided by your mercy we might be ever free from sin and protected from all anxiety, as we await the blessed hope and the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ.” Compare this with the traditional prayer from the oldest rite in existence: “Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present, and to come : and by the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary ever Virgin, Mother of God, with Thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Andrew, and all the saints, mercifully grant peace in our days : so that helped by the power of Thy mercy, we may be ever free from sin, and safe from all trouble. Through the same Jesus Christ Thy Son our Lord. Who lives and reigns with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost God. Forever and ever. Amen.” Can there have been any reason whatsoever for the change than promotion of the new ecumenism? We ask the same about The Final , “for the kingdom and the power and the glory are yours.” This overlong book, overwritten in emotive style unsuited to a catechism, is designed to distract from its own irrelevancy.

205 The War Is Now! #38

The Catholic Leader, Brisbane 3 December 1995: The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has declared the teaching that women cannot be ordained priests belongs to “the deposit of faith” and has been taught “infallibly”. This is asserted in a response to a dubium or question to the congregation ..... The question: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, is to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of the faith. The response: This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church – Lumen Gentium – 25.2) Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith. The response is signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the congregational prefect, and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, secretary. It concludes by revealing that Pope John Paul “approved this reply, adopted in the ordinary session of the congregation, and ordered it to be published”. The article continues with questions of the “decision” from Australia. “In upgrading the papal teaching on this matter to an infallible pronouncement, the congregation is presuming that either the Pope has explicitly invoked the charism of infallibility on this issue or that an ecumenical council has issued a solemn, infallible declaration on faith and morals or that the throughout the world is in universal agreement. None of these presumptions is justified in the present instance.” Reading Ratzinger’s edict one would incline to think that Lumen Gentium had treated the subject. It merely declared that we must listen to the pope because he is infallible. Ratzinger and his congregation have lost all sense of logic and reality. We bring this issue up only as another illustration of the postconciliar Church’s inconsistency. Vatican II was convoked, conducted, and closed as a pastoral council. Many conservatives have used this pastoral non-infallibility to absolve apostate Paul VI and his successors of public heresy in promulgation and implementation of at least twenty public heresies. Promulgation of the documents of a pastoral council, they tell us, does not engage a pope’s infallibility. What will they tell us now that the horse’s mouth has declared a Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution infallible? On whose authority has it become infallible? The only acceptable authority appears to be the same apostate authority which promulgated all those public heresies.

206 A subscriber in Florida sent a Catholic Update, November 1993, featuring Jesus the Jew, by Arthur E. Zannoni. The St. Anthony Press, Cincinnati, Ohio, rather pretentiously prohibits photocopy. Somewhere may exist some one with little enough discrimination to value this article, but the burden of proof would be more than I would choose to carry. Zannoni writes for the kindergarten mob, especially in style. He asks “what Jesus really looked like?” Hair? Eyes? Weight? Height? Unknown! But He was Jewish. No Christian, He eschewed Sunday Mass for Saturday synagogue services. He spoke no Greek (unlike nearly all the eastern empire) nor Latin nor English; he spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. He had a Jewish mother, so probably resembled other Jews of his day. [We may safely assume that His appearance scared hardly anyone.] His earliest followers were all Jewish. [For how long?] Father? Pastor ? Reverend? No, Rabbi (teacher). He never read the New Testament, but rather the Old Testament. No , litanies, or modern prayer books; he recited . He never celebrated Christmas or Easter. [“I am the Resurrection and the Life.”] “Jesus was a deeply faith-filled and a profoundly committed Jew of his day.” [What need had He of faith? He knew!] Many, despite religious education and upbringing, have not understood the importance of a solid background in Jewish religion, social and political history in order truly to understand Jesus. Jesus was a rural Jew who lived in Galilee, a very small rural section of ancient Palestine. The lower region where Jesus dwelt was a very rich valley stretching about 25 miles between the Mediterranean and the Sea of Galilee. Nazareth was a small agricultural village in the heart of rural Galilee. Nazareth had a synagogue, where Jesus read from the Isaiah scroll (Luke 4:16-30). Capernaum, north of Nazareth on the Sea of Galilee, was the center of Jesus’ activity during most of his public life (Mt. 4:12-13). It was a commercial and agricultural center with a customs house. Capernaum had a synagogue in which Jesus both healed and taught (Luke 4:31-37). These villages were made up of “the people of the land,” the farmers and the poor who were the primary receivers of the Galilean Jesus’ preaching, teaching and healing. This area was overwhelmingly Jewish, and the home of his original apostles. There were four principal Jewish sects: Essenes, Zealots, Sadducees, and Pharisees. The Essenes withdrew from Jerusalem and active participation in the Temple. They settled in the Judean wilderness in isolated monastic communities where they studied the Scriptures and developed their rule of life. Essenes were known for their piety, e.g., daily prayer, prayer before and after meals, strict Sabbath observance, daily ritual bathing, emphasis on chastity and celibacy, communal meals, property in common. Nowhere in the Gospels is Jesus associated with this Essene regimen. Zealots (many Galilean) vehemently and violently opposed the Roman occupation of Palestine. No evidence exists that Jesus opposed Roman occupation or encouraged revolt.

207 The Sadducees believed in a strict interpretation of the Torah but not in life after death or in bodily resurrection. Jesus may well have been close to the Pharisees. Many of Jesus’ teachings and much of his style were clearly similar to those of the Pharisees. To this unlikely end Zannoni compares teachings. The Pharisees did not oppose Roman occupation, but wanted more from the Temple, especially from its liturgical practices and its priests. They turned their attention to strengthening devotion to the Torah and its covenant with God. Believing that the Torah had become a dead letter, they introduced the notion that the interpretation of Torah must continually be renewed and readjusted within the framework of the changing experience of the Jewish community. They insisted that the Torah’s 613 commandments remain in effect, but must be rethought in light of new human needs and other realities of the time. The priests took the precepts of the Torah more literally and primarily in terms of sacrificial observances at the Temple. These were seen as primary means of sanctification. The Pharisees were convinced that the Torah must provide for the way life was to be lived. Thus the Pharisees hoped that every ordinary human action could become sacred—an act of worship. Doing “a good deed” for another human was given a status in some ways surpassing Temple worship, truly a revolution in religious thinking. A new religious figure—the teacher—emerged within the Pharisaic movement. The position of teacher, or rabbi, differed from that of the earlier prophet and priest. Prophets spoke for God, whereas priests presided at or celebrated the liturgies in the Temple. Rabbis fulfilled a twofold role in the community: interpreting Torah and, even more important, making it concrete and relevant to the people of their day. Their principal task was instructional, not liturgical. Significantly, a non-priestly figure, a rabbi, gradually replaced the priest as chief arbiter of faithfulness to the Torah. The synagogue became a centerpiece of this reform movement, spreading throughout Palestine and the Diaspora. Unlike the Temple, synagogues were not where priests presided and sacrifices were offered; rather, where the Torah was studied, rabbis/sages offered interpretations, and prayers were offered. They became not merely “houses of God,” but far more, “houses of the people of God.” A further characteristic of this movement was its emphasis on table fellowship—a way of strengthening relationships within the community. The Pharisees intended to extend to all the people the duties prescribed only for Temple Priests. [Remember Ozias, his insistence on performing priestly functions, his instant leprosy?–II Paralipomenon xxvi, 16sqqq.] In the eyes of the Pharisees, the Temple altar in Jerusalem could be replicated at every table in Israel. There was no longer any basis for assigning the priestly class a unique level of authority. The Pharisees saw God not only as creator, giver of the covenant, an all- consuming presence, and much more, but in a special way, as the Father of each individual. Everyone had the right to address God in a direct and personal way, not simply through the Temple sacrifices offered by the priests. 208 The Pharisees also believed in the resurrection of each individual from the dead. Those whose lives were marked by justice would rise once the Messiah had come. They would enjoy perpetual union with God, the Father. In the light of this, continues Zannoni, there is little doubt that Jesus and the Pharisees shared many central convictions. Their first common point was their basic approach to God. The Pharisees elevated the notion of God as Father to a central place in their theological outlook. So did Jesus. Story after story [fable after fable?] has Jesus addressing God with this title, and Jesus’ central prayer begins “Our Father.” The overall effect of this stress on divine fatherhood was fundamentally the same for Jesus as for the Pharisees (although Jesus had a unique position as God’s “only begotten Son”). [Why, in this leaflet’s sole suggestion of Christ’s divinity, has Zannoni chosen to set it in quotation marks?] It led to both an enhanced appreciation of the dignity of every person and ultimately to the notion of resurrection—perpetual union with God. God revealed the fullness of this resurrection in Jesus’ bodily resurrection. Jesus’ public status closely paralleled the evolving role of the Pharisaic teacher. Jesus on numerous occasions was called teacher. The Gospels often show Jesus teaching in synagogues. Jesus also shared with the Pharisees a general reluctance to antagonize the Roman authorities. When the disciples of the Pharisees ask him about the lawfulness of paying taxes to Caesar, Jesus’ response is an example of a position he shared with the Pharisees: “Then repay to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what belongs to God.” [I hesitate to derail Zannoni’s train of special pleading (certainly not of thought) with the facts St. Matthew reported (xxii, 15- 21): “Then the Pharisees going away, consulted among themselves how to ensnare Him in His speech. And they send to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that Thou art a true speaker, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man: for Thou dost not regard the person of men. Tell us therefore what dost Thou think? is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt Me, ye hypocrites? Shew Me the coin of the tribute. And they offered Him a penny. And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this? They say to Him: Caesar’s. Then He saith to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s: and to God, the things that are God’s.”] Besides the new role of the teacher (rabbi) and the synagogue, Jesus clearly picked up on another central feature of Pharisaism, oral Torah. Oral Torah refers to interpretations given by the Pharisees to various Torah texts. Throughout the Gospels we find Jesus offering interpretations of the Scriptures that were often quite similar to those of the Pharisees, says Zannoni. Finally, the New Testament provides plenty of support on how deeply Jesus embraced table fellowship. The meal narratives are an example. In the end, he selected this setting—table fellowship—for one of the most critical moments of his entire ministry, the celebration of the first Eucharist. [May I suggest that He had ordained this in eternity, and set the stage with the Passover meal imposed by Moses?]

209 Readers of the New Testament are familiar with the sections of the Gospels, especially in Matthew, that make the Pharisees appear as archenemies of Jesus, opponents to his teaching and preaching. How, then, maintain a positive connection between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Pharisees? Jesus’ relations with the Pharisees were not always adversarial. Pharisees warned Jesus of the risks he was taking by his teaching and preaching (Luke 13:31) [which records a feigned threat of Herod’s vengeance, never substantiated anywhere]; some Pharisees were praised by Jesus (for example, the “scribe” of Mark 12:32) [Mark, of course, could not differentiate]; and Jesus ate with Pharisees (Luke 7:36: 14:1). [Even I have dined with opponents, often enough in persuading agreement.] “But there is conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees in the Gospels. Understanding its sources can help put things into a more positive perspective. Scholarship gives three possible approaches.” 1) Jesus’ teachings were quite similar to the Pharisees’. The animosity in the Gospels, however, follows interpretations of Jesus’ actions that conflicted with those of the Pharisees, e.g., Jesus healing on the Sabbath or his disciples picking grain on the Sabbath. 2) In the Talmud, the collected teachings of the Pharisees and their rabbinic heirs, we find reference to some seven categories of Pharisees. This list shows that the movement encompassed a wide range of viewpoints, and that internal disputes, often heated, were common. One could argue that the Gospel portraits of Jesus disputing with the “Pharisees” were “hot debates” common in Pharisaic circles rather than condemnations of Pharisaism. 3) In light of positive connections between Jesus’ central teachings and those of the Pharisees, one becomes suspicious about these texts of conflict. Surely Jesus would not denounce a movement with which he had so much in common. [We must assume, then, that the Author of all truth lied all through St. Matthew’s Chapter xxiii, the most scathing condemnation on record of typical activities of the scribes and Pharisees.] “Hence, either he was speaking in a very limited context, or the conflict stories represent the situation in the latter part of the first century when the Gospels were written. By the last third of the first century, the Christian community— now formally expelled from the synagogue—was engaged in intense” [fictional] “competition with Jews for converts. The New Testament statements about conflict ..... may reflect that competition.” Jesus’ Bible was the Hebrew Scriptures, the law and the prophets. He not only read it, he was nurtured by it. Jesus’ attitude toward these sacred writings is summed up in the assertion, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill” (Mt. 5:17). “Jesus’ teachings, his anticipation, his hopes, were all rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. So deeply implanted in these Scriptures were his teachings that he would be unintelligible without them. On the whole, Jesus’ teachings were either literally biblical or filtered through the Pharisaic use of Scripture or both.

210 “The way the Pharisees and Jesus used the Hebrew Scriptures is also clear when Jesus ..... argued his position by using so-called ‘proof-texts,’ quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures to prove a point or to refute a critic..... Jesus ..... was drawing on a technique used by the Pharisees. The ‘proof-texting’ that Jesus used at times pitted him against the Pharisees—such as when he challenged certain claims they made about the unwritten law and called them hypocrites for placing higher value on the teachings of humans than of God (Mt. 23:1-36); when he used Scripture to refute the Pharisaic teachings about plucking grain on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:1-8) or unwashed hands (Mt. 15:20). “At other times, Jesus’ ‘proof-texting’ placed him on the side of the Pharisees ..(as).. when, in an impressive debate with the Sadducees, he used the Hebrew Scriptures to reinforce his belief(!), and that of the Pharisees, in an afterlife. Jesus was so impressive that he won the Pharisees’ applause (Mt. 22:23-33).” [This applause is strangely missing from the Vulgate.] “Jesus’ use of the Hebrew Scriptures was unabashedly Jewish and was similar to that of his contemporaries, especially the Pharisees.” [Any logician will use methods and authorities accepted by his adversary.] “In a world that has so misunderstood Judaism, knowing and appreciating the Jewish origins of Jesus has at least four advantages: 1) to revise negative understandings of the Pharisees; 2) to avoid anti-Semitism; 3) to improve Catholic-Jewish dialogue and 4) to better appreciate the roots of Christianity.” [Have we not always known that Jesus came unto His own and His own received Him not? And that Pharisaism, having rejected Christ and His fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, begat the Talmud in self-justification? Had Jesus and the Pharisees agreed, how would a Jewish community have survived?] “What will befriending Jesus the Jew mean in our local community, parish, in our own lives? for one, it will combat ignorance or misconceptions about Jesus” [as detailed in the four Gospels]. “As we begin to understand Jesus’ Jewishness, we will be challenged to revise our possible suspicions about our Jewish brothers and sisters. Ultimately, understanding Jesus the Jew will help us better to understand both our own faith” [How?] “and that of contemporary Jews.” [Why?] Church Statements on the Jewishness of Jesus Catholic Church leaders have encouraged us to grasp the marvelous care and love of God for the Jewish people: “Jesus was born, lived and died a Jew of his times. He, his family and all of his original disciples followed the laws, traditions and customs of his people. The key concepts of Jesus’ teaching, therefore, cannot be understood apart from the Jewish heritage.” —Within Context: Guidelines for the Catechetical Presentation of Jews and Judaism in the New Testament, Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations, National Conference of Catholic Bishops (1986). “Jesus shares, with the majority of Palestinian Jews of that time, some Pharisaic doctrines: the resurrection of the body; forms of piety, like alms-giving, prayer,

211 (cf. Mt. 6:1-18), and the liturgical practice of addressing God as Father; the priority of the commandment to love God and our neighbor (cf. Mark 12:28-34).” —Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, June 24, 1985, par. #17 With regard to the trial of Jesus, the Second Vatican Council recalled that: “...what happened in his passion cannot be blamed upon all Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today.” –Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate), 4 * * * * * * * Let us disregard the fact that post-Christian Judaism, the original heresy, survives, as it has down the ages, only in contemporary Jews and only then because they continue to reject Jesus Christ and His exclusive salvation, thereby endorsing the active rejection of their ancestors who procured the death of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity Incarnate, and then, when confronted with proof—which they had themselves occasioned—of His Resurrection, paid heavily to suppress it. Is there not something weird, illogical, even contradictory in the concept of a Church in possession of all truth and under divine mandate to propagate it, which devotes its precious time and energy to support of and dialogue with organized rejection of its proven message? When will the ordinary misled Catholic appreciate the obvious absurdity of his incredible situation? When will he trace its causes to their only possible source? * * * * * * May 1, 1992, Bede Heather, Chairman, Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations, issued the Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference Guidelines for Catholic-Jewish Relations. The appendix treats Passover. “In recent years ..... Catholics have become interested in celebrating Passover ..... Thus it is necessary to draw attention to the following: i) Passover is a feast sacred to the Jews. When non-Jews celebrate it, the rites of the Haggadah should be respected in all their integrity. For this reason the use of a text approved by a Rabbi is recommended; ..... ii) It is desirable to invite a Jewish couple or family to conduct the rite. iii) One of the chief reasons for this celebration by Christians should be to acknowledge and experience some of what we have received from the Jews in the history of salvation. iv) This ritual ..... should never be a hybrid presentation of Jewish and Christian celebrations.” Observe the deep concern of the same “bishops” who proscribe our proper Catholic worship, and impose on their flock a “new” form of worship adulterated with an Old Testament replacement of our Offertory, that this same flock, in violating both natural and canon law by participating in non-Catholic worship, should in no way infringe on the integrity of Jewish worship. Page 3: “The Holy See has been of considerable help in this work.”

212 Argument Corner Objection—Our Lord may be tormented by the disfigured Mass, as on the Cross, but it is His passion that is relived on the altar. It is not for us to say whether the Mass is valid or not. Rome decides. Several times in history there were attempts to disqualify the validity of sacraments because of failures of clergymen (). But the validity comes from God, not from men; however sinful, their ordination stands. The same is true for papal ordination. Reply—Jesus Christ was tormented to death on the Cross, but He rose glorified, impassible, never to suffer more, even through His own Sacrifice re- presented for the benefit of the living and the dead on the altar. Have you still altars? The entire English-speaking world has none; we have inherited this abominable table, straight out of the Protestant Revolt, upon which to conduct a community meal (from the same Revolt), which was condemned and forbidden, and declared not a Mass by Pope St. Pius V, deciding officially in Rome in 1570. I have never declared a Mass invalid, but I have agreed with Pope St. Pius V in declaring such a liturgy not a Mass. This fact is confirmed even in Paul VI’s Missale Romanum, wherein the new liturgy is defined as other than the Mass. (See page 65, Is The Pope Catholic?) We are not discussing “failures of clergymen” but rather rites and forms that have replaced valid Mass and sacraments without the shadow of valid reason. What we had was perfect, and drew its validity from divine origin. Man-made replacements are not only “disfigured” but sacrilegious and heretical. Nor do we speak of “papal ordination” of antipopes—ineligible by reason of public heresy before election. Not all in the Chair of Peter have been popes. History records more than thirty antipopes. Popes are not divine, and cannot institute Masses or sacraments. Their chief function is preservation and dissemination of what was passed on to them. And infallibility is limited to the Deposit of Faith, complete at the last Apostle’s death, more than eighteen centuries ago. Nothing new is Catholic!

* * * * * *

Bede Heather’s May 1, 1992 Guidelines General Principles, 7: On occasions of common concern such as peace and welfare of the community, Jews and Christians may, after mutual agreement, come together to pray. This prayer would find its common faith in the One God. [The Holy Trinity?] * * * * * *

The Noble Savage? We know of ourselves, from glimpses God has once or twice given us in life, what incredible possibilities of wickedness we have in our souls. Civilization increases these possibilities. Education multiplies and magnifies our powers of sinning. Refinement adds a fresh malignity. Men would thus become more diabolically and unmixedly bad, until at last the earth would be a hell on this 213 side the grave. There would also doubtless be new kinds of sins and worse kinds. Education would provide the novelty, and refinement would carry it into the region of the unnatural. All highly refined and luxurious developments of heathenism have fearfully illustrated this truth. A wicked barbarian is like a beast. His savage passions are violent but intermitting, and his necessities of sin do not appear to grow. Their circle is limited. But a highly educated sinner, without the restraints of religion, is like a demon. His sins are less confined to himself. They involve others in their misery. They require others to be offered as it were in sacrifice to them. Moreover, education, considered simply as an intellectual cultivation, propagates sin, and makes it more universal. – The Precious Blood, Frederick William Faber

Life of Leo XIII, Rt. Rev. Bernard O’Reilly Appendix D. The Right of Veto in Papal Elections. The three acknowledged Catholic Powers, France, Spain, and Austria (as well as Portugal, according to some authors), had, by moral compulsion or in recognition of some great service rendered to religion, obtained the right of veto or “exclusion” in a conclave. If a certain candidate happened to be obnoxious to the sovereign of any of these kingdoms, he had a right to protest through his ambassador against the choice of such a candidate, thereby “excluding” him from all chance of being elected. This right or privilege could only be exercised once during the conclave by any Power, and that before a two-thirds vote had been cast for any candidate. Once such a vote had been given the election was over, and no veto or “exclusion” availed to invalidate it. There is no instance on record of such right of “exclusion” having been exercised by Portugal. The last instance of “exclusion” was that exercised by Spain in the conclave which, in January 1831, elected Gregory XVI. The person thus excluded was Cardinal Giustiniani, who on the morning of January 7 received twenty-one votes, within four of the required two-thirds. Thereupon the Spanish Cardinal Marco communicated to the of the Sacred College and to Cardinal Odescalchi, nephew to Giustiniani, a note of Pedro Gomez Labrador, ambassador of the King of Spain to the Holy See, dated December 24, 1830, and expressly “excluding” Cardinal Giustiniani.

Life of Leo XIII, page 323: An imperfect enclosure would entail the nullity of any choice made by the electors, even though every other formality had been strictly observed.

1949 Woywod Commentary (page 5): “As the Code made no mention of the laws against Modernism, it was generally believed that the rule of Canon 6 applied, and that these laws were abolished.” Some take this to mean that Pius IX’s and St. Pius X’s lists of condemned modernist propositions are abolished, as though heresies could change their nature to become orthodox. Both lists are infallible doctrinal

214 pronouncements logged in Denzinger’s Handbook of Creeds. Modernists ignore them by sloppy logic, such as equates condemnation of doctrinal error with law.

A Book for all Seasons, St. Thomas More 1/6. The Church of Christ hath been, is, and ever shall be, taught and instructed by God and His Holy Spirit with His holy word of either kind, that is to say both with His written word and His word unwritten, and that they which will not believe God’s word but if He put it in writing, be as plain infidels as they that will not believe it written, since God’s word taketh His authority of God that speaketh it and not of man that writeth it.

The War Is Now! # 39 Recall the great courage with which Paul VI and his reconvened council “condemned” the greatest evils of our age, communism and contraception. The latter was removed from the council’s scope. Montini desperately needed something to “prove” his own orthodoxy. He certainly milked the subject for all it was worth. He set up a commission to examine it, allowed it to run for years, as though it had some excuse for delay, then overruled its final report and put himself forward as a pillar of tradition and orthodoxy by issuing Humanae Vitae, a dilution of Pius XI’s Casti Connubii. Even now, agreement with Paul in his obviously non-infallible “Encyclical” is the test of orthodoxy in many quarters, though episcopal conferences around the world disregard it without penalty. Why would a genuine pope refuse to allow an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church to handle a doctrinal matter? Is that not a Council’s purpose? Inspired and guided by the Holy Ghost, how could it err? What had a pope to fear? Could he not, if worst came to worst, refuse to confirm the Council’s findings? Montini could not risk it. Vatican II had in its first session already proven itself heretical. It might pull the wool over the eyes of the faithful, most of whom would never bother to read its documents and decrees. But the world press would never sit on a revolutionary change in the Catholic position on contraception. And Montini knew what stand that mob of modernist bishops would take. He knew his “Council” would be finished—disregarded by not only the faithful but by the entire world. Knowing this, he must have known also that he was not a genuine pope. After Vatican II’s refusal to condemn communism and its failure to discuss usury, the third great crime of the time, he needed a banner to which we might flock. What finer than a clear-cut issue like contraception, in which it could be suggested that his bishops were undercutting him and he could not enforce the law? How many times have we heard that the pope is not responsible for all these disastrous innovations—it’s those treacherous bishops plotting behind his back—keeping him in the dark—refusing his orders? Who appoints the

215 bishops? Rome! Who prescribes the agenda for their Conferences? Rome! Which of these gutless collegialists would have the nerve to disobey? Paul VI had a free ride on contraception. John Paul II has used the same tactic with abortion. One need not be Catholic to condemn either evil. Never forget that the “Council” to the implementation of whose decrees the last three “pontificates” were dedicated failed signally to condemn the three most notorious evils of its time: communism, contraception, and usury. So what was its purpose? We can certainly see its results—which nearly all bishops could have foreseen. They certainly could not have eventuated by accident. They all lead in one direction, away from doctrine, discipline, and unity. The postconciliar “Church” is obviously not one, not holy, not Catholic, not Apostolic.

The War Is Now! # 40 For Clarity and Truth Do patron saints exist also in the Palace of Justice? Some time ago, Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello was forced to denounce the surpassing usury of those who had victimized the institute which he had founded as an authentic Opera Mater Ecclesiae, a Work of Mother Church. He, as the major part of this work, had headed two limited partnerships, Pro Gioventù Ltd. (For Youth), and Telejolly Ltd. The property, consisting of very valuable real estate and a sporting complex, unique in Europe, is worth about $150,000,000 In a moment of contingent economic difficulties, Monsignor Liberio Andreatta, “longa manus” (long hand) of the Vicariate of Rome, granted a loan of about $9,000,000. The property designated above, through clever pseudo-legal manipulation, fell completely into the hands of the financiers. Scarcely crediting the account of such a deception and its means of perpetration, His Excellency Msgr. Pintonello revoked the power of attorney which Msgr. Andreatta had cited as authority to release to himself as President of the Foundation the property in toto, and to perpetrate the asset- stripping. Now, with skillful stage management, with malice afore-thought, leaving Archbishop Pintonello no recourse, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, through his agent Msgr. Andreatta, deprived Msgr. Pintonello of his charges, first by rendering him “innocuous,” then by stripping him of every decisional power! This situation has led Archbishop Pintonello to this denunciation for usury and more. The Vicariate of Rome presented a specious answer to Msgr. Pintonello’s accusations. The Vicariate, in fact, in a note released to the press, stated precisely: “the intervention was opened to provide for the contingent necessity” of a Foundation. The properties, the Vicariate added, belong not to the elderly Archbishop, but to the Work of “Mater Ecclesiae.”

216 It is well to state precisely that Archbishop Arrigo Pintonello claims no ownership of property; on the contrary he intended to be the Founder of the Work “Mater Ecclesiae,” and he must therefore not endure pillage of estates conferred upon it by the self-same Msgr. Pintonello. Thus, as Founder, he has the obligation and burden to watch over the said properties, as imposed by Statutes approved by both Ecclesiastical and Civil Authorities. Msgr. Andreatta’s Vicarious slithering is clearly obvious in his assertion that the intervention (rather say “financing”) has been in order to provide for the contingent necessity of a Foundation: whereby he admits the existence of a state of need, a constituent element of the final illegality; article 644, part 2, Common Laws, reads in part: “..... it is a punishable offense for anyone to profit by conditions of economic or financial difficulty.” It results that Archbishop Pintonello is deprived utterly of every fundamental human and legal right, by the decision, definitely aberrant and diabolic, relative to his ouster as President and demotion to Administrator Only (legal representative) of the Work Mater Ecclesiae. Cardinal Ruini intended, all too obviously to eliminate Archbishop Pintonello’s control. The attempt to denigrate the Archbishop will fail: He is a figure of consequence, certainly not inferior to his detractors. He has been stripped of every asset given to the Foundation of the Work “Mater Ecclesiae” (College of the Pine Forest). The detractors have performed a “Work of Expropriation.” Msgr. Pintonello is an Archbishop from the ranks of the Military Chaplains. He was designated Military Ordinary (Chief of Military Chaplains) in 1953. During his active clerical life he was commissioned in 1941 Chaplain Chief Inspector of 360 Chaplains of the CSIR and of the ARMIR, the Italian Army on the Russian Front. To him is due the organization and construction of 380 cemeteries for the war dead, from Botosani in Bessarabia to the Bend of the Don. Decorated with two Military Crosses, he also earned a solemn Commendation for the work of Christian piety in which he was involved in those dramatic and painful times. The memory of his tall, calm figure, always present in the most difficult moments, is still very much alive in the survivors of that unfortunate, but glorious campaign. He has been Rector of two Pontifical Regional Seminaries, Viterbo and Salerno, for the training of young future priests, Co-Founder of the CEI together with Siri, Roncalli, Traglia, and Montini, President, during Vatican Council II, of the Commission on Studies and Seminaries. In 1960 he founded the Institute “Angelo Bartolomasi,” which in 1966 became a Work of “Mater Ecclesiae,” while Apostolic Administrator to Velletri and at the same time Archbishop-Bishop of Terracina-Latina-Sezze and Priverno, with the assignment to establish the diocese of Latina. In 1971 he left the Diocese of Latina to devote himself to the establishment of the College Selva dei Pini in Pomezia: a large educational organization, in an imposing complex of buildings, which inspired similar English, Russian, Japanese, and American colleges. The success of this enterprise was

217 confirmed by an extraordinary flow of pupils from every part of Latium, from other regions of Italy, and even from outside. In a pinch it was necessary to resort to a loan, amply secured by the outstanding property of 60 acres, with 24,000 cubic meters of impressive buildings, eight buildings for kindergarten and elementary schools, built, like Canadian or Tyrolean houses, of wood, 5 more buildings for the accommodation of sportsmen. In December 1992 Msgr. Liberio Andreatta, Director General of the Institute for Roman Pilgrims, entered the scene. He affirmed his wish to save the College on condition that he be given full power of attorney. Within two years Msgr. Andreatta swallowed up the activities of the Center, obtaining, in the course of his meetings, total control of each and all of the involved organizations. Cardinal Ruini, et al, have transferred the Foundation property to and amongst themselves, and sold the broadcasting television Telejolly RTV Ltd TeleItalia Ch. 41, and continue to operate it, ignoring the charges and the person of the Founder completely. [The proceeds of this one transfer should have canceled the debt, and properly removed the interlopers.] We have every right to obtain a detailed response: Up to what point has Msgr. Andreatta acted autonomously, or instead on precise directives of his principal, Cardinal Camillo Ruini? These have proven their ignorance of the difference between right to loan repayment and power to seize everything! In brief, the Work “Mater Ecclesiae” has been brutally plundered in favor of the Archconfraternity of the Holy Guardian Angels, to which has been transferred, against every jus humanum et divinum, 95% of the property of Pro Gioventù and all that of Telejolly TeleItalia Ch. 41. Who does not see the irrationality—the illegality—of such actions, in themselves overtly fulfilling every requirement for formal declaration of malfeasance? There remains only a categorical request to place these matters before the Highest Hierarchies of the Vatican: while the Law examines the above described denunciation, a legal complaint, the Holy See must immediately intervene to remedy this scandal which has already secured broad coverage in both Italian and foreign press. A unanimous chorus of qualified individuals, including generals, journalists, professionals, and ecclesiastics, raises its voice in protest and demands a radical and solicitous rectification of this situation. The foregoing is an unofficial report of the request to the Deputy Attorney of the Republic of Rome for filing the denunciation—a legal complaint. This information could not close the case. There remains the alienation of the television broadcaster, Telejolly, to an “investor” by an operation certainly not clear. In fact, the proceeds of this transfer, handled properly, would have canceled the debt of the Work “Mater Ecclesiae.” The District Attorney would do well to look into these circumstances. Execution of this suit will not stop even before the doors of the luxurious apartments of the high Prelates of the Church. To the above report the Archbishop appends personal Brief Qualifications:

218 1) It is absolutely impossible to continue to suffer the unacceptable situation, moral and physical, to which I have been subject for almost two years. 2) I have been confined, with only my two collaborators, Don Giacomino Femino, and Focolarina Lidia Bittanti, in an upper floor room. 3) It is absolutely impossible for me to communicate with very many of my friends and visitors. 4) The telephone is used exclusively, night and day, by the new invading barbarians. 5) Registration of pupils for the school, and of those wishing to use any of the 14 sports facilities, has totally ceased. 6) Nearly two years of general depredation have gone by, yet there appears no possibility of its public denunciation by the Civil and/or Penal Courts, nor agreement once and for all to end this insane state of affairs. 7) Scores of friends: Generals, Journalists, Professional people, ex-pupils of the Pontifical Seminaries of Salerno and Viterbo, Ecclesiastics, parents of pupils, and Teachers protest, with one voice, the seizure of part of the College property, by threat of withdrawing their children. 8) The described situation appears evidence of an authentic “criminal insanity” of Cardinal Ruini, of his right-hand man (longa manus), Msgr. Andreatta, and of the lawyer Cardarelli, Msgr. De Angelis, Mr. Cianfracca, etc. 9) Also many hundreds of foreign Catholics: American, English, Austrian, German, etc. threaten to instigate, along with these others, a press campaign against the methods of the present Church, defined “by common voice” the Church of the “,” (“vacant See”), and especially against the handiwork of Cardinal Ruini, President of the CEI, before whom all tremble ..... against this end to my career. Conclusion: I urge, I beseech you all to intervene to set an end, once and for all, to this most unacceptable state of things, perpetrated by the Supreme Hierarchies of the Church, accusations on which they deem unworthy of response. The War Is Now! # 41 Mr. B. A. Santamaria has come to the defense of his pope (AD2000, December). He cites differing translations supposedly in contradiction. “New knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis.” (Vatican Information Service) becomes “New knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution.” [“simply states the obvious.” – AD2000] But this latter L’Osservatore Romano version continued as we quote [see JP2 to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 22/10/96 (L’Osservatore Romano, 30/10/96) under Evolution] and as partially quoted in AD2000: “It does state that the ‘convergence’ of various streams of research in favour of the same hypothesis ‘is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory.’ But it stops at that point.” What more need JP2 have said? Santamaria will have a pope at any cost.

219 For several years I corresponded with this publisher of “a journal of religious opinion”—any but mine. One issue editorialized on respect due a pope’s wishes. Without John XXIII’s wish to hold an ecumenical council we would not be in this mess. Nor can I imagine anything with effects more disastrous than Paul VI’s hopes and wishes that a new rite be used for “mass.” If a pope wants something legitimate done, he commands it. The Vatican II Renewal drove out laymen as well as clergy. Less people, less base for priestly vocations, less churches needed, less churches staffed, so back to less people. Each innovation follows in endless chain the innovation it caused. And selling churches is an innovation. All those old abbeys, churches, and cathedrals of Europe were confiscated, in ruins, rebuilt on site, or remain in use. Economics now “forces” the sale of a church. (Seminaries? Why not? Who needs a priest for the novus ordo?) It is alleged that JP2 really wishes to bring back the traditional Mass. If so, why accept the resignation of the only bishop in the world who kept it in his diocese, and who ordained priests also with the traditional rite so they could celebrate the real Mass? John XXIII neither blundered nor operated on a purely human level. He knew he must claim divine inspiration to convoke a council for which no one could advance a reason except (invalidating!) . He almost conducted a seance—to raise the Holy Spirit. He certainly imposed on Catholics, who might be expected to believe in a pope’s inspiration and truthfulness. In talking to less gullible Protestants, however, he didn’t “like to claim special inspiration.” So on at least one of these occasions, he lied! He claimed inspiration also to deal with the communist misgovernment of Russia to secure Russian Orthodox observers at his council. I have proven over and over that Paul VI, caught in collusion with communists in Pius XII’s time, was a public heretic before his therefore nugatory election to the papacy. Unquestionably he signed and promulgated Vatican II’s docu- ments, in which many discern previously condemned heresies. He introduced a new “mass” embodying doctrine and practice of four major heresies: Judaism, Arianism, apocatastasis, Lutheranism. If he woke up, as Mr. Santamaria says, why did he not act at last like a pope and redress this crime? Too late for truth? It is no argument against the papacy and its primacy to state the fact that it is vacant or usurped. Can there really be another explanation of the utter lack of infallibility displayed by the last four occupants? A pope supported by the Holy Ghost cannot err by accident, but only deliberately. If the occupant is not pope he is necessarily a conspirator. So we need not make excuses for his heretical behavior, as in common worship with non-Catholics. Excuses account largely for the disastrous present confusion, which can be resolved only in truth. If we regain unity under these four and their council we shall be united only in the final apostasy. Columnist Mike Ryan wrote: “The , as you predicted, declined to take on your book” (Is The Pope Catholic?—given also to Santamaria, who, as he stated on ABCTV Lateline, Dec. 7, would not separate himself from the 220 apostate crew in usurpation unless shown that they had changed the religion.) “He said answering all points ‘would take a month and a thousand Sundays to get through it all...... same questions have been around for 20 years.’ ‘Council documents gave the answers .....’” The “answers” preceded the questions? If the same questions have been around for twenty years they cannot surprise the V.G., and some one should have answered by now. So why would it take so long? All he need do is consult the well-indexed Council documents. He might even have answered one or two points, and promised more when available. We are entitled to the answers; salvation may depend on them. If privy to all my correspondence Santamaria might well appreciate the frailty of “refutations” of my arguments. This is uncharacteristic of the Church, which has always had super-powerful arguments against heresy and dissent. Please weigh well the fact that I have written three books crowded with arguments which no one answers, and the further extreme probability that if I am correct only once then the explanation can be only a vacant or usurped papal see and arguably St. Paul’s infallibly predicted Apostasy. Where we disagree only one of us can be correct. I show why I am correct. If you (Santamaria) can support your position similarly, why have you not? We discuss the Catholic religion, the best documented, most logical, clearest environment on earth. Doubt or confusion have no place. But only confusion can result from accepting public heretics—men who disagree with all history’s popes—as popes. How can we recover unity under those who have destroyed it so deliberately since 1958? In any organization the top man is responsible for variation. In our religion variation in essentials is wrong by definition. So the innovators manufacture precedents and dispute what is essential. Words are invested with new meanings. Definitions decay. Siren songs of wish overcome plainest facts and clearest logic. Many insist that we need only our Mass back. But we had our Mass until 1962, and disaster struck anyway. If God permits us to be confused, why were we not confused before 1958? All our confusion has resulted from change, all introduced by or knowingly permitted by four men whose duty (if genuine popes) was to preserve what had been preserved for them. We have had weak popes, immoral popes, incompetent popes, but nothing like our disastrous present situation ever quite happened before— except for eight years under antipope Anacletus II. It is necessary to our present plight that we have no visible pope. That explains nearly everything that has gone wrong, and is arguably the only possible explanation. Your decisions may be upheld by your conscience, but you are short on logic or information. You have accepted the robbers’ assurance that there is no robbery. All can see that we have been robbed. Why can we not appreciate the terrible extent of the robbery? Why, given the obvious motives, would the robbers leave us anything of value? Is it some form of pride—we can’t have been bejaped like this? We shall never recover our Church until we admit that it has left Rome and act accordingly. Many refuse to entertain documented arguments that all public occupants of the Holy See since Pius XII’s death have been antipopes. They cannot overcome belief that we must have a pope or we are not the Church. They point out that

221 whenever the Church was plagued by an antipope, somewhere was a true pope, though excluded from his See. This argument ignores interregna, and misconstrues Matthew xxviii, 20. Was Montini kicked upstairs to Milan by accident? An anti-communist should need no research on this point. Our generation and the one from which we sprang largely practised contraception. The next two have progressed to abortion. Four generations have scorned their religion. Why should it not be taken from them? Who are you to set behavior for the Holy Ghost? Was He joking when He permitted the horrible misrule of “Pope” Anacletus II? How did we get rid of him? Through the zeal of several saints, who showed the truly Catholic population the danger of accepting religious change, and through the decisive action of the . What is not changed since Vatican II? How are we to judge these changes, supposing that they were necessary or even possible? “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Who has excused us from not merely judging them but from putting them under the doctrinal microscope? They cannot pass this test. So what must we conclude concerning those who introduced them? Much of our Catholic doctrine is not defined because no one ever seriously questioned it. It is nonetheless infallibly true as the universal teaching of the universal Church. Here is exercised not papal infallibility but that of the ordinary magisterium, which covers undefined Catholic doctrine—as subject to change as defined doctrine. Apply this to paragraph 7, Montini’s Institutio Generalis, which follows in his “missal” his proclamation, Missale Romanum, wherewith he promulgated the Arian, Judaic, Lutheran novus ordo: “The Lord’s Supper or the Mass, is the sacred assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.” This definition, correct on the authority of its authors, was changed to ambiguity to stop the general outcry, but not a word of the rite it defined was changed. Both differ from the proper definition of the true Mass: the unbloody sacrifice of the Cross. If we grant that in defining his novus ordo Montini was teaching, though not defining ex cathedra, we grant in the same breath that a pope was teaching with the infallible authority of the ordinary magisterium. What is taught this way is taught forever; it is not subject to change. But Montini changed it after the general outcry. He could not be infallible both times, and both disagreements with the traditional Mass definition prove him correct neither time. If he taught with papal authority he should have enjoyed the protection of the Holy Ghost. This whole skit precludes any possibility that Montini (“Paul VI”) was or could have been pope. We have, of course, the further proof that he signed Vatican II documents which contradicted unchangeable defined doctrines of the Catholic Church, but you will not see this fact. Peasants have always been noted for down-to-earth commonsense and reluctance to change. How persuade them to apostatize? Yet St. Paul infallibly (Scripturally—II Thess. ii, 3) predicts a great apostasy in the last days. Characteristic of the apostasy (ibidem 10-12) will be a “misleading influence

222 that they may believe falsehood.” An apostasy worthy of prophecy should be worthy of notice —an overwhelming majority—and should apply to those who have the Faith. Atheists, Jews, Moslems, etc. simply lack the necessary Catholicity. Nor is it likely that a large-scale apostasy can take place without the leadership of the overwhelming majority of the clergy and hierarchy, including the men who hold the office of pope. Or else all these peasants with their peasant commonsense and realism will have reached a point at which they can no longer exercise their natural characteristics. Your choice is that the leopard can change its spots or that freemasonry and communism (the world’s best borers from within) cannot. Pope St. Pius X declared that the modernists had slunk into the Church’s very veins, and took heroic measures to flush them out. Unfortunately this peasant was followed by broader-minded men, who failed to stop the infiltration. If in 181 pages of charge and documentation (Is The Pope Catholic?) I am correct only once, then my case against Vatican II and its four antipopes is proven. Is your salvation not worth the time necessary to verify my charges? Pope St. Pius V, of course, was the expert on Catholic doctrine and practise of his time and probably all time since. He taught theology for sixteen years and was in charge of the Inquisition, later known as the Holy Office. He certainly knew what he was doing when he confined Mass to the oldest rite in existence so that the Church could guarantee it. The Church can certainly not guarantee anything that supplants it. You editorialize that the Catholic schools put eighty to ninety per cent of their finished products out of the Church for at least practise. These conditions, and many of the heresies which have contributed to them, have been reported often to diocesan and Roman authorities; I myself reported them years ago when forced to remove my sons from St. Leo’s College, Wahroonga, N.S.W. to preserve their faith. You belong to that obtuse group which declares in effect that the same conspirators who put our children on the road to hell would not steal our ordinary means of salvation. And you continue to insist that these conspirators against God and His Church are Catholic authorities, even popes. Yet you readily discern parallel methods and content in contemporary secular politics and misgovernment. What goes on in Canberra, London, and Washington apes the Roman takeover pattern too closely for coincidence. The great bulk of proof comes from authority. We must take some one else’s word for even our own parentage. Especially do we know religion in this way; divine revelation is certainly authority. We can easily determine that Vatican II’s documents make a joke of this authority. And who voted for and who promulgated these soul-destroying jokes? Who changed our unchangeable, divinely instituted Mass and sacraments? Who invented history to support laughable innovations? Why were so many “innovations” mere reiterations of Protestant and Jewish failures, customs, and heresies? How could so many Catholics have stood still for all this lunacy? “Obedience!” “Infallibility!” “Proof” from incompetent authority! Refusal to believe our own eyes! Nothing can be more obvious than that Vatican II and the “popes” that convoked it and promulgated its documents as Catholic doctrine cannnot have

223 belonged to the Catholic Church—and therefore could not head it. If the men who followed them “in office” fail to correct them and restore the Church immediately in toto they fall into the same apostatic category. The fact that they constitute a “series” is completely off the point. On your own admission (“no time, no inclination”) you have not researched the problem. If you, therefore, reject my research and conclusions, how can you be sure that you do not thereby reject the authority which taught us both our religion, the authority to which I appeal throughout my argument. Not only have I changed nothing, I would dare change nothing. God judges men individually, at the particular judgment, on the basis of individual thoughts, words, actions, and omissions. Justice is done. We will all come to the general judgment so that justice will be seen to have been done in all our individual cases. Neither will be a judgment of man! Very few individuals have any control over the use or misuse of resources, but only over the use of their own talents. We can’t even vote for our choice, because we are never given a choice—only candidates who think too much alike to make a choice relevant, and who will not govern according to our or their own ideas but according to those of the party to which they owe their election. All they do to prove their worth is legislate. Each new law is a change, too often for the worse. When God judges man He floods or burns the place, or perhaps withdraws His ordinary means of grace from apathetic, sinful, or scornful generations. Even when a man kills another, certain circumstances remove his action from judgment: self-preservation, defense of his family or country, insanity, lack of choice. So God judges human actions according to their spiritual aspect and involvement. Crop failure, drought, bushfires, are natural punishments. Loss or maldistribution of natural resources, largely beyond our control, count for nothing against the loss of spiritual resources. If there is to be a mighty conservative effort, let it count in eternity, not be largely wasted on temporary problems. Why should one find it necessary to drive hundreds of miles past his parish church to find what was formerly freely available there? Unless this rot, which came from the top, can be stopped and reversed at the top, all conservation will fail. The wood chips will vanish in the final conflagration. In logic lies a possibility that we can both be wrong, but not that we can both be correct. I practically throttle you with my arguments and reasons, all backed by the unchangeable authority of those from whom I have filched them. These things are eternal verities, and I would not vary them. I offer to go to any length to support my arguments. I follow this course out of an innate passion for accuracy and the greatest charity for my fellow Catholics who are led, I believe, out of the Church in St. Paul’s prophesied apostasy into the camp of the Antichrist. I hold nothing back. If I can be shown in error on any point I shall correct the error. My methods, my thoughts, my step-by-step conclusions are all as public as I can make them. No one—least of all the hierarchy and clergy whose job it is—has refuted me since I began this perennial process of preser- vation because those whose duty and function it is have deserted their posts. You will tell me neither your conclusions nor how you reached them. So I’m an intransigent fellow upon whom argument is a waste of time? But you tell no

224 one else either, or I would have discovered it. Every argument from every source is piled on me, but they have all been considered and answered long ago by the authority to which we all owe allegiance. The strangest part is that the answers leap at us from plain common sense and logic, and we are driven to source and authority only to complete our case against those who cannot think straight. We have no chance to help each other until I somehow discover your conclusions and your method of arrival thereat. Of course, implicit in my argument is the belief that you cannot defend your position. “Peasantry,” even your parents’, is neither defense nor excuse. Peasants strongly resist change. Nor is your peasant’s inherited implicit faith in “what the Catholic Church teaches”; as I have proved at such length so often, the Catholic Church never taught what we have now, except under eschatological prophecy. What will happen can happen. Many Catholics consider me a fanatic or heretic for holding exactly what all Catholics held forty years ago, though all must concede that our present situation could not have arisen by accident (for this would indeed presume the negligence or absence of the Holy Ghost) but only through a deliberate plot. Then they refuse to see who are necessarily (for its success) parties to the plot. Confusion victimizes us all; we fight among ourselves instead of presenting a united front to the enemy. Formerly we had a standard of unity, a pope. Even the general confusion proves that we now have no visible pope. There could be no such confusion if the occupants of the Holy See since 1958 agreed on all points (e.g., silencing of heretics) with their legitimate predecessors. I cannot view an opinion as to legitimate occupancy of the papacy as “intensely personal”; this would appear not only subjective but emotional. Emotion may have its place in religion, but this question can be determined only objectively, as the facts indicate. The only question: “What are the facts?” If Scriptural quotations of Jesus Christ are not facts we may as well jettison all religion. “He that is not with Me is against Me.” “By their fruits you shall know them.” I’ve often argued against contraception, and was nearly as often told either (1) that I was trying to force my morals on the community [of course! these are the only morals], or (2) that I could continue to believe what is true for me and that my opponent would continue to believe what is true for him. I am disappointed that a man of your religious dedication should approximate such views, at least by implication. You have not put up any decent argument. There is only one religious truth, and both you and I must believe it to be saved. We were both taught it; neither can plead ignorance. I have specified certain condemned heresies promulgated by Vatican II over Paul VI’s “papal” signature. Promulgation of these heresies is historical fact. To accept the promulgating “authority” places one in opposition to religious truth—belief in which is necessary to salvation. We have no leeway—no differing points of view. We must recognize facts. If you impose the same restrictions on your contributors as on me—if you must follow or support their arguments —how can you find anything to print? Is not

225 the very fact that you publish in this field evidence of divided adherences within what is by definition a united Church? Your publication originated in our evident fragmentation. Can you justify boycotting one of the most important controversies of our time? I cite your “invincible ignorance” incredulously. You must know better. You need not agree with me but rather with the Church in its dogma, tradition, and morals, including our highest moral obligation: worship. I believe in the Communion of Saints, not in the Renewal and its necessary basis, evolution. In the Church we all agreed on essentials. In these postconciliar times most discussions involve individuals or groups each of which is sure that all the rest are heretics. This unprecedented state of fluidity in itself constitutes proof, for it could not exist in the presence of a functioning pope, a standard of unity, a preserver of Christ’s message. You write: “Christianity was not a carefully devised human philosophy. It was a ‘revealed’ religion, revealed both in its doctrines and the structure of its ministry by God in the Person of Jesus Christ.” (But not revealed in its very heart and purpose, divine worship?) You even appear to appreciate “the methods whereby what is clearly laid down are ultimately set aside.” So why accept the results? Why not instead traditionally adhere to the unchangeable revealed religion? I can’t quarrel with what you permit in your own publication. I cannot help contrasting your attitude with mine; I quote and welcome every possible divergence from my own position for the express purpose of scuttling. You avoid the only reasoned position to avoid controversy vitally affecting the Church’s current credibility. Indeed you come close to such a syllogism as: (1) Some popes have been pretty bad; (2) John Paul II is pretty bad; (3) therefore John Paul II is pope. A pope is an absolute monarch. Paul VI used his “papacy” to force unwanted disastrous innovation, including that convenient retirement policy by which he kept resistance to a minimum. We have both known clerics who performed capably right to their deaths at ages up to a hundred years. Montini would have retired such as Hosius and Mannix at 75, while applauding Roncalli’s assumption of stringent papal duties at 77. Vatican II was a gratuitous “council” convoked in defiance of ecclesiastical and divine law to make drastic change in revealed religion. On Roncalli’s death it was re-convoked by Montini, impossibly pope (incompetent to convoke an ecumenical council) by reason of prior public heresy, the exact objection to the legitimacy of his two successors, both of whom declared Vatican II’s implementation the major task of their “pontificates.” Vatican II voted, accepted, and promulgated as Catholic doctrine over Montini’s “papal” signature at least a dozen demonstrated heresies. This fact alone renders all participants who never publicly dissociated themselves from these specified heresies public heretics. Included in this nearly unanimous episcopate were Luciani and Wojtyla, who were equally with Montini ineligible for the papacy for public adherence to heresy.

226 These are facts. When I demonstrate them no one argues. Defense is confined to (1) blanket, unreasoned denial, (2) refusal or professed incompetence to discuss, (3) imputation of senility and/or insanity. Ability to back argument with fact becomes fanaticism—unworthy of reply. Wojtyla, if pope, could (he would indeed be so obliged) lay down the law: “Do what I order, transfer, or resign!” Instead, he travels, gives aid and comfort to the enemy, compromises with any and all false religions, and selects areas for conservatism while ordering his subordinates to “oppose” him to preserve his image. It is not the image of a pope. A pope would demand agreement with the revealed religion which he is sworn to preserve. If unable he would, we might hope, resign to make way for an effective pope. Doctrinal chaos in the Church is not only unprecedented, but obviously impossible in the presence of a properly functioning pope. “Feed My sheep?” Wojtyla is a political, moral, and doctrinal disaster. Why would anyone wish to hold him up as a vicar of Christ? It is not matter for faith that any particular man is Catholic. We have ample evidence that Wojtyla is not Catholic. He cannot head a Church to which he cannot belong. No one can correct the situation while accepting its legitimacy. No one publishing on the subject of our current internal chaos can in conscience rule out this argument. We can’t accept this anarchy. Its chief support is the mistaken belief that we have a pope, and that he will do something —some time—that will not further degrade our Faith.

The War Is Now! # 42 Some weeks ago in a Wangaratta parish a novus ordo priest forcibly ejected an older priest (vested for “mass”) from the , then had him removed from the table by the police during his novus ordo missae. Whatever the circumstances, was this police business?

Olympics for Sydney—Other Games for Perth From time to time the notice board at Fr. Augustine Cummins’ chapel at Jolimont (Perth suburb) displays a letter from the Archdiocese of Perth, signed by the incumbent heretic victim of Paul VI’s and Bugnini’s invalid rite of episcopal “ordination,” non-archbishop Barry Hickey. This letter avers that Fr. Augustine Cummins is a priest in good standing with Rome, duly authorized in the Perth Archdiocese for mass and confession. A few weeks ago Fr. Cummins, C.Ss.R., Brother Alban, S.M, his general factotum, and Society of St. Pius X “priest” Gerard Hogan organized a small group of Cummins’ Jolimont “parishioners” to be confirmed Thursday, March 6 by the aforesaid local heretic, non-archbishop Hickey, who employed the traditional rite of Confirmation in conjunction with an Indult Mass for the Ecclesia Deiites, all accomplished in the ’ chapel at Mercedes College, close by the Perth pro-cathedral. (The mass may have been valid if the celebrant remembered the Church’s intention.) Brother Alban graced the occasion by his approving presence, while Gerard Hogan, outsize soutane and all, marched in the procession.

227 Implications? Is this not an unmistakable admission on the part of Hogan and Fr. Cummins that Hickey, a victim of Paul VI’s novus ordo “ordination,” can confirm as validly as the Society of St. Pius X “bishops”? What can be expected from confirmed believers in private revelations and visions? Such people are too likely to believe in Roncalli’s self-disclosed divine inspiration to convoke Vatican II. Cummins at one time seriously held that at the novus ordo missae the host is consecrated even though the is not. (How is sacrifice signified?) Where were the “bishops” of the Society of St. Pius X? If Montini’s ordinations—imposed like his novus ordo missae to the exclusion of undoubtedly valid and traditional rites—are valid, “Archbishop” Lefebvre’s reason (New rites are doubtful; therefore an urgent need exists to consecrate bishops to assure continued priesthood and mass.) for consecrating bishops for the Society of St. Pius X is as invalid as his “consecrations” themselves. Not even the involvement of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer sufficed to validate those “consecrations”, because those to be “consecrated” had been “ordained priests” by Archbishop Lefebvre. So Fr. Cummins’ and Gerard Hogan’s motives must be questioned. Hogan could have been trying to ingratiate himself with Rome and Hickey, to avoid trouble as he takes over. What was in it for Fr. Cummins?

The Day of the Sermon has nearly disappeared into the night of the . For many years the ordinary reaction of the ordinary seminary drop-out to what has been preached in church has been a well-grounded suspicion that he could have done better. Along about 1968 this suspicion grew into realization that almost anyone could do better; that as the Mass shortened the “instruction” ballooned (hot air) out to infinity. Doctrinal content had evaporated into the speaker’s love for his own phrase conveyed ad nauseam by his own too seldom trained voice. Soon the point arrived at which anyone preaching genuine doctrine could expect his bishop, or more likely Rome, to pull the rug from under him within a month. If he was not silenced he was often scared into silence. Scripture was quoted in new and amazing translations, or replaced by insights of the village atheist. The “priestless Sunday” developed its appeal. Not all was lost, however. In Australia there remains one genuinely ordained priest capable of writing and delivering a real sermon. But he was trained by the , who have a millennial reputation for scholarship. Few indeed are so fortunate as those who assist at Mass at Downham Market, where the sermonizer has been known to boast more or less seriously of the sound education of his parishioners. When Father Baker’s sermons come in the mail I have to fight the family to read them. Let me give you an example, from December. I believe it worthy of dedication to the first Archbishop of Canterbury, sometimes called—let us pretend—Gloomy Gus. On the Church bids us rejoice. Ours is, indeed, a religion of holy joy. We are to be in season grave, in season gay. Scientists, especially in

228 U.S.A., assure us they have made some surprising discoveries concerning the beneficial effects of laughter, not only on the glands and nervous system but also on every important organ in the body. When you are laughing you are completely relaxed. It appears that individuals who readily laugh usually enjoy the best mental and physical health. In mental and nervous disorders laughter ranks as the most effective and inexpensive wonder drug, the most difficult cases being patients who have not learned to laugh, and rarely see the funny side of anything. We are assured that an important factor in the avoidance of nervous breakdown is the cultivation of a capacity for hearty laughter. A Catholic should never be heavy-spirited, despondent, moody. Our possession of the Catholic Faith has an unlimited potential for joy and happiness. The certainty of Catholic truth should animate us with an exhilarating satisfaction. In proportion as we earnestly try to live by the Faith we shall enjoy a worry-free lightness of spirit. Our Catholicism affords a ready and abundant outlet for our highest impulses, and to follow our noblest urges brings deep and lasting happiness. Everyone wants to be happy. The desire for happiness is the one universal craving of the human heart. The quest for happiness is the ultimate motive of every deliberate human act—even of every crime, as of every good action. The burglar, the terrorist, the embezzler, the hijacker, each is looking for happiness as sincerely as the virtuous, pious individual. The sinner makes the mistake of seeking happiness by indulging his self-love, and never finds the happiness he needs. The soul intent on virtue and holiness seeks contentment through the exercise of love for God, and finds abiding joy and satisfaction. A genuine, stable love for God in the Person of Christ our Lord ensures true joy. God made us in order to love Him, to cleave to Him, to do His holy will in all things. This is the true and entire purpose of our existence, to love God with a love that is supremely appreciative, valuing Him above all else. This does not require feeling an upsurge of emotion at the thought of God. It means a resolute identification of our will with whatever we see to be His will, the persevering effort to make God and His will the heart and centre of our life, the determined effort to seek His will and only His will, regardless of the cost to self, the constant disposition to pray, “My God, I want whatever Thou willest, and nothing else”—to be able to say this and mean it, this is the measure of our love for God. Consider, are you as happy in your conscious possession of Catholic truth as you ought to be, as you could be? If we are not, if our very status as Catholics does not give us perfect inner serenity, the probable reason is not that we are ignorant of the Faith, but rather that our self-surrender to God has not been complete. Our resolve to do the will of God has not been absolute and unconditional. Like particles of dirt floating in a vial of golden oil, there are still fragments of selfishness suspended in our love for God which are in need of precipitation and elimination. O.B.

PLUMBING THE DEPTHS If you ring 005539282 at forty cents a minute you can listen to a mealy- mouthed “prophet” rabbiting on about how you too can become a guru

229 (pronounced Gee—you are you!). We are so informed by Jim Shanks, who protested to the prophet 24 September 1996: Dear Fr. Gilbert, St. Paul tells us to hold fast to tradition, and you urge us (005539282) to be prophets of change. Bit confusing. St. Paul also tells us to beware of false prophets, whose ears will itch for change, and will be caught up in the telling of fables. What a far cry from the true faith of St. Alphonsus! Truly has the Vatican II Conciliar Church received from God the operation of error to believe lying, because its hierarchy and clergy have not a love of the truth (faith). (2 Thess., 2) May God lift this modernist blight, this sickness of the mind curse from a counterfeit clergy before the last vestige of Catholic Truth is obliterated from the faithful! Believe it or else, there came a reply, dated 1 October: Dear Jim, I’ve just read with concern your rather intemperate letter and am at a loss to know how to respond to you. [He solves this problem in his penultimate sentence.] You basically seem to have some difficulty accepting that one part of the prophetic role is to announce change. I would have thought that, since Christ’s message is a call to repentance (which means change of heart), change is an integral part of Christian life. Since you seem to be a student of St. Paul you might remember that St. Paul himself instigated a great deal of change in the early Church and exercised the sort of prophetic role I was speaking about when he stood up to St. Peter himself. (cf. Galatians 2:11-14) You seem also to have conveniently forgotten the lessons of the Gospels which show that Jesus himself was a challenge to the entrenched religious traditionalists of his age. He challenged them to change their minds and hearts and challenged also aspects of their religious tradition which had been blown out of proportion. This is one exercise of Christ’s prophetic ministry. If Jesus were to appear today it is quite likely that he would continue to upset literal minded people including some devout Christians. I am offended by your remark `What a far cry from the true faith of Alphonsus.' You don’t know me and I suspect that you don’t know much about Alphonsus. If you did, you might remember that he had the prophetic insight to change the climate and course of moral thinking. I also doubt if you would know a modernist if you fell over one. Let me assure you that I am not one. I am sorry if you were offended by my Faithline topic. I offered it to be helpful and some people have written to say that they found it so. I am sorry that you were not one of them. I often appreciate receiving criticism but only if it is reasonable and balanced. [Only acceptable criticism is acceptable!] Yours was not. I urge you to adopt a more balanced and reasonable tone. For one thing it is a more Christian way of acting; for another, I don’t need to

230 waste time responding to irrational rantings. [He eventually arrives at the universal clerical response to tradition.] I wish you peace. Yours sincerely, Michael Gilbert CssR

8 October 1996 Dear Mick, I was pleasantly surprised to receive your response to my intemperate letter, but not surprised at its effect on you. Mick Malone, the new boss of Newcastle’s Vatican II’s syndrome church, was somewhat offended also by my vituperative expression relating to the robber church’s capitulation to the gospel of the world now manifesting itself in the prophets of change. I don’t have difficulty in accepting that one part of the prophetic role is to announce change because it’s not true. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” - Gal. 1, 8 “As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." - Gal. 1, 9 The Vatican II gospel has earned the condemnation of Almighty God and the Apostles St. Peter and St. Paul with the abomination of desolation the novus ordo missae of Thomas Cranmer and its Jewish seder meal of the Talmud. (Quo primum attached) The Judaeo-Freemasonic treachery of ecumenism, the new gospel of Vatican II that is being used gradually to phase out the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and incorporate it into a world atheistic movement to wipe out Christianity is the goal of the so-called prophets of change, wittingly or otherwise. Our Lord’s call to repentance has always been the message of the Church. There’s nothing new in that. Prophets are not required for this type of change. But your church has changed unchangeable teaching and continues to do so and “upon it will come swift destruction” in the appointed time. I am not a student of St. Paul. I am a 65 year old Catholic plumber who know the difference between new church heresy and Catholic truth, and you and your prophets of change gospel don’t measure up to the latter. The fault in the conduct of St. Peter that he was admonished for by St. Paul was only a certain imprudence in withdrawing himself from the table of the gentiles for fear of giving offence to the converts from the old law. Human respect was St. Peter’s problem, not a change in doctrine or belief. I haven’t conveniently forgotten the lessons of the Gospel. Our Lord is the fulfillment of prophecy. He is God, and His Church is Truth and truth doesn’t change. If you want to change, change back to the truth and stop the mad auto-demolition process caused by the removal of the ancient venerable ritual of the mystical sacrifice of the altar, the life-blood of the true Catholic Church. Because Our Lord was the fulfillment of prophecy He automatically challenged [fulfilled] the old law, but those who change this law do so at their own peril.

231 The second coming of Our Lord won’t be used to upset literal-minded people; it will be to judge all mankind and separate the sheep, who had remained true to His unchangeable doctrine from the goats of heresy (change) who would not serve. St. Alphonsus said the true Mass. You are right, I haven’t met you, but I know you by your newspeak gospel. You are a product of Vatican II change and Vatican II is a counterfeit. The time that I spent with the Redemptorists at Geelong and Mayfield and my attendance at the Novenas have given me some insight into the Redemptorists, and believe me you are different. You don’t even give St. Alphonsus his full title of Saint. St. Alphonsus was a Saint like other Saints who inspired people to live the Gospel message. Prophecy isn’t required for that and the Gospel of Our Lord is constant. It doesn’t change. Immorality is unchristian in any age. You say that you are not a modernist. If you are faithful to Quo primum and abhor the Vatican II Cranmer Eucharist of the Lord’s Supper abomination, and the last four “Popes,” you have my apology. But if you follow the new “Church” of Vatican II, then you have received the “operation of error to believe l55555ying” (2 Thess. 2, 10) and would be unable to recognize a modernist if you fell over yourself. I am not offended by your faithline topic. It saddens me to hear a man with your gift of presentation uttering such garbage and equating that to Catholic teaching. I won’t wish you peace because “sudden destruction may come upon us,” so as they say in Vatican circles, and in keeping with the Jewish seder-meal that is now called Mass, Shalom. Jim Shanks

ARGUMENT CORNER Objection—Why must you continually complain about heretics in Rome, in schools, and in parish ? Catholic doctrine is perfect, identical from century to century, and cannot be wrong. Reply—One Friday in the fifties I entered a fish shop run by an Italian. Seven or eight of his cronies (also fish-eaters), all born in various parts of Italy, were engaged in an animated (what else?) discussion—in English—on the existence or non-existence of an Italian language. The proprietor, momentarily free of prosaic customers, erupted around the counter as animated as any, and settled the argument. To one he said:“You speak Sicilian dialect.” To another: “You speak Neapolitan dialect.” “You, Roman.” “You, Genoese.” “You, Calabrese. Who let you in?” “You, Venetian.” “Sure, there’s an Italian language, but who the hell speaks it?!” This is our complaint. Sure there’s a pure, perfect, orthodox Catholic doctrine which cannot be compromised. But where do we hear it? Who preaches it? God is a spirit, infinitely perfect. Perfection necessarily predicates unchangeability, and excludes development. Any difference is necessarily

232 imperfection. Would He saddle us with an imperfect Catholic Church? Would His Church be driven to other religions in the endless Vatican II search for truth? Would it negotiate what belongs to God with those who have rejected His religion, while it boasted toleration, liberalism, fraternalism, and egalitarianism? Would it deliberately and predictably drive out millions of its own people by changes made supposedly for the benefit of its enemies? (He that is not with Me is against Me.) Objection—No innovation involves essentials. Reply—Are Mass and Sacraments essential? Have the changes benefited the Church? (By their fruits you shall know them.) Objection—The Society of St. Pius X preaches Catholic doctrine. Reply—Sometimes, probably, or it could not deceive so well. It has no license to preach, and recognizes no authority from which it could legitimately acquire it. This requirement comes directly from St. Paul. Objection—Lefebvre had papal authority to form the Society of St. Pius X. Reply—His authorization came from a Swiss bishop of the postconciliar “Church,” and was removed by Paul VI, head of the postconciliar “Church,” recognized by Lefebvre and his Society as pope, who ordered him to shut down.

The Pope is understood to have turned down the highest form of recognition able to be made by Italy’s freemasons to a non-member. [That’s the catch! Non-member?] The Grand Orient of Italy decided to award the Pontiff the Order of Galileo Galilei [member?] in recognition for his promotion of universal masonic values of fraternity, respect for the dignity of man, and the spirit of tolerance. [The fact that the award was declined does not palliate the offenses for which it was tendered. The freemasons realized and recognized how Wojtyla ever promoted their interests.] “The Pope does not want to accept prizes from anyone,” was the dry comment from the Vatican, whose war with freemasonry goes back to 1789 [1738?] with the formal condemnation of Pope Clement XII. [1730-1740] Italy’s freemasons were saddened at the rigid stand, which seemed to suggest that the spirit of revisionism with the Church was not as uniform as it perhaps seemed. “Our intention was to pay homage to a man who, unlike his predecessors, showed himself to be extremely open-minded, rehabilitating Galileo, promoting a critical analysis of the Inquisition, and even shaking the hand of Fidel Castro. In short, he is a man who has fought in favour of tolerance, and of dialogue between all religions. And within the Catholic Church, there are many who maintain the view that freemasonry is also a religion. “We have already given the same award to President Clinton, to Yitzak Rabin, Yasser Arafat, and the Dalai Lama.” [Fellow non-members?]

233 Pope on path to reconcile religions by RICHARD OWEN in Rome The Vatican is to apologise formally for the “anti-Semitic errors” of Catholicism as part of an attempt to reconcile the three great monotheistic religions – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam – in time for the millennium. [Right on schedule for the New World Order and its One-, which need a one-world religion.] Vatican said that the Pope had instructed a new historical-theological commission to examine the persecution and torture of Jews by the Inquisition in 15th-century Spain and to tackle the issue of the sometimes ambivalent attitude of Catholics toward the Nazi elimination of Jewish populations in occupied Europe during World War II. [It seems strange that the Inquisition tortured all those Jews. How? Had they not all been banished? The Spanish Inquisition dealt with no Jews and no Moslems. What would be the point in asking either if he were Catholic? It dealt only with those who claimed to be Catholic in order not to be banished, to determine whether they really were Catholic.] The 76-year-old Pope, who counted many Jews among his friends in war-time Poland, is increasingly preoccupied with the millennium, which he speaks of in almost apocalyptic terms. He has rehabilitated a number of famous “heretics”, including Galileo and Darwin, as part of his pre-millennium “squaring of accounts with history”. [Or squaring history with accounts?] He has also said that despite his age and frail health he hopes to retrace the travels of Abraham in the Holy Land and to climb Mount Sinai with Jewish and Muslim leaders. [by helicopter? Will he not thereby rise to the place of God’s manifestation of authority, and take along enough of his own ilk to constitute a new trinity?] Monsignor Rino Fisichella, vice-chairman of the new commission, said on Sunday that it would hold two international symposiums on anti-Semitism in the northern autumn. The meetings to be held in the Vatican, would involve clergy, lay people and academic experts, and would confront the often painful issues of Jewish-Catholic relations “without preconceptions.” The aim was for the Church to ask pardon for any past mistakes. [The synagogue, blameless, need never apologize. Nor need the Moslems repent their jihads.] Monsignor Fisichella said the commission would tackle the “delicate” question of the roots of anti-Semitism in the New Testament, where the Jews, especially in St. John’s Gospel, are represented as the enemies of Christ. [After the Jews fled that tremendous persecution in Egypt (cf. Exodus), their most effective “persecution” in all history must be credited to Titus and his Roman army in 70 A.D., more than thirty years before St. John finished his Gospel— long before the Roman armies were Christian.] The Second Vatican Council first broached the issue in the 1960s by declaring that Christians and Jews had a “common spiritual patrimony” and that “what happened in Christ’s passion cannot be blamed on all Jews then living, nor on Jews living today.” [But all persecutions, real or imagined, of Jews since the days of Abraham are blamed on Catholics now alive.] The present Pope knelt

234 in prayer at Auschwitz in 1979 and at the Rome Synagogue in 1986, when he acknowledged the “discrimination and oppression suffered by Jews in Christian countries over the centuries". The Vatican established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1993. But many Jewish leaders remain dissatisfied with Vatican statements on . They also want a clear Vatican condemnation of the failure of Pope Pius XII to denounce Nazi atrocities or to speak out against the deportation of Jews from Rome itself during the German wartime occupation. – The Times (The Australian, 7 Jan 97) [Till 1958 the Catholic Church , its head, and its members labored at the somewhat easier task of appeasing God.] Vatican takes a new line on sins Pope John Paul II has issued strict guidelines calling on priests to ask parishioners to confess their sins—including abortion and white-collar crime— before receiving Holy Communion. The guidelines, ..... issued this week, depart from previous recommendations [time to look orthodox?] in their pointed severity toward public and private sin. “To the terrible and widespread crime of abortion, an appropriate recommendation (by the priest) might be to suggest that the sinner make a commitment to defend and protect life in every form,” [Save the whale!] “and attend with piety to others and to society as a whole so that the crime is not repeated.” Although the Church stopped short of endorsing Right to Life movements, the official Vatican stand clearly gives priest confessors considerable room to suggest that women atone for abortion by working against it. Over generations, atonement in most Roman Catholic countries has been considered attainable through prayer and meditation. The new confessional guidelines represent a more pragmatic and rigorous approach. [They also expose all women who oppose abortion to suspicion that their opposition has grown out of personal repentance for this crime.] Sinners who have committed white-collar crime or consider themselves responsible for corruption could be asked to return an amount in excess of what they stole or defrauded. [This exceeds the penitent’s obligation. Motive? Who gets the excess?] According to the guidelines, a priest is within his Christian rights to demand white-collar felons “return that which they stole in a way that the largesse of the piety supersedes the measure of the damage inflicted” on society. [Explicit phraseology if ever I saw it! Has the white-collar crime defrauded society or a corporation? This is a clear discouragement of both penitence and confession, supposing that it remains available to most of us. The penitent will surely perceive his own robbery at his confessor’s hands, no matter who benefits by his supererogative over-restitution.] The Pope has previously expressed concern that the fast pace of the modern world, as well as laxity within parishes, has reduced the numbers of Catholics making confessions. [He has, of course, led the way to decriminalization of genuine sins (sacrilege, idolatry, participation in non-Catholic worship) and replacement of these by horrors like tax evasion where abortion is tax-funded. 235 He and his two antipope predecessors have replaced both Penance (with “reconciliation”) and Holy Orders through which power to forgive sins is conferred on men. Are we to believe him unaware of the mass laicization of the clergy, the notable elimination of parish churches, and the virtual disappearance of scheduled times for confession?] Priests faced with confessions they either do not understand or to which they do not feel competent to give advice will now be allowed to help the sinner seek out a priest who may provide a more expert hearing. [This utterly new situation originates in the abridgment and decay of seminary instruction. Confession was always hard enough, without this complication and possible repetition to a priest who may hear better. Shall we eventually confess to Sigmund Freud or a like charlatan?] Finally, in the case of murder, or of any deadly sin, penitents will be required to seek individual atonement. [Something new?] In the past, some Catholics have used the taking of Holy Communion or parish-wide blessings as implicit excuses from confession. [Not without official prodding, often enough to save the priest’s time. Nor without the innovative doctrine that we confess not to receive absolution for confessed sins but to give instances of our “sinfulness” so that the too often incompetent “confessor” may entertain us with inanities which we may confuse with absolution.] The remainder of this article in the Herald Sun (Melbourne), Jan 9, 1997, quotes the archdiocese spokesman to the effect that this news item is really old stuff. Tell it to AD2000! Is it not gratifying to see that even JP2 understands the deadly nature of sin? Does he not lump together, as worthy of equal notice, abortion and white-collar crime? Abortion so often conspires to deprive humans of their lives before they can even speak in their own defense—nay, before they can engage legal counsel! White-collar crime would seem to pale, if possible, by comparison. Apparently, it can be redressed—even over-compensated. The criminal can repay the damage, re-program the computer, or hide his gains in a tax haven to keep from helping to fund abortion—the legalization and prevalence of which consumes the time of so many of the formerly reputable medical profession, and the availability of hospital care for genuine medical conditions. Far worse is the white-collar crime prevalent for more than thirty years among those whose white collar extended all the way around their necks. These men, in violation of their ordination oaths, have twisted the ends of their ordinations and conspired to deprive all humans of their spiritual lives and their ordinary means of salvation. Would it be too much to appeal to the new guidelines? To demand white-collar felons “return that which they stole in a way that the largesse of the piety supersedes the measure of the damage inflicted” on society?

The War Is Now! # 43

236 Life is full of little surprises, as when Frank Little retired from the vacant Melbourne archdiocese. Near the end of April the mail dragged in Christian Counter-Revolution, Bulletin No. 95, the brain-child of Ursula Oxfort. The sender, naturally, considered it a joke, and asked me to return all ten pages so he could circulate them further. Always willing to abet a gag, I made extra copies for him to circulate farther and faster. A thing of beauty is a joy forever. It made me realize how much I had missed by not subscribing. But with beauty often comes frailty. So I wrote a page to support the main thesis—to keep it in focus, as it were. To acquaint the authoress with its progress I forwarded this commentary, and a short letter of appreciation (both subsequently edited). But though I had addressed the envelope P O Box 369 and all, copied from the very Bulletin No. 95 itself, it returned only a month later, unopened, unforwarded, unsung. Luckily, I can send an open letter, which may, eventually, reach her. Ursula will discuss nothing theological with me because I am a plagiarist! If one wishes to controvert an argument, it behoves him to quote the argument. The best way to assure that he fights a real argument is to quote verbatim. (St. Thomas Aquinas used this method on almost every subject he treated in his Summa Theologica, though he charitably refrained from naming sources.) She has done me a service: She admits having written that nonsense. When I quoted it I feared allegation of having invented it. Obviously JP2 accepted the privileges of the papal office but none of its duties. A genuine pope maintains all tradition and serves as standard of unity, a mark of the Church. JP2 was ineligible because of public heresy, demonstrated in his approving signature on Vatican II documents which contain previously condemned errors and heresies, some of which he contributed. Only popes write encyclicals? Only popes canonize saints? Can we really expect an antipope to refrain from such typical activities, when some are silly enough to conclude that counterfeit money must be genuine because spent? Why fret over “validity” of a new rite, of human origin, defined as not a Mass, flaunting condemned heresy, perverting Christ’s own most solemn Consecratory Prayer in both word and form, contradicting Christ’s and His Church’s identical sacrificial intention, fraudulently introduced as an experiment in flagrant violation of laws made to protect our Holy Mass and in deliberate fracture of two most solemn oaths required of and sworn by every priest at ordination and every bishop at consecration, all nineteen centuries late for Revelation? When the novus ordo missae, defined by its inventors as not a Mass, is considered in conjunction with canon 817 which forbids consecration outside celebration of Mass, what priest using it can have the proper intention? Ursula complains that in Twin! #41, Dec. ’96 (a small part of my total output) “radical desacralization in the celebration of the Novus Ordo Mass in the years following its institution in 1970” [?]; “25 yrs. of ongoing self-destruction” [?] “and militant antichristianism that reduced it in most instances to a veritable abomination, go unnoticed.” [Why should the declining fortunes of this sacrilegious idolatry concern me?] “Now if the Novus Ordo Missae ..... had 237 been not a Mass, how could it have been desacralized by additional changes .....?” [I’ll bite—how? Wear and tear on the counterfeiters’ press?] Ursula: “Now these very words of consecration, ‘This is My Body’ ...and ‘This is the Chalice of My Blood....’ (Jn. 21:16-17)” [Feed My sheep?! Sorry, Little Bear. Those consecratory words are not even referred to in St. John’s detailed account of the Last Supper.] “are literally contained in the Latin Novus Ordo Mass...... also ..... in all vernacular Novus Ordo Masses; only the additional words of the consecration of the wine are changed from ‘’ to ‘for all,’ which is no mistranslation .....” [It really is a mistranslation; the fact that it had a purpose cannot make it correct.] “but a bold adaptation to the false ecumenism of Vatican II, and to the modernist error of universal salvation. Since the ‘adaptation’ takes place in the ‘additional’ words of the consecration of the wine and transubstantiation takes place upon the completion of the ‘essential words’ (according to St. Thomas Aquinas), leading theologians are of the opinion that this reprehensible ‘change’ ” [Why quotation marks? Is this is not a change?] “by the highest liturgical authority does not invalidate the sacrament. (Paul VI used these words himself when he said the New Mass at the Yankee Stadium during his sensational visit to the U.N. on October 4, 1965.)” [Even I know better than this! I was there, and saw Paul VI celebrate the John XXIII mass which I followed in my Latin missal. A still recognizable missal, issued in 1966, was used for the English indult. The novus ordo missae was imposed in 1969.] Ursula has made the mistake (common among those unfamiliar with St. Thomas Aquinas’ methods) of reading a statement he intends to controvert as his answer. Let me quote his answer (S.T. III, Q.78 Art. 3): “There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words This is the chalice of My blood alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ’s blood; consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression. “And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, As often as ye shall do this, which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Luke xxii. 20, the words that follow are interspersed with the preceding words: This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood. “Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form, but that by the first words, This is the chalice of My blood, the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above (A. 2) in the form for the consecration of the bread; .....” I can conclude only that her “leading theologians” slavishly followed the party line. Note that she cites unnamed sources. Is this plagiarism? Are they laymen? Now what said St. Pius V? Would I plagiarize in quoting him verbatim? He said in effect that most of what went on in Protestant churches (which Luther and his ilk persisted in calling mass, to avoid scandal and opposition) was not Mass. He set up as the standard, in order to provide what he could guarantee 238 and guarantee what he provided, the oldest rite in continuous use, going further back into history than anyone could trace. He said that he had “restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers...... Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church.” (a sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia ..... tradita ubique amplectantur omnes et observent) He condemned all current variations less than two hundred years in use. He thereby condemned every new rite, especially from the same stable as the Protestant variations of his time. When canons 188 and 2314 automatically (ipso facto) excommunicate a public heretic, he is automatically excommunicated. He is not immune simply because no official proceeds against him. Papal condemnations concerning public heretics follow directly out of divine law as imposed by Jesus Christ Himself: He who believes not shall be condemned. He is not subject to correction, updating, privilege of office, dropping from the code, or any other modification. Some would have us believe that these laws held until earlier this century, but are now unworkable or dropped. Gasparri had been given the task of bringing all the laws from their various sources into one code. He had no license to drop any. He exceeded his brief in softening and dropping penalties for, among other things, apostasy and freemasonry. Ursula went into quite a broad condemnation of my solution to Roncalli’s lie about divine inspiration to arrive at the identical conclusion: false mysticism = lying. If a pope were really to receive a private revelation (though hardly in his papal capacity, in which he supports and promotes the complete Deposit of Faith), why would he not follow it? Why should he consult a mystic? He would have available all the tradition which his office was set up to preserve and propagate. He could test the message against his plainly prescribed duty. If he were in his papal capacity subject to satanic inspiration, why would that very fact(?) not be a cogent argument against his legitimacy in office? We all know the fruits of John XXIII’s “divine inspiration”; these prove his claimed divine inspiration a monumental lie—just what could have been expected from a man with such little regard for truth that he provided some six thousand Jews with false Baptismal certificates. When he addressed the Protestants he had invited to Vatican II he denied any special inspiration; he knew they wouldn’t believe it. So he lied one time or the other. He had advocated a council at least three times before his sudden inspiration. He convoked the council in the first place to impose change. Nor did I at any time rule out diabolical influence. Nothing could be more likely. With her customary accuracy Ursula misquotes canon 1325. Then, in demonstration of my plagiarism, she quotes herself in absurdity. She has classified John XXIII as a heretic, but she believes his deathbed lie that he had been divinely inspired to call a council (and to continue it in knowing opposition to Christ’s will). Like too many these days, she paints all these antipopes in impossibly Catholic colors. She even tells us when she decided that he was a heretic, but continues him as pope in complete disregard for the defined doctrine of papal infallibility. How can a pope be a heretic? Wrong question! How can a heretic be pope?

239 5/3/97 Dear Miss Oxfort: A friend sent me your No. 95 for comment. So I obliged, and copied the comment for you. I gather that you had never seen or heard any result from the first time I printed the offending sentences years earlier in The War Is Now! Nor, probably, had you read further in such a patently worthless book (The Enemy Is Here!). You might have found on page 361 my reason for not naming those whose peculiar opinions I consider of some (not necessarily much) notice. I tried to advise Dennis D’Amico, another master of the non sequitur, not to attack directly. “I wrote Dennis September 1 that he would surely lose subscribers by trying to sink such stalwart trads as Bill Strojie and Veritas. I suggested my method of fighting anonymous Objections. I furnished an example, .....” I followed the example of the Schoolmen, most of whom argued issues without assaulting those who disagreed. This saved a lot of paper, and kept up interest in the issues. Most people are happy not to be saddled publicly with responsibility for silly ideas. So I think to avoid trouble this way. But there’s always one oddball. I note that you called me a layman. Are you something more? Perhaps you meant that I am deficient in mysticism? It never enters this tempest in a teapot, so how would you know? I am inclined to treat it as I treat private revelation — it is hardly ever an argument. Or did you mean that I have no business writing on religion? I am not too happy with the force of circumstances. If the clergy worked at the task, who would listen to me? As it is, I can’t keep quiet—silence would kill my conscience. I never go out of my way to antagonize, because I have little enough time for genuine issues. I had no idea you were so touchy. Tone-deaf, yes, or you would not have bothered a man you considered pope with such a triviality as whether divine office was recited or chanted. And you really expected an answer? From a man that old who had only a limited time to destroy the Church? You might consider whether canon law has for its purpose the preservation of the Catholic religion or the protection of public heretics who have deliberately almost destroyed it. You must surely have encountered the question: Is the faith for the law or the law for the faith? Or should that be the other way round? Plagiarism, as I understand it, is passing off another’s work as one’s own. Even you must realize that you have misnamed my offense. I made it perfectly clear that the ideas quoted were not mine. I strongly controverted each immediately. I would not dream of taking the least bit of credit or responsibility for them. Nor can I recall ever having read your book. I often receive selections from such works for comment. I knew who wrote those opinions. I thought to isolate them to save your face. From what little of your output I have read, I am sure that had I read your book I should have found more with which to disagree. You surely missed my line which introduced quotation of the “plagiarized” passages: “Let us examine a few opinions.”—numbered. You must realize what a field day anyone could have with your far beyond normal reaction. If No. 95 is typical, you might consider early retirement.

240

The Year of Jesus This glossy press release bears the appreciation in loco imprimatur of B. J. Hickey, Archbp. of Perth. Pat Ahern (organizer-producer) then credits Frank Moloney’s New Jerome Biblical Commentary article. The titular year (as distinct from Anno Domini) is 1997, but its function is to lead into not merely the following year but all the way into the Jubilee Year, A.D. 2000. Since this will be an Olympic year, it is fitting that it should have its own Jubilee logo, at the center of which are featured five birds colored Olympically. The back cover repeats and explains the logo. The light which issues from the center represents Christ, suitably obscured by the birds who represent humanity in all five continents (lucky Australia!) and whose circular juxtaposition underlines the reigning spirit of solidarity. In a way this is good. Not only do the birds hide that wretched broken crucifix carried by the postconciliar “popes,” but they hold the fort for humanity against this divine Invader Whose Incarnation has not made Him man, but has now progressed into the mystery “whereby Christ assumes our human condition ‘becoming similar to man’.” (?) How lucky our doctrine is diluted! The birds may be thirsty! Ahern’s (Moloney’s) first selection, entitled The Bread of Life, under the head of discussion and reflection, asks: “What is my reaction to the miracle of feeding the five thousand? Is it wonder, belief, thanksgiving, or an element of doubt?” Having gratuitously introduced this fatal possibility, he attempts in no way to dispel it. Has he no other suggestions that may lead us into temptation to join those who believe not and are condemned? A great fruit of Ecumenism is adoption of ecumenically translated Scripture, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. So quotations in this press release will seem less familiar to the older Catholic. The translator errs at least once. The fourth vignette quotes St. :9: “The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.” Compare this with the Catholic Douai Bible: That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. Erat lux vera, quae illuminat omnem venientem in hunc mundum. – Vulgate ’Ην το φως το αληθινον, ο φωτιζει παντα ανθρωπον, ερχομενον εις τον κοσμον. – Koine Why the variation? (Only 1 of 8,000.) Ask rather, why the adoption? Ask also why “For Christian people the lights of Hanukkah are replaced by Jesus the light of the world.” Subjective, is it not? What has happened to the great- heartedness which introduced all men into the novus ordo “consecration?” Ecumenism has clearly influenced the selection of verses in the following episode illustrated by St. John’s Chapter 15, verses 1, 2, 5, and 7. Why omit 3, 4, and 6?

241 15:3. “Now you are clean, by reason of the word which I have spoken to you.” 15:4. “Abide in me: and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me.” 15:6. “If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch and shall wither: and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire: and he burneth.” Do we not receive an impression of exclusivity? Could this not queer JP2’s projected ascension of Mt. Sinai in the august company of the heads of the two great monotheistic “religions” founded on conscious, outright rejection of Jesus Christ? Among the Background Comments: 1) Reference to Naboth’s murder for his vineyard. 3) “Psalm 88 is a prayer for the restoration of Israel. In verses 14 and 15 ..... ‘Visit this vine and protect it, the vine your right hand has planted.’ ” You can’t tell the prayers without a scorecard. An approximation of this is found in Psalm 79:15-18: “Turn again, O God of hosts, look down from heaven, and see, and visit this vineyard: And perfect the same which thy right hand hath planted: and upon the son of man whom thou hast confirmed for thyself. Things set on fire and dug down shall perish at the rebuke of thy countenance. Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand: and upon the son of man whom thou hast confirmed for thyself.” [The man of thy right hand... Christ. – Challoner] 4) Parable of the labourers in the vineyard. 5) Parable of the wicked (vineyard) tenants. 6) Final sentence: “At the heart of the image of Jesus the true vine is social interrelationship and corporate accountability.” And all along I thought it emphasized our utter dependence upon our Creator and Redeemer. Ahern, Moloney, and Hickey of course, totally agree with postconciliar “popes” in their emphasis on man. The vineyard laborers were paid for harvesting. Now, in presence of larger and larger harvests, no one reaps, but all are paid. Contributions formerly dedicated to the defunct missionary effort are now assigned to far too clever glossy press releases. Cardinal Siri on Latin & Italian in the Liturgy to his diocesan Clergy, Aug. 10, 1958–Review of the Diocese of Genoa Page 258: To determine what counts and what does not, what shall be accepted and what shall be expunged from the Liturgy, whether it be a matter of language or anything else, the prime and sovereign rule neither is nor can be, “whatever best serves men,” but is and must be “whatever agrees best with God’s purposes.” And these may differ from those most convenient for men. Page 259: The Liturgy has parts … made primarily and sometimes essentially for the priestly order (see the Canon of the Mass) … parts that presuppose the canonical regulation of ecclesiastics and not at all the canonical direction of the faithful. Throughout the Liturgy the authorized actors are ecclesiastics. …the part of enrichment and embellishment was so developed, in the time when 242 people no longer understood Latin, that we must hold for certain that such parts were willed by the Church with the Clergy in view. … the Church has considered it incontestable and proper that in her sacred Rites there should be things accessible to the Clergy, even though not all, nor in the same fullness, accessible to most of the faithful. Page 260: This is entirely logical and within the very character of a representative that the Clergy possesses with God. The priest does certainly and primarily act by divine mandate and divine power; still, Jesus Christ, in giving to His Church a family aspect and to the priesthood a share in His function as mediator, willed that the priest represent the faithful as well. Now then, the representative, called upon to play this part because he is equipped to furnish something not in the power of the person represented, must always do something more than the person represented. Page 266: Adoption of the vernacular would resolve one problem and bring up another difficult to correct. … if to avert the situation resulting from differences in literary expression we used popular language, we should have to eliminate numerous texts and procedures. But these, if preserved as they are and made accessible through translations … function quite well and maintain that from which the laity has always drawn edification, joy, and a feeling of divine majesty. Elimination of all that would have to be eliminated to adapt liturgical texts and rubrics to the literary practice of our time would mean the spoliation and practically the abolition of the Liturgy. This is exactly what happened to Luther. Changing then, in order to continue adapting, would be endless; and adaptation would precisely require the progressive spoliation already practiced by Protestants, especially Lutherans and Calvinists. Page 267: Truly, adoption of a spoken language in all of the Liturgy would entail the burden not merely of an accurate translation made once and for all but also of refining it and bringing it up to date endlessly. … The Church cannot set about acting as a permanent school of linguistic updating. She has other things to do. Page 268: Many priests, then—and this through a spirit of zeal—observe among the faithful less receptivity, less response. In certain parts of the world they have the outright sensation of enormous mass movements that may not be consistent with the Faith, or are not consistent or compatible with Religion. They seek the cause and absolutely insist on finding it. … An irresistible desire is felt to find the culprit, who must be, if possible, well defined, one alone, and—above all—an easy mark. So … all may be set aright with little effort. But … in this world of complex phenomena, there are hardly ever lone culprits so easily identifiable and condemnable. In believing that the culprit for whatever we bewail is one alone and easy to hit, we are usually grossly in error. We then make the gravest mistakes in pastoral practice. Some have written … that the … great cause for people coming less to religious services and being less Christian resides entirely in the Latin of the Liturgy.

243 Remedy: Abolish Latin and everything is rosy. Simple! (Page 269) No, the great culprit is not Latin … In some working-class neighborhoods, people attend Mass very little and not at all. The reason is that there the teaching of the catechism has been completely inefficient for decades, if not for centuries. Elsewhere … pastors have not possessed in sufficient degree those qualities that beget an honorable and fruitful popularity to bring them close to the people. These qualities always begin with humility and sacrifice. … it is simply contemptible to lay the blame on Church regulation, becoming real iconoclasts, and constructing churches that have not even so much decency of appearance as an old, misshapen drying-shed. There, in the Church’s living body is not the place for violent operations and amputations. It is in the souls of those who have so little theology in their heads and so little virtue in their hearts that they feel an inferiority complex before the looniest experiences of modern existentialist despair. … One grave matter for insistence is a most faithful guardianship of the deposit of truth received from Christ. … the Church … must lay her plans for guarding the divine deposit with the idea of lasting as long as mankind endures upon earth. … the Church’s program as custodian must be extremely strict; though enjoying divine assistance for her indefectibility and infallibility, (page 270) she must still behave with caution, as though obliged to reach all her goals alone. The Liturgy constitutes a law of praying [lex orandi], which becomes a law of believing [lex credendi]. There is a link between what is said and done in the Liturgy and what is believed. Guardianship of orthodoxy in the Faith involves exact custody of orthodoxy in the Liturgy. By divine mandate the Church lives from her unity, and possesses in unity a characteristic and essential attribute. … The defining terms of this unity were laid down by Jesus Christ and are rigorous, binding, and obligatory under several aspects. … The greatest uniting factor, immediate and directly operative among men, has, at all times, been language. Such is the primacy of language that it has not only served as a channel for culture, but has fused together peoples of different races and tendencies. Page 271. … it follows … that the great human means for the Church’s unity is the use of a common language … Latin. The Church’s common language need not be common to each and every one of the faithful. It is enough that it be common in those circles that make up the organic and juridical fabric of the Church herself, on which the faithful depend and by which they are formed: the Clergy. The Clergy, unable … to use Latin in their daily lives, must however be competent to use it somewhat proficiently every day. … as a means of using a language serviceable for the Church’s unity every day in a creditable fashion, there is nothing but the with its whole Ordo, from Holy Mass to the , to the Holy Sacraments. Take away the Liturgy and it is insanity to say that the use of the Code of Canon Law and of texts in dogmatic and moral theology would suffice for the average Catholic 244 clergyman. We should be obliged, in short order, to make an official translation of the Code also, of all the acts of the Magisterium and of the Government; for no one would still understand Latin. … Whoever wishes to be rid of Latin … has no concern for the Church’s unity, nor, … for Jesus Christ Himself, whose last aspiration was for the unity of the faithful. Whoever realizes what it means to hold together men of different races and cultures, through all the fluctuations created by this world’s sins and vicissitudes, can understand the importance of this subject; and he can understand, finally, why the Church has rightly, for so many centuries, allowed the people to possess only a moderate, but sufficient, knowledge of all the Liturgy’s details. For the Church, the Catholic universality of the Latin language is not at all a matter of greater convenience …; it is a question of relative necessity. It remains true that Latin is not absolutely required by the Church’s constitution, and that is why we speak only of a relative necessity. But no less true is it that Rome’s glorious tongue is, as matters stand, irreplaceable in its effect produced so far; and we have therefore called it necessary. [End of excerpts] Forty-two years ago Cardinal Siri forecast many consequences which have since overtaken us, without taking into account the undoubted malevolence behind imposition of the vernaculars upon the Liturgy. It was no mistake. The War Is Now! # 44 We find more than two thousand times in Sacred Scripture that the sun rose or set. May we not take this as uncharacteristic of God’s doctrinal presentation? What doctrine has He spelled out so often? Or so much by the way? It would almost seem that planetary and sidereal movements are not particularly religious (neither doctrinal nor moral), and therefore fall outside the scope of infallible definition. ARGUMENT CORNER Objection—No more The War Is Now! please. Last Saturday I was baptised into the 7th Day Adventist Church Reply—No more of my wretched wrag? You give me up for Ellen G. White?! (One plagiarist for another?) How consistent to become a 7DA on a Saturday! Were you not baptized a Catholic? Or perhaps an Anglican? So what does an Adventist baptism signify? Something totally different, such as joining the community? Why back a loser? Catholics are Catholics because we avail ourselves of the ordinary means of salvation bestowed upon us by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. (No matter that they have been nearly exterminated by those whose job it is to preserve them.) What possible connection with His salvation has a sect started eighteen centuries late? What possible advantage accrues from transfer of belief from the entire original message to an inconsistent random selection? There may be a certain logic in going to hell for women, for wealth, for power, for benefits, but none at all for apostasy—to hear at our judgment: “You have not believed Me and are damned!” Objection—I was “christened” by an Anglican pastor. My Anglican parents “did what Anglicans do” with their kid. Recently I was baptised by immersion 245 (as in New Testament) by a 7th Day Adventist pastor—after I, as an adult, chose. Even though water and the Trinity were invoked each time (matter and form passed muster) no Catholic would admit that an Anglican pastor, a 7th Day Adventist pastor, or I had anywhere near the “correct intention” (what the Church of St. Pius V and Pope Leo XIII would intend). Even you would admit since I converted to the Conciliar Church in 1977, I got no sacraments, sacramentals, . I never converted to the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, but to the facsimile thereof. The Church you believe you belong to is in the past. Reply—And centuries more of the past than your flavor of the month. Nor will it end till the world ends. But what brought you to the facsimile but a search for truth? So your search led you out of it again in only twenty years. I would have thought you would have developed a bit more discrimination. [Here we have a prime example of the inadequacy of the postconciliar “Church.” This man came to a “Church” which failed to baptize him, even conditionally, because it “recognizes” the baptism of Anglicans and Methodists. It has no right to gamble with a convert’s salvation. It has no mission to preach to him (as he complained) the gospel of Andrew Greeley. At least he realizes that he can’t make it on his own. We know what has been stolen from us, and we know that there is no substitute. Pity the poor convert.] Objection—In the absence of a visible pope the authority to celebrate Mass and provide sacraments is lacking. We can neither supply his jurisdiction nor do his work. Our Lord has taken away our Mass. We don’t even know if He wishes us to attend Mass. A priest can celebrate Mass privately. But the efficacious graces coming from the Mass and sacraments cannot accrue to eternal merit at a public Mass without a visible pope. Reply—No, Montini stole our Mass. Without a visible pope we have no moral obligations? Does that apply also to dogma? If Our Lord has taken away our Mass can a priest overrule Him even privately? Each time a pope dies, Mass and sacraments are worthless until another is elected? No wonder the Missal contains a Mass for the Election of a Pope! But why? in absence of a pope? We have had sixty-nine interregna of two months or more, forty-six of four months or more, thirty-one of six months or more, twenty-two of ten months or more, sixteen of a year or more, four over two years, one of two years nine months, and one of three years seven months. During all these extensive periods was there not a Catholic Church? Were people not baptized, confirmed, given the last rites, married, ordained, consecrated bishop, and eventually elected pope? And all without grace from our ordinary means of grace, which produce the grace which they signify and signify the grace which they produce, all deriving from Jesus Christ, not from a pope? Objection—The sedevacantist position is untenable for all those wishing to remain in the Catholic Church, because to maintain that there is now no Pope and that there has been no Pope since Pius XII, it is necessary to deny an article of faith of the Apostolic Roman Church – Marian Wojciechowski, Catholic, June-July 1997

246 Reply—The position that the four usurpers since Pius XII are genuine popes denies the defined doctrine of papal infallibility. All four have publicly subscribed to previously condemned heresies while posing as vicars of Christ. Objection—The sedevacantist position is based firstly on the application of the Bull, Cum Ex Apostolatus, of Pope Paul IV...... sedevacantists make a personal judgment that (these four usurpers) had offended against faith prior to their elections, and consequently, according to Cum ex Apostolatus Officio have not been Popes. Reply—That is the clear intent and import of the law. It was legislated in application of divine law against exactly those people to whom the sedevacantist applies it. It has been retained with full force in Canons 188 §4 and 2314 §1 of the . No private judgment is evoked; the “papal” previously condemned heresies are on the public record. Objection—The sedevacantist takes this ipso facto excommunication to have one all-inclusive meaning...... Canon 2314 tells (violators) that God Himself has excommunicated them...... to be effective it must be applied by an appropriate ecclesiastical authority, without which application no one is ever to be called a heretic...... Excommunication is a verb describing an action [Spare us the grammar! It is a noun, the name of an action.] which, therefore(?), must needs be carried out by a person or persons...... equals have no authority over equals and cannot excommunicate anyone. Reply—A penalty a iure or latae sententiae is already clearly marked out and only requires the verification of the criminal act. Thus a censure latae sententiae does not demand a canonical admonition, though a declaratory sentence may be necessary in certain circumstances (can. 2232). – Augustin, VIII 166-7 [Canon 188 specifically exempts itself from such a need.] Objection— Therefore those who can are the members [except God?] who possess ordinary or delegated jurisdiction in the external forum in regard to those subject to them...... “For a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity.” Reply—Those four “popes” whose legitimacy you so earnestly maintain by their position and training (and even in performance of the duty you grant them) necessarily know where and how points which they publicly and officially advocate have been condemned as heresies by all ages of the Catholic Church. Despite this they have promulgated them as Catholic doctrine. What is your definition of pertinacity? How could their heresies be more public or more pertinacious? Have they not, moreover, ignored hundreds of protests and corrections from every level, both Catholic and non-Catholic? Objection—These canons (188.4, 2314.1) sedevacantists apply also to all other ecclesiastics and lay people in conjunction with the canons condemning co- operation with heretics. Reply—With what effect? No sedevacantist of my wide acquaintance applies these canons as you state. Most will not accept the authority of any cleric who

247 derives his own authority from the current usurper. Most will not denigrate the improperly instructed as culpable heretics. Objection—Sedevacantists finally conclude that all cardinals, bishops, priests, and laity who recognize Bishop Wojtyla as rightful Pope are, with him, heretics and so are out of the Church...... there are now virtually no Catholics in sacred orders who are eligible to elect a Pope, or to ordain priests, or bishops who might be so eligible, and could also be eligible for the Papacy. In effect this means that there is now no hierarchy of the Catholic Church. But such a statement constitutes a denial of an article of faith of the Church. The article of faith which ensures the perpetuation of the hierarchy states: “The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the Bishops.” (De fide) Reply—It is extremely difficult to see how anyone, cleric or layman, having read the “papally” approved and implemented Documents of Vatican II, yet maintaining allegiance to usurpers, can disclaim heresy. When in addition these documents and their implementation are seen to oppose the reader’s ordination oaths, this difficulty increases beyond measure. When one realizes that Montini (Paul VI) Easter 1969 replaced the Sacrament of Holy Orders with an impossibly valid substitute, and that to our knowledge neither priest nor bishop has been validly and licitly ordained in the Latin rite since—nor is recognition of this fact confined to sedevacantists—may one not ask to whom have the Apostolic powers descended in our day? Or how that de fide statement enters into the equation? Or how, if it could, could it turn knowlege of the disappearing hierarchy into denial of an article of faith? Objection—“The perpetuation of the hierarchical powers follows necessarily on the indefectibility of the Church desired by Christ. The promise of His aid given to the Apostles even to the consummation of the world presupposes that the apostolic office is perpetuated in the successors of the Apostles.” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma – L. Ott) Reply— Indefectibility accrues to only the Roman See, and has never been affected by long vacancies. The Apostolic office is not perpetuated in apostates. Objection— There cannot be a Church to which Christ gave a hierarchical constitution if there is no longer any hierarchy. Reply— Offices exist even when vacant. Though the fact is irrelevant to this argument, there remain genuine bishops who never subscribed to Vatican II, its heresies, or its implementations. The Catholic Church exists on earth while one Catholic lives. He (or she) will not be responsible for being alone. Unless pope, he could be a sedevacantist. His test will be what it has always been: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. Objection—The sedevacantist must choose between a private revelation and the subsequent gullibility of its photographically rejuvenated recipient. Reply—May he not choose rather the private revelation of LaSalette, which predicted (with obvious accuracy) that Rome would lose the Faith? Objection—The sedevacantist believes the antichrist has defeated the Church of Christ, so he opposes the fact that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, writes Marian.

248 Reply—No one can say that they will not almost prevail, and in the process prevail against usurpers who by their public heresies have proven that they are not the Church. Marian threw in several quotations which have no place in the argument— perhaps to compensate for the begged questions which masqueraded as phantom proofs represented by those two inconsequential therefores. Evasion of Papal Infallibility “But whereas it is not enough to declare the truth, unless errors be exposed and repudiated, it has seemed good to the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, so that all, now that the Catholic doctrine has been made known, may also understand what heresies are to be avoided and guarded against.” – Council of Trent, Session XIII (Oct. 11, 1551) Decree, Most Holy Eucharist (Denz. 882) By the simple expedient of abstaining from this obligation Montini and his co- conspirators avoided committing papal infallibility to what he published over his papal signature, to which no one would have given two seconds’ credence without that signature. He has shown, the argument goes, that he had no intention of condemning heresies. Similarly, when he promulgated his idolatrous novus ordo “mass” he refrained from use of binding terminology, so that he could not be accused of forbidding true wo5rship. But in 1976 he not only claimed credit for abolition of that true worship, he scored Lefebvre for disobedience to his “order.” In the promulgation itself he pretended that he had followed the mind and will of Vatican II, which, as all know, never ordered a new rite of Mass. It is no prerogative of a pope to dilute Christ’s message. He may not dialogue on essentials. Whether Montini compromised his “infallibility” in signing and promulgating the heretical Vatican II decrees and dogmatic constitutions, he and his successors have deliberately, publicly, and with malice aforethought implemented those promulgated lying documents from their position of authority. Their supposed intention to refrain from dogmatic definition and sanction is thereby proven a deliberate deception. Without their pretended authority, what Catholic would have permitted all those innovations? He who promotes heresies is equally as guilty of heresy as the original heretics. He cannot shirk responsibility by fancy footwork or crossed fingers. Nor can a public heretic maintain that subsequent election to the papacy, no matter how formal or unanimous, can be legitimate. Montini’s heresies at Milan were both notorious and legion. But, runs the argument, they were not condemned. The Church moves slowly in these matters. It took two and a half years to condemn the errors of Martin Luther, a man in open revolt. Any investigation of Montini would surely have been impeded by his patron (and lodge-brother), Roncalli. Luther, like Montini, was a heretic before condemnation. Neither was eligible for the papacy—not only by canon law but by the nature of things. The fact that Montini was deficient in theology cannot excuse his heresies. It can be said of most heretics that they were deficient in theology. He cannot be exculpated by the fact that he has had no official condemnation. Who expects

249 robbers to condemn robbery? Happily, the law itself unseats known heretics without any declaration! St. Alphonsus Liguori is quoted: “The Church, therefore, should not depose him, as no one has authority over the Pope, but should DECLARE him deposed from the pontificate.” By public adherence to heresy a man proves that he is not pope because he is not Catholic, and by the law itself no declaration is necessary. In these days of nearly universal heresy, who will declare such deposition? The Church, says St. Alphonsus. This is interpreted to mean Council, Commission of Cardinals, Roman clergy. But are not lowly priests, and even laity, the Church? Have we not all the duty to reject heresy and its promoters? Must we not refuse papal status and authority to heretics? Objection—The arguments put forward by the sedevacantists to support their conclusions are not founded on theology. Reply—Let’s hope not! Theologians put us in this mess. We depend on the canon law and its sources, with which it was codified to agree, and on the natural law, which rules out absurdities like square circles and heretic popes. We postulate that a pope must be a Catholic. A Catholic cannot be a heretic, nor can a heretic be a Catholic—by definition! The papal infallibility of the last four heretical usurpers of the papacy is a myth and a fiction. Since it does not exist, it can be neither invoked nor shirked. All arguments based on weasel words deliberately intended to obscure the issue, in either texts or promulgations of Vatican II, are irrelevant. Why were these documents drawn up and promulgated? Was there some great call for ecclesiastical fiction? Did financial troubles force the Holy See to issue a best-seller? To pay the huge bill for a non-infallible council? There were outstanding issues to face: communism, usury, contraception, abortion, habitual appointments of venal or useless bishops. Vatican II addressed none of these. It was convoked for and dedicated to ecclesiastical innovation. Nothing new is Catholic. Since all these issues could have been adequately treated by a strong papacy, there was no purpose for Vatican II but the intended chaos in its wake and the delegation and diffusion of prime responsibility. Let’s pretend the bishops have wrought all this havoc in spite of the source of their own authority. Let’s make formal excuses for merchants of instability—deliberate murderers of the souls of our generation! The rot is universal; responsibility lies at the top. Is the rot Catholic? Is there no defense?

Wergild was compensation for man-killing among the Germanic peoples. The killer and his relatives offered a set sum to the dead man’s relatives. The size of payment depended on the victim’s status in or value to his clan. This practice may seem at first glance somewhat cold-blooded, but it made for civil stability as opposed to civil war. It lifted the obligation of the blood-feud, and kept thousands of

250 innocents alive. The community was compensated for its loss of the victim’s services in peace and war, and need suffer no further crippling losses. The practice ended when governments became strong enough to prosecute and execute for murder. Until then it kept a rein on lawlessness. People protected themselves till governments could protect them. Our generation has seen governments default in this respect, while refusing us permission to defend ourselves. If we repel a violent criminal we are likelier than he to face jail, especially if he sustains physical injury. Should he injure us, even if convicted, he seldom compensates us. The victim’s right to protection from the criminal pales into insignificance alongside the criminal’s right to escape consequences of his crime. The rationale seems to be that prison never reforms a criminal, but only degrades him further. So the prisons need reform. Conversations with New South Wales prison chaplains have developed the fact that they may not preach moral or religious values to prisoners, because they would thereby violate the prisoners’ rights. Prisons are state institutions, and separation of Church and state is mandatory. Let no one dare make the prisoner face his infringement on his victim’s rights or his guilt before God; such thoughts could reform him.—Or would he consider his wallet? Could the situation be remedied by return to a generalized wergild? We are fined ferociously for exceeding speed limits. In theory financial loss prevents further violations. Is it not inconsistent to neglect the same approach to violent crime? Let the murderer compensate the victim’s family, and his union, employer, parish church, butcher, green-grocer, his club, his bookie, and his insurance company. Let him work in prison till he drops at some employment in which he deprives no citizen of a job. If he escapes a jail sentence let all the aforementioned secondary victims sue civilly for compensation. The victim had one more obligation: his share of the public debt. This, we are told, has reached incredible proportions. Each man is born owing countless thousands of dollars. If he is not born, everyone alive owes his own percentage of the prevented human’s share. If we cannot mount criminal proceedings against abortionists, why can we not sue them for their victims’ shares of the public debt? If it is illegal to lop off their hands, at least we can remove all profit from their criminal butchery. Formerly kings, rather than murder illegitimate sons, would procure them high ecclesiastical positions. The Church then restricted these sons to cloistered congregations only. Why, then, is the overwhelming majority of the contemporary clergy, especially the hierarchy, illegitimate? Episcopal Conferences 1983 Code of Canon Law, 753: “Although they do not enjoy infallible teaching authority, the bishops in communion with the head and members of the college, whether as individuals or gathered in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the faithful must adhere to the authentic teaching of their own bishops with a sense of religious respect.”

251 Ambiguous laws cannot bind. When have the faithful ever been entrusted to the care of a bishops’ conference? One must adhere to his own bishop. No prior code has mentioned a bishops’ conference; it is an innovation of the postconciliar “Church.” Fidelity, December 1997 carries an article, “Conferences of Bishops: Mandate to Teach?” by Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, Professor Emeritus of Moral Theology, Nanzan University, Nagoya, Japan. His older brother, Bernard, and I were graduated from high school together in 1934. The article assumes the legitimacy of bishops’ conferences, but demonstrates deficiencies. I present these last, heavily edited. Christ never assigned separate teaching authorities to National Episcopal Conferences. “Thou art Peter,” He said in the presence of the Twelve, “and upon this Rock I will build My Church” (Mt 16:18). The Rock is one, not a conglomerate of rocklettes, one to each nation. Individual bishops have a special mandate to teach in their respective dioceses. [“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations ..... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20).] [Each diocesan bishop is in his own diocese the authority on faith and morals. He is obliged to attack public and private deviations. The existence of a bishops’ conference restrains him; he will surely attract criticism for speaking alone; when his conference meets (semi-annually) it may contradict him; he, above all, knows the fools with whom this innovation associates him, even though he may not realize that this stifling effect was a major purpose of the innovation.] (back to Zimmerman): Bishops’ conferences cannot escape identifying targets for their proper attention: abortion, contraception, sterilization, divorce and annulments, misconceived sex education in schools, absence of catechesis for children, media bias against the Church, trivialization of sex, tampering with the Sacred Liturgy, homosexual aggression, assisted suicide and euthanasia, devil worship and witchcraft, naive doctrinal dissent. Every bishop worth his salt knows exactly the teachings of the universal Church specifically applicable to these problems. Abortion is an abominable crime, contraception and sterilization blunts the operation of Christ’s Sacraments, divorce parts what God has joined together, sex is misused without attention to God. Bishops serve the national body when they expose vice, when they affirm, amplify, and thunder the universal doctrine relevant to a current situation. Should bishops’ conferences reflect with the faithful on problems like nuclear deterrence, social welfare legislation, payment of debts by developing nations, greenhouse effects, plugging the ozone hole? The Church is the sole enduring “expert in humanity” in the changing global climate. Bishops share all human concerns with the special intensity of pastors who yearn to make the environment favor moral obligations. But pastoral zeal does not presuppose expertise in secular affairs. The pastor who supports the local baseball team may not be the best to manage the team,

252 nor the proper umpire. National Episcopal Conferences which try to umpire international games—political contests about the environment, about preserving tropical forests, about nuclear deterrence, international debt payment, women in the Church, water rights and others—should not be shocked to hear “Kill the umpire!” Since the early 1980s the U.S. Catholic Conference, policy arm of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, has issued several wrong-headed social and political prescriptions for justice in the world. As a result, the USCC’s authoritative competence in matters of faith and morals has risked being weakened by specific policy recommendations that far exceed what is necessary for salvation. When bishops’ conferences, fraudulently dressed in borrowed trappings of authentic teachers, promulgate pseudo-doctrine, results can be catastrophic. Some bishops’ conferences tried to bend Humanae Vitae into “pastoral acceptability.” Incompetent to teach, some issued dishonest teachings from national pulpits. Christ did not authorize them, nor did the Church give them such power. [But Paul VI winked.] In 1968 their National invited Japanese Catholics to continue receiving the Sacraments if they chose to live in contradiction to doctrine in Humanae Vitae: “If somebody notwithstanding his good will to fulfil the directives of the encyclical is unable to observe it in some matters because of objective and necessary circumstances, he should never think himself separated from the love of God. Rather we advise them (sic) to deepen their trust in God, and to participate fervently in the works of the Church and to receive the sacraments.” This episcopal advice to receive Holy Communion without suspending the practice of contraception destroys the Faith. To this day this knife twists in the heart of the Church in Japan. The bishops’ conference blasted and still blasts all Japan with this bomb of pseudo-doctrine. The tiny body of the faithful has stopped growing, starved of spiritual sustenance as well as of natural increase. In their pastoral letter Human Life in Our Day, Nov. 15, 1968, the U.S. National Episcopal Conference made the Sign of the Cross and sprinkled over the sin of dissent: “The expression of theological dissent from the magisterium is in order only if the reasons are serious and well-founded, if the manner of dissent does not question or impugn the teaching authority of the Church and is such as not to give scandal.” Can dissent from the Magisterium do else but impugn the single teaching authority of the Church? Does dissent not, by its very presence, scandalize? That single sentence is the scandal of contemporary America. The “We are Church” and “Common Ground” pretensions grow today in the fetid swamp landscaped by the 1968 bishops’ conference. The War Is Now! # 45 St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 15: 3-8. For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: And that he was buried: and that he

253 rose again according to the scriptures: And that he was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven. Then was he seen by more than five hundred brethren at once: of whom many remain until this present, and some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen by James: then by all the apostles. And last of all, he was seen also by me, as by one born out of due tine. 12-19. Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God, that he hath raised up Christ, whom he hath not raised up, if the dead rise not again. For if the dead rise not again, neither is Christ risen again. And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain: for you are yet in your sins. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. St. Paul expresses the absolute certitude which led him, and the eleven who preached the identical message, to the executioner rather than temporize or deny. These were the men on the scene, the witnesses and recorders, who all died for their message—at different times! After their first loss, they all knew where their path would lead. Try to imagine that these men had conspired with their Lord to fake his crucifixion, death, and burial, and to spread His false message while He Himself retired to the Riviera with His wife. Would He not thereby have destroyed His best proof of His divinity? What mere man has risen from the dead through his own initiative or capacity? Yet there exist men who profess Christianity who inconsistently and illogically deny the Resurrection. They revere and follow, so they say, a deceiver, liar, con artist the like of whom never was. We cannot deny existence of such people, though we must wonder at their mental processes. Many of us have read Elmer Gantry. Some of us have even read the decrees and documents of Vatican Council II, one of which states gratuitously, without visible or logical connection with context, but with episcopal and “papal” approval: “In the end, when He completed on the Cross the work of redemption whereby He achieved salvation and true freedom for man, He also brought His revelation to completion.” – Declaration on Religious Freedom, 11 This denies Christ’s resurrection, His explanation of His fulfilment of the prophecies, establishment of the sacrament of Penance, mandate to His Church, Ascension, and the descent of the Holy Ghost. Let us not gasp too much, then, at the lecture of the Grand Prior of the Celtic (founded in Ireland, 37 A.D.) Church’s Sacred Kindred of St. Columba, Laurence Gardner. He has also written a book on this subject. Some one usually does, every forty or fifty years. The Passover Plot, Holy Blood Holy Grail, The Jesus Conspiracy, The Great Research, The Secret of the Vatican, Time on my Hands. The Hidden History of Jesus and the Holy Grail Nexus, Feb-March 1998, pp. 21-25, Apr-May, pp. 21-26

254 New authority must overcome its novelty. All ecclesiastical innovations are tied to some custom said to have prevailed in the primitive Church. When a royal line dies out, or a government fails, effort has usually been made to convince subjects that its replacement is merely a continuation—the new thing is not new. As far as possible new royalty was found among the same tribe or rank as the old. Where this was impossible, the new king was discovered to have sprung from royal connections a few (untraceable) generations back. Whole fictional genealogies appeared, and were celebrated in song and legend. Upstarts (e.g., Napoleon Bonaparte, the Tudors) married into royalty. Royal marriages were arranged with those of equal status. Morganatic marriages to women of lesser status, to be superseded by official marriages, were fairly common. Royal houses were in short supply, and married among themselves to the point that nearly all could claim common ancestry. King George V, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and Czar Nicholas II were first cousins. Bourbons and Hapsburgs were everywhere. From the time the Roman emperors moved east and left rule practically in the hands of the pope, the kings and emperors of Europe accepted their own crowns from the pope as vicar of Christ. Their own peoples accepted them largely on this basis, and their religion supported their form of government. Came the Protestant Revolt and the royalties that led it suddenly needed another prop. If they could no longer base their claim to authority on Jesus Christ through his vicar, let them base it on their blood descent from Him. So when did He, our Creator, take time out to procreate? In His private life at Nazareth where everyone knew Him? Then why, when He and His mother and His disciples were invited to the wedding at Cana, was not His wife also invited? Were she and the kids at the foot of the Cross? No, this whole legend depends on supposition that He faked His death, and ducked off afterwards to such places as the South of France to establish in anonymity a divine race capable of ruling all nations, which, presumably, had never been ruled previously. This absurd theory supports an absurd legend, that all European royal houses are descended from King David. Since Jesus was Himself a son of David according to the Hebrew genealogies as quoted in the Gospels, here is a by-pass around the destruction of those same genealogies in 70 A.D. when Titus and his troops wiped out Jerusalem, and no Hebrew since can trace his ancestry beyond that point. When we hear that a church declares something a heresy we should look in its laws for a definition. Canon 1325 of the 1917 Code defines: “any baptized person who, while retaining the name of Christian, obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic.” Woywod comments: “Heresy consists in stubborn denial of truths which have been defined and proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrine.” The Resurrection is such a truth. Sir Laurence Gardner, the lecturer-author of this article, next turns his establishment of royal authority through divine blood into an endorsement of democracy. Then he discovers that the Church which draws its authority from

255 its foundation by Jesus Christ, has deliberately perverted His doctrine and intention. He is now supposed to have meant, when transubstantiating wine into His blood to signify that it would be drained from His body in sacrifice and in ordering His Apostles to do the same, that His blood should be preserved in the normal manner through His progeny. But the Church, with which He promised to remain all days as it preached His message, preserved and preached the wrong half of the message. The same Church, to which He had entrusted his message to preach, in its authority and knowledge of what He had preached to it, exercised this God-given authority to publish a list of books to which it accorded divine inspiration because their contents accorded with the divine message it had received. Many other contemporary (Synod of Rome, 382 A.D.) books, exclusion of which Sir Laurence deplores, suffered the same defect as his lecture, false attribution. Nor have all been lost. Some are merely superfluous; some are absurd. Sir Laurence proposes not only that Jesus survived the Cross and later appointed Mark and Luke (but no women) Apostles, but that the Resurrection was added centuries later, as though anyone would have then believed it, and that the “truthful” excluded writings were feminist, as though he had read them. Whatever else may be said of the Roman Empire, it had no women’s rights and very little female literacy. The Church itself has elevated women and preserved their best interests. It wanted them covered at religious ceremonies, which are directed toward God; few women are so poorly endowed that they could not distract some man from his prayers. Sir Laurence proposes clerical celibacy as imposed to hide the marital status of Jesus Christ. Being God, He could have married if it suited Him; who in His Church would have dared to carp? Nor is found official condemnation of this subject among the heresies. The subject either never arose, or was not taken seriously. Sir Laurence introduces the Book of Jasher, “staff-bearer to Moses.” This nine-foot Hebrew scroll still exists, was the jewel of Charlemagne’s court, and triggered the foundation of the University of Paris in 800 A.D., “about a century before the Old Testament that we know was actually put together.” (The entire Bible was accorded inspired status by the same Synod of Rome—382 A.D. — and translated in its entirety by St. Jerome, who died 420 A.D. When the Church has declared that anything is inspired, it is unlikely to allow significant change in its text.) Jasher, says Sir Laurence, wrote a highly original version of Exodus, wherein Miriam, not Moses, led the Hebrews. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) Vol. XII, p 177b, Poetry: “From another lost roll, the ‘Book of Jashar’ we derive the lament of David over Saul and Jonathan, as well as in substance Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Temple. (II Kings i, 3; III Kings viii, 53)” That is a lot of territory for a nine-foot scroll, and a long time for one man’s lifespan. Sir Laurence attacks the accounts of Christ’s birth. St. Matthew (he says) wrote that Christ was born in a house. He wrote, rather, that when later the Magi arrived they found the Holy Family in a house. St. Luke (says Gardner) never mentioned an inn, nor was there any such thing in the whole East. Inn along

256 with lodging is a translation of καταλυμα, St. Luke’s word for that whatever with no room (τοπος = place, spot), says my Liddell and Scott. The first acceptable English translation (Authorized version), says Gardner, ignoring the Catholic Douai version of the previous century, was not really a translation but a compromise between religions that invented or resurrected incomprehensible words that bear no relation to the Greek or Latin from which it was translated. To demonstrate this he seizes upon the word host, not “written in the English language for centuries.” Yet the Oxford Dictionary found it in writings of 1330, 1360, 1398, 1506, 1555, and 1592, less than twenty years before its Authorized Biblical use. He accuses Shakespeare of similar linguistic perversion. Who writes for general publication in new or lost words? Who puts on plays—commercial ventures—that his customers cannot understand? Gardner gnaws away at two more words, carpenter and virgin. St. Joseph was not a carpenter but a Master of the Craft. Mary was not a virgin but a young woman. Back to the lexicon: τεκτων = “a worker in wood, a carpenter, joiner, builder; νηων τεκτων a ship-carpenter, ship-builder.” This follows τεκτοσυνη, carpentry, building, and τεκτονικη, carpentry. If the word is used to convey another craft that other craft is named, e.g., “master of the art of poetry = τεκτων υμνων.” Isaias 7:14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin (η παρϑενος—Septuagint) shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel. Haydock Bible comment: “Virgin, halma (Hebrew), one secluded from the company of men. Alma in Latin signifies ‘a holy person,’ and in Punic ‘a virgin.’ The term is never applied to any but ‘a young virgin.’ If it only meant a young woman, what sort of sign would this be?” Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible lists Gardner’s almah and bethula as synonymous. Mt 1:23. Behold a virgin (η παρϑενος—Koine) shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Haydock Bible comment: “The Jews sometimes objected, as we see in S. Justin’s dialogue with Tryphon, that the Hebrew word alma, in the prophet Isaias, signified no more than a young woman. But S. Jerom (translator) tells us that alma signifies a virgin kept close up. Let the Jews, says he, shew me any place in which the Hebrew word alma, is applied to any one that is not a virgin, and I will own my ignorance. Besides the very circumstances in the text of the prophet are more than a sufficient confutation of this Jewish exposition; for there a sign, or miracle, is promised to Achaz; and what miracle would it be for a young woman to have a child, when she had ceased to be a virgin?” Lk 1:27. To a virgin (παρϑενον—Koine) espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin’s (της παρϑενου—Koine) name was Mary. Greek-English Lexicon (abridged), Liddell & Scott: η παρϑενος—a maid, maiden, virgin, Lat., virgo. II. as Adj. maiden, virgin, pure, chaste.

257 The New Testament was written in Greek. Hebrew words and their definitions are irrelevant. Gardner informs us that “Nazareth was established in the AD 60s, thirty years or so after the Crucifixion. Nobody in Jesus’ early life came from Nazareth—it was not there!” This ipse dixit overcomes all Biblical references, most written (incomprehensibly) before Gardner’s foundation date. Mt 2:23. And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene. 4:13. And leaving the city Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capharnaum on the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and of Nephthalim; 21:11. And the people said: This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee. Mk 1:9. And it came to pass, in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Lk 1:26. And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 2:4. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem: because he was of the house and family of David. 2:39. And after they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their city Nazareth. 2:51. And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. 4:16. And he came to Nazareth, where he was brought up: and he went into the synagogue, according to his custom, on the sabbath day: and he rose up to read. Jn 1:45-6. Philip findeth Nathanael and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth. And Nathanael said to him: Can any thing of good come from Nazareth? Philip saith to him: Come and see. Acts 3:6. But Peter said: Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, I give thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk. 4:10. Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him, this man standeth here before you, whole. But Gardner says that Jesus was a member of a Nazarene sect which at the time inhabited Galilee, specifically “in that mystical place which the Bible calls ‘the Wilderness.’ .....a very defined place. It was essentially the land around the main settlement of Qumran ..... where the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced .....” Qumran is about thirty miles directly east of Jerusalem (south of Jericho), Nazareth a good 250 miles north. Galilee’s southern border was nearly 200 miles north of the Wilderness. Gardner presents “Bishop Clement of Alexandria” deleting “a substantial section from the Gospel of Mark ..... Today, this section ..... is still missing .....” Firstly, St. Clement was not a bishop. He had no authority to tamper with Scripture. Nor had he a monopoly on it; by his time St. Mark’s Gospel was well known throughout the Church—fragments were found even among the Dead

258 Sea Scrolls. It is, furthermore, one of the synoptics, the three parallel Gospels. (St. John’s was written later; he saw no reason to rewrite what Sts. Matthew, Mark, and Luke had recorded.) To discover then what St. Clement had deleted, Gardner need only check the other two synoptics. Secondly, St. Clement wrote (Stromata 7, 16, 96 ANF): “And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures, in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy provide. But selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there, not looking to the sense, but making use in the mere words. For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone while they alter the meanings, neither knowing as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature. But the truth is not found by changing the meanings, for so people subvert all true teaching, but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign God, and establishing each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from similar Scriptures. Neither do they want to turn to the truth being ashamed to abandon the claims of self-love; nor are they able to manage their opinions by doing violence to the Scriptures.” Why would anyone introduce an unlikely, unproven, impossible deletion from such a well-known book, held sacred at the time of the “deletion” by half the civilized world familiar with its language and content? So he could speculate on what may have been removed! What fills this particular hole? Christ’s imaginary wife and a “debunked” major miracle. But since more than a century later a teacher known for his strict adherence to his texts excised these fateful lines, the Jewish high priests of the time maintained silence on a palpable fraud which would have immediately discredited Jesus Christ. If Lazarus could be raised from symbolic death, Gardner asks, why could Jesus not fake his own death? Having “proved” the Bible inaccurate by his allegations, Gardner asks: “So, have we been completely misguided by the Gospels? No; ..... by the English language translations of the Gospels.” Later he says: “Apart from ..... misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mistranslations, the canonical Gospels suffer from numerous purposeful amendments. Some original entries have been changed or deleted; other entries have been added to suit the Church’s vested interest. Back in the fourth century, when the texts were translated into Latin from their original Greek and Semitic tongues, the majority of these edits and amendments were made.” At the time there was no English language. Gardner, however, is such a stranger to consistency that he never notices self-contradiction. He returns to the word game with John xix, 34, where a soldier opened His side with a spear. The “original word” does not mean pierced but pricked or scratched. Again to the lexicon: ενυξεν = “prick, spur, pierce, puncture.” Can we imagine a soldier, checking with a spear whether a man is dead, scratching him? To see if he laughed?

259 Gardner must figure that some one should laugh. To explain an apparent time discrepancy he paints a picture of Essenes and Magians staying up till midnight to change the time on their sundials three hours forward. This is the most credible part of his entire lecture as reported to date. In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, Atila Sinke Guimares, 1997, Maeta, Metairie, La. 452 pp., arrived for review and recommendation. Despite monumental documentation it withholds vital facts—and never draws necessary conclusions. Page 52: “The first chapters of this Volume will be very brief.” A welcome change! The first 53 pages introduce the subject with the author’s qualifications, mandate from TFP, and general good intentions. They could have been put in two sentences: “I am an instructed Catholic. A catastrophe has overtaken my beloved Church.” Chapter I treats ambiguity, singular and plural, in Vatican II documents in thirteen pages, of which over nine are quotations concerning the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 8b and the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, 3a, b, c, and finally asks how Vatican II’s self-contradiction is not obvious. The point of overt, malicious, multiple heresy is neither exemplified nor made. Chapter II (3 pp.) examines some uses of ambiguity. Chapter III (10 pp.) quotes “famed theologians” (conciliar) who “acknowledge the existence of ambiguity in conciliar documents”—including variable definition of Traditional. Chapter IV (13 pp.) Nine pages are footnote quotations which confirm over and over that ambiguity was used strategically to secure unanimity—or its appearance. Chapter V (9 pp.), short on footnotes, long on quotations, shows again that ambiguity was “desired, intentional and conscious” and “served to stimulate the development of more radical positions in the postconciliar period.” Chapter VI (72 pp.), twelve of footnotes, but at last some analysis. Ambiguity is seen as a fruit of opposite views—not an attempt at compromise but rather an exercise in deception to secure votes. Bellarmine opposes Möhler, whose disciples infested the Council and are quoted liberally. Even Ratzinger, now the doctrinal watchdog, explains that he remains the radical with unchanged aims. The reader is given a tour of perversion, from the confluence of history and innovation, through “synthesis,” to confusion. Was Vatican II pastoral or dogmatic? Opinions and consequences vary. But the author maintains that such concepts are not mutually exclusive. According to subject matter, Vatican II was simultaneously both! The author believes the emphasis by Roncalli and Montini on the pastoral aspect before, during, and after the Council and failure presently to “demand obedience greatly served the designs of those who conceived Vatican II steered its application, by avoiding a reaction and assuring the ripening of its fruits.” This pastorality never excludes dogmatic competence. Indeed, “the dogmatic tone is accentuated in the promulgation of the Documents.”

260 Page 147, paragraph §65: “A complete ambiguity generally hovers over the theological qualification of the Council, independent of the above analysis. When conservatives say it is dogmatic so they can judge it according to traditional Catholic doctrine, progressivists contend it is pastoral; when the former agree it is pastoral and consequently refuse to obey it, the latter, in flagrant contradiction to what they had maintained, say the Council is dogmatic and requires obedience. Thus, what happens in practice is that the progressivists methodically use ambiguity regarding Vatican II’s theological qualification ..... to obtain advantages for their current.” Nowhere in this chapter can we discover any question concerning the legitimacy of innovation. Chapter VII (18 pp.) asks if a doctrine underlies the ambiguity. It concludes that conciliar ambiguity easily cloaks itself in a new doctrine of an evolutionist nature, which supposes new conceptions of Church and Faith. Chapter VIII (12 pp., 2 of footnotes) Vatican II omitted, or issued unclear, statements on virginity regarding Mary, the Mother of God, original sin, hell’s existence, Church Militant and Triumphant, Roman character of the Church, Western , and Freudian Psychoanalysis. Chapter IX (61 pp.) details nearly universal replacement of parts of the Mass with novelties from the Protestant Revolt, lists multiple concessions to false religions and to the Modern world, considers the Church’s adaptation to the temporal order and the dissolution of their difference—demanding a new theology. The new orientation leads to destruction of Christendom and of the missionary effort, which becomes illogical unless we possess all religious truth without error. The blame for all this is laid at the door of conciliar ambiguity— still not recognized as heresy. Chapter X (75 pp.) details disastrous effects of (still only) conciliar ambiguity on faith and morals throughout the Catholic Church. From exhaustive evidence (350 pp.) the author arrives at a Conclusion: This book “has demonstrated that ..... Vatican II was ambiguous in the official texts of its documents. Two types of questions inevitably arise ..... : “First: Whereas the Council’s texts are written in a deliberately imprecise, hesitant, and provisional language that generates disparate and many times contradictory interpretations; “Whereas the doctrine that often reveals itself behind the ambiguity leads, or may lead, to a visualization that differs from traditional Catholic Doctrine; “Whereas, as a consequence of these two facts, the official line of application of the Council has produced in the Church the greatest crisis in her History, one asks: “What value should one attribute to Vatican Council II? “Are precision, clarity, and orthodoxy not characteristic of the ecclesiastical magisterium?

261 “Therefore, given the fundamental ambiguity of Vatican II, its variance on certain points with the earlier Magisterium of the Church, and the crisis it has generated, could one not advocate that it is null? “This Volume offers multiple elements for reflection about these questions. We hope that the whole Collection ..... will further contribute to their clarification...... not so much through a canonical discussion on the possibility of a Council being considered null ..... but by presenting the facts and doctrines that characterize the Council of John XXIII and Paul VI.” [Why have these vital facts and doctrines not been presented in a book this length on Vatican II?] “Second: Since the Council’s texts lend themselves as a foundation in re to disparate interpretations by conflicting currents, it becomes impossible, based directly on them, to know their exact meaning. Faced with this impossibility, how can one understand the thinking and the intentions of the Council? “We see no other way than an indirect one, much longer and more arduous. It is to study the spirit of the Council, the thinking of the men who designed, wrote, and applied it, as well as the fruits it has generated. By seeking in these various realms the underlying unity that defines the whole ‘Vatican II phenomenon,’ an interpretation that clarifies such texts becomes possible...... “..... a simple layman could attempt to tread this road, the only one left open to him.” [If he can clarify self-contradictions.] For a moment we thought that this long, repetitious tome would produce a result. Were that the case, what market would exist for the rest of the series? Who needs to be sent back to Vatican II which has just been probed so deeply and futilely to discover its admittedly unfathomable meaning and rationale? Why have the author and reader devoted all this time and effort to mere ambiguity? It is too easy to expose heresies endorsed by Vatican II, and promulgated officially as Catholic doctrine by a man unable to function as pope because of his previously condemned public heresies at the time of his impossible election. Nor, therefore, had he competence to convoke or reconvene a Council of the Catholic Church. Nor had his predecessor authority to innovate, nor to call a Council with that intent. The papacy’s purpose is preservation. Innovation is for heretics. At my only encounter with TFP, its agent bared the group’s chief deficiencies: “We can’t depose a pope.” [His own public heresy, as in promulgating heretical conciliar decrees, deposes him.] “We’re not about to tell a priest how to say Mass.” [But if what he presides at is not Mass we need not commit idolatry. We are entitled to use St. Pius V’s yardstick, and the priest is obliged to use it. But we can’t tell him?] Most Catholics cannot cope with the idea that, like many previous generations, we have an antipope. The more confused they are, the more they cling to that figure of authority, their pope. They never ask who has so badly confused them and their Church; it must be the bishops and cardinals, behind the papal back. Until his election by all these scheming cardinals, then, was he not himself a bishop and cardinal working behind Paul VI’s traditional back?

262 I knew a priest with his own church, who held publicly and correctly that the local cardinal was a public heretic and usurper. His congregation accepted this view, and came to his church because they agreed. He would not tell the same people that the same applies to John Paul II. He said they would not accept it. He was wrong not telling them—and wrong worrying they would not accept it. In trying to convince a traditional Catholic to choose sides for salvation’s sake, I won’t bring him this book. He will ask why the man who compiled it has concluded nothing from his own massive evidence. Oh, but I am wrong! Why will I not wait for the rest of the series? I hear all are written; they merely await translation. In a hundred books he will never draw the inescapable conclusion—he belongs to TFP! And he certainly had his chance, as well as the occasion, in the book under review. Why waste more time?

Modernism is ancient. Curious about official reaction to the passing of a man who possibly had enough influence to have saved the Catholic Church in Australia, I procured a copy of Brisbane’s Catholic Leader of March 8, 1998. The reaction was predictable, panegyrics and all. There was, however, one surprise—the Question Box. The lone question: Pope St. Pius X condemned modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies.” What is modernism and why is it so incompatible with the Catholic faith? The answer occupied three-fourths of the page. Column one expressed surprise that such an ancient problem should have been raised, but sympathetic understanding of inquiry into the dead past for its (minimal) current effect. It mentioned, but never quoted, Lamentabili Sane, Pascendi (dominici gregis), and . This last (in column two) was also incorrect when it suggested that Catholic doctrine was unchanging and cut off, ghetto-like, from the world, as Benedict XV implied. [Had some one asked?] Eventually, after ten paragraphs, comes a definition, from The New Catholic Encyclopedia: “Modernism was an ideological orientation, tendency, or movement within the Catholic Church, clearly emerging during the waning years of the 19th century and rapidly dying out around 1910 after official condemnation. Only loosely and sporadically organized, it was characterized by a tone antagonistic to all ecclesiastical authority and by a belief in an adaptation of the Church to what was considered sound in modern thought even at the expense of radically changing the Church’s essence. “At its roots, grounded beyond liberal Catholic positions on Biblical criticism and theology, lay a triple thesis: 1) a denial of the supernatural as an object of certain knowledge (in the totally symbolic non-objective approach to the content of dogma, which is also related to a type of agnosticism in natural theology); 2) an exclusive immanence of the divine and of revelation (‘vital immanence’) reducing the Church to a simple social civilizing phenomenon; 3) a total emancipation of scientific research from Church dogma, which would allow continued assertion of faith in dogma with its contradiction on the

263 historical level, as understood in certain presentations of the Christ of faith/Christ of history, Church of faith/Church of history distinctions.” So it died in 1910. How then has it ousted Catholicism from the churches and schools for which Catholics paid? The devil tells us there is no devil. The War Is Now! # 46 In Ad Tuendam Fidem (5/28/98) Garrulous Karolus has seen fit, in the continuing exercise of his papacy, to “close” some of the many holes in his 1983 Code of Canon Law, a document over twenty years in the making. This he has done, he writes, to protect the Catholic Faith against errors, especially from theologians. If this is done by law, he is not put to the trouble of naming the heretics and condemning their heresies. Heresy occurs far more often in doctrine than in law. For nineteen centuries the Catholic Church and its laws coped magnificently with heresies and heretics. But GarKar’s new code, introduced to support innovations and theological opinions imposed by the same implementation of the decrees and documents of the Second Vatican Council to which he dedicated his “pontificate,” needed emergency supplementation to achieve the traditional result—or its counterfeit. Garrulous Karolus cites three paragraphs in the “Profession of Faith developed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,” that postconciliar replacement (of the Holy Office of the Inquisition) headed by that orthodox ecumaniac peritus of Vatican II, Josef Ratzinger. Two, he says, confirm and are provided for in Canons 750 and 752 (1983), but the middle (“I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.”) “has no corresponding canon in the Codes of the Catholic Church. This second paragraph .... is of utmost importance since it refers to truths .... necessarily connected to divine revelation.” Garrulous Karolus has “decided to overcome this lacuna in the following way:” To Canon 750 (Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary or universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.) is added: §2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church. Canon 1371, n.1 will now read: The following are to be punished with a just penalty: 1° a person who, apart from the case mentioned in canon 1364, §1, teaches a

264 doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750, §2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract; 2° a person who in any other way does not obey the lawful command of prohibition of the Apostolic See or the Ordinary or Superior and, after being warned, persists in disobedience. This is modified in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches: Canon 1436, §2...... whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, ..... Episcopal colleges are noted for public (though secretly ordered) disagreement with even genuine popes. Nor have they acquired infallible status—unless by this “law.” The final paragraph of the Profession of Faith: “Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.” [This binds the clergy to the decrees and documents of the Second Vatican Council, their implementations, and that horde of postconciliar innovations which it never even suggested, such as the idolatrous novus ordo missae and sacraments of human invention.] Ratzinger has issued the mandatory explanation of what should have been clear to all. “3. Christ’s promise to bestow the Holy Spirit, who ‘will guide you into all truth’, constantly sustains the Church on her way. Thus, in the course of her history, certain truths have been defined as having been acquired through the Holy Spirit’s assistance and are therefore perceptible stages in the realization of the original promise. “Other truths, however, have to be understood still more deeply before full possession can be attained of what God, in his mystery of love, wished to reveal to men for their salvation. “In recent times too, in her pastoral care for souls, the Church has thought it opportune to express in a more explicit way the faith of all time.” [Snow job!] ... “4. This new formula .... concludes with the addition of three propositions or paragraphs intended to better distinguish the order of the truths to which the believer adheres. The correct explanation of these paragraphs deserves a clear presentation, so that their authentic meaning, as given by the Church’s Magisterium, will be well understood, received and integrally preserved.” [If this Profession of Faith followed the normal pattern of clarity ordinarily exhibited in pre-Vatican II ecclesiastical papers, it would hardly need these pages of commentary. Clear presentations require no explanation.] ..... “7. The truths belonging to this second paragraph can be of various natures, thus giving different qualities to their relationship” [if any] “with revelation. There are truths which are necessarily connected with revelation by virtue of an historical relationship; while other truths evince a logical connection that expresses a stage in the maturation of understanding of revelation which the Church is called to undertake. 265 “The fact that these doctrines may not be proposed as formally revealed, insofar as they add to the data of faith elements that are not revealed or which are not yet expressly recognized as such, in no way diminishes their definitive character, which is required at least by their intrinsic connection” [if any] “with revealed truth. “Moreover, it cannot be excluded that at a certain point in dogmatic development, the understanding of the realities of the words of the deposit of faith can progress in the life of the Church, and the Magisterium may proclaim some of these doctrines as also dogmas of divine and catholic faith.” [Obviously, the Apostles were too thick, and the Holy Ghost has been forced to keep trying.] This Profession of Faith is imposed on those who assume “an office .... related to deeper investigation into the truths of faith or morals .... the truths of the Catholic faith, which the Church, in the course of time and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ‘who will teach the whole truth’ [When?] (Jn. 16: 13), has ever more deeply explored and will continue to explore. .... These truths, in the investigation of Catholic doctrine, illustrate the Divine Spirit’s particular inspiration for the Church’s deeper understanding of a truth concerning faith and morals, ....” Almost all heresies originate in deeper understandings. In the postconciliar age no small contribution thereto comes from updating, maturation, and continuing exploration. Ratzinger’s Doctrinal Commentary on the Profession of Faith deserves further analysis. In its typically modernist method, it returns repeatedly to the old refrain, that the non-discriminating reader may eventually swallow the poisonous message because he has read it before—not noticing that he has read it before chiefly in this very document. “The central event of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, expressed first in simple formulas and subsequently in formulas that were more developed, made it possible to give life to the uninterrupted proclamation of faith .....” “In the course of the centuries, from this unchangeable nucleus testifying to Jesus as Son of God and as Lord, symbols witnessing to the unity of the faith and to the communion of the Churches came to be developed. In these, the fundamental truths which every believer is required to know and to profess were gathered together.” [Symbol? According to Webster, “1. That which stands for or represents something else, a visible sign or representation of an idea or quality, or of another object, by reason of natural aptness, of association or of convention; an emblem; as, the lion is the symbol of courage; the cross is the symbol of Christianity. 2. A letter, abbreviation, character, sign, or the like, used to represent something, as an operation or relation in mathematics, an element in chemistry, a person’s signature, etc.; .....” Few will go beyond these ideas to the meaning of symbol as used in the title of Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, the manual of creeds, dogmatic definitions, and condemned heresies. The translator can use the word in the rarer sense of Webster’s third theological definition, “an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine; a creed.”]

266 “The diversity of these symbols expresses the richness of the one faith; none of them is superseded or nullified by subsequent professions of faith formulated in response to later historical circumstances.” [Therefore, postconciliar doctrinal contradictions and mutations merely respond to historical circumstances. They are equally correct parts of the general glorious pattern. Admirable!] “In every profession of faith, the Church verifies different stages she has reached on her path toward the definitive meeting with the Lord. No content is abrogated with the passage of time; instead, all of it becomes an irreplaceable inheritance through which the faith of all time, of all believers, and lived out in every place, contemplates the constant action of the Spirit of the risen Christ, the Spirit who accompanies and gives life to his Church and leads her into the fullness of the truth.” Clearly implied and oft repeated is the notion that doctrine has developed over the centuries into ever more complete truth. This paves the way for even more complete and better understood truth. We are to accept and incorporate into our eternal truth such novelties as Montini’s Creed of the people of God, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and the Second Vatican Council, upon which all these are based. Novelties will continue without end, and we are to accept them since the publicly heretical hierarchy joins antipopes in teaching condemned error. They retain all past symbols, or what belief in novelties could they command? If their every word were false, could they remain credible? Twisted truth deceives far more successfully than manifest lies. Joseph Ratzinger, Chief Usurper, Postconciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: You innovators have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams in fragmenting the world's greatest monolith, the Catholic Church. Yet you seem unsatisfied. Even after thirty years of saturative implementation of the decrees and documents of Vatican II, some genuine Catholics remain. To divide them, you put on a “traditional” Latin Mass at a Benedictine monastery in France. This performance will doubtless mislead some to conclude that you will gradually return to Catholicism. But Catholicism is not essentially a sacramental system. It is a faith. This faith takes precedence over all. Jesus Christ said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved : but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mk. xvi,16) No one can deny Vatican II’s success. Its fruits are all-pervasive. No catastrophe in all history has so disrupted or fragmented the Catholic Church. Millions have left your new “Church” in frustration and disgust. You can easily perceive this through your own records on laicized and resigned clerics. Not all were chasing women, though too many who follow the Renewal have demonstrated such tendencies, as well as less natural sexual leanings. Your Congregation was established centuries ago as the Inquisition to preserve the faith in its pristine purity. The immediate necessary steps toward fulfillment of its purpose are abolition, repudiation, and condemnation of Vatican II, with all its documents, decrees, recommendations, and implementations—followed

267 instanter by excommunication of all who hold its heresies or refuse the same repudiation and condemnation. Now is the time! You can’t do it last week. Next week additional thousands will die and be lost because they have not believed—through your dereliction of duty! It is your responsibility to preserve and insistently to publish the eternal doctrine as proposed for our belief in the Deposit of Faith, complete at the last Apostle’s death, unchangeable by definition. I would hate to be damned for stupid unbelief. Why do you not fear the inevitable penalty for rejecting true belief, given us in its entirety once and forever? Canon 2316 (1918 Code): A person who of his own accord and knowingly helps in any manner to propagate heresy, or who communicates in sacred rites with heretics in violation of the prohibition of Canon 1258, incurs suspicion of heresy. Augustin’s A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol VIII, pp. 287-8: “There is little doubt that our text includes all these, provided, of course, they act of their own accord and knowingly. Hence a) Credentes are such as externally profess the errors of heretics, e.g., by asserting that Luther or Döllinger were correct in their views, even though they may not know the particular errors of these leaders...... c) Fautores are such as favor heretics because of their heresy, by omitting to denounce them when required or demanded by their office, or by giving support to non-Catholic propaganda...... ”

Catholic Herald, June 26, 1988: “The Lutheran Church voted to end a major 400 year doctrinal controversy with Rome last week. The 124 member churches of the Lutheran World Federation voted overwhelmingly in favour of withdrawing its condemnation of the Catholic doctrine of justification by faith. The dispute, which inspired the Reformation, began in 15??, when Martin Luther criticized the Catholic Church for teaching ‘salvation by works.’ Luther argued that Scripture taught salvation by faith alone (sola fide). Over the next four centuries the Lutheran and Catholic Churches exchanged condemnations of their respective doctrines. But in 1993 the LWF began to cooperate with the Vatican to produce a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. The declaration, finished in February 1997, stated that a consensus on the doctrine of justification had been reached. It said: ‘The Lutheran and Catholic explications of justification are, in their difference, open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding basic truths.’ ” London Times, June 27: “Cardinal Edward Cassidy, chairman of the for Christian unity, said ..... ‘The consensus will be of importance not only for Catholic-Lutheran relations and future dialogue, but also for progress in the search for unity’ [they no longer search even for truth, Vatican II-style.] ‘between Catholics and other communities coming out of the Reformation controversies...... where such consensus has been reached, the condemnations levelled at one another in the 16th century no longer apply to the respective partner today. We cannot, of course, erase these condemnations from history. We can, however, now state that in so far as a consensus on the understanding

268 of basic truths articulated in the joint declaration has been achieved, the corresponding condemnations found in the Lutheran Confessions and in the Council of Trent no longer apply.’ ..... However, Lutherans grouped in the rival International Lutheran Council have opposed the decision as against Lutheran tradition.” [Some days comment is superfluous.] This covers the credentes. Now for the fautores, who support non-Catholic propaganda by apologies to our most pertinacious, successful persecutors right from our beginnings, for our fancied crimes against them. Is it not satisfying that this garrulous, apologetic apostate has incurred suspicion of heresy? Aquinas Academy Christian Growth Programme Nothing in this world has ever been as studiously examined or accurately defined as Catholic doctrine and morals. This follows from the Church’s mandate from Jesus Christ Himself to teach all nations His complete message. (He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. – Mark 16:16) No one can be condemned for not believing something indefinite. This Growth programme is based not on a definite, complete revelation taught in our crystal-clear traditional terms and methods, but rather on new sciences and behaviorisms which surround us with characteristic fog. It first associates itself with St. Thomas but, it seems, merely to drop his name. All other quoted “experts” are secular, or “theologians” of this century. Psychiatry—pseudo-science based on personal problems of its sex-obsessed inventor, Sigmund Freud. Jack Dominian excels at fictional problems and pejorative phrases. Children raised on natural behavior will learn nothing of the rights of others, and will sooner or later “outgrow” parental and civic authority. Children whose parents exercise no control will either become uncontrollable or fall under control of outsiders whose motives will ordinarily lack normal parental love and concern. This is the experience of the race, well known before the advent of the pseudo-scientist who makes an unconscionably good living from abnormality. Self-esteem is often the product of abysmal ignorance. Excessive or unmerited self-esteem fills the jails. Mark 12:29, 30. And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment. It would seem, then, that we must love God first, in every respect—even chronologically. Children must be trained in His love. There is some modern notion that one cannot love before the age of reason. We can’t love our parents until we can parse, analyse, and define love in its many forms and facets. I Cor. 2:9. But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard: neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him. Matthew 18:3, 4. And said: amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

269 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. This Growth Programme recalls a seminar conducted by the Passionists in which we were pointed toward an adult-to-adult relationship with God!—rather like an adult amoeba to an adult blue whale. John 14:15. If you love me, keep my commandments. But the Growth Programme contrives to discount sin almost completely. It flatters our untrained mental powers through the Freudian-Teilhardian mist at last into the clear darkness of Vatican II heresies. Vatican II (Religious Freedom, 2): .... the human person has a right to religious freedom .... all men are to be immune from coercion .... in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, .... alone or in association .... within due limits. .... right .... has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, .... known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right .... is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right. This clearly contradicts Pope Pius IX (Quanta Cura, Dec. 8, 1864): .... from this wholly false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, called by .... Gregory XVI insanity; namely, that “liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed.... by law in every correctly established society ....” The Second Vatican Council establishes man’s legal right to damnation. This Declaration has granted nothing whatsoever to Catholics. “All men” somehow excludes us, as we discovered immediately when requesting access to our traditional rights and rites under Article 2. These “rights” are granted only to those for whom the Church has never legislated—non-Catholics and anti- Catholics. We are discriminated against in favor of God’s enemies. (He that is not with Me is against Me.—Luke xi, 23) “The rights of the true religion are based, not only on merely natural rights, but also, and to a much greater degree, on the rights which flow from revelation,” said Cardinal Ottaviani in opposition to this Declaration. These new “rights” flow rather from freemasonry, not from revelation, are not part of revelation, and therefore cannot be dogmatically defined, as was Quanta Cura. Rephrasing the heresy has not changed the concept. Human dignity is based on divine creation and redemption, neither of which is new. If freedom of action is essential to human dignity, why did the Apostles not campaign to abolish slavery in the Roman Empire? Treating Conscience and Church Authority, GP abets revolt against papal official teaching by the Australian Episcopal Conference, September 1974, while almost concealing the issue, contraception. Furthermore, Paul VI allowed the conference to get away with it, despite the papal duty to enforce agreement.

270 GP then unequivocally stated: “The Church has never claimed to speak infallibly on a moral question.” Everyone knows better than that! Vatican I: “The Holy Ghost has promised the successors of Peter, not that they may disclose new doctrine by His revelation, but that they may, with His assistance, preserve conscientiously and expound faithfully the revelation transmitted through the Apostles, the deposit of Faith. ....we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when exercising his office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals which is to be held by the universal Church— thanks to the divine assistance promised to Blessed Peter, he enjoys that infallibility which the divine Redeemer wished to confer on His Church for the definition of doctrines of faith or morals; and therefore the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are, by themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church, irreformable.” (Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870) The Papacy, Wladimir d’Ormesson (Hawthorn, 1957): “Papal infallibility embraces the whole of divine revelation, but it is confined to that revelation. The pope can impose nothing beyond what forms part of the deposit of revelation. His mission is to profess it, to teach it, to maintain it, and to preserve it. He has an immense task of conservation and exposition. It is not for him to establish new doctrine. The revelation is complete. .... A pope can pronounce only in the name of and for the universal Church. .... The pope knows .... that he is in full agreement with the successors of the apostles. .... he expresses and, so to speak, sums up their wishes. The principle of unity is manifested thereby in all its fullness and all its power. They are One. .... “Beyond these boundaries it is clear that the pope cannot exercise his infallibility. It is no less clear that this infallibility can and must be exercised throughout the whole area contained within these boundaries. .... the primary object of the papal Magisterium is the deposit of faith. In the implicit as well as the explicit sense, this deposit embraces doctrines concerning the mysteries and dogmas; practical laws concerning natural and supernatural morality; the means of sanctification established by Christ, the sacraments above all; the constitution of the Church; liturgical and juridical order.” Growth Programme Summary quotes Gaudium et Spes (Church in the Modern World—Vatican II) contrary to all ages of Catholic teaching (16): “Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth,” rather than differentiated by its possession, and by our duty of propagation. Let Growth Programme teach us when it finds the truth! Meanwhile it may return the tuition money— obviously obtained under false pretenses while “moral theology addresses itself to these and similar questions.” Anyone who has attained the use of reason is capable of mortal sin, which is a knowing, deliberate, grievous offense against God. Whatever the relative merits of psychiatry, psychology, spirituality, or self- esteem, they are not religion. They have no consistent message, no certainty, no law. They provide no anchor. Growth Programme in teaching this defective alternate conveys the impression that it is renewal of, rather than substitute for, 271 religious instruction. Presented under the aegis of Aquinas Academy, formerly an outstanding proponent of Catholic philosophy and theology, this Programme will surely convince most people that Catholicism is not worth their investigation. We owe this deliberate subversion to Vatican II—and its popes. Thoughts on our Mass The Mass is the unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross. Every true Mass is the re- presentation of Calvary. Without Cross and Calvary it has no merit. We speak of it as an eternal sacrifice because it is outside time. Yet at one time it was in the future. The only event essentially united with it as to come was the Last Supper. It is called also the First Mass, though celebrated in advance of the literal sacrifice the next day. It was the mystical separation of our Lord Jesus Christ’s blood from His body, and signified His sacrificial death to come. It was part of the action, and was intended to spell out the purpose of the immolation which would complete it. Jesus Christ intended that His blood be spilled out of His Body the next day, in the future, as an essential part of His present sacrifice. To express this in either present or future tense is, therefore, permissible, and involves no change of meaning. [Englmann’s Latin Grammar, page 282: Note.—In English the present tense is frequently used though futurity is implied; the Latin language more accurately uses the future.] Reports of the consecration in the synoptic Gospels do not agree. Please waste no time on their authority; these are reports by three men, two of whom were not present. St. Paul describes the meaning in yet another verbal variation, but neither was he present. St. John, in presenting the lengthiest account of the Last Supper, never mentioned these words. Why duplicate? All these reports were written years later for people who had assisted at Mass in their own language for years, and therefore knew what the celebrant said to consecrate. None of these reports were Mass. Nor can anyone tell us in what language Christ said these words. What we have been taught is that we consecrate with Christ’s own words (or else there is no consecration) subject to translation. Mass came first, Gospels later. How the Gospels report it is accurate in meaning, but not in verbal expression—or they would agree. The Catechism of the Council of Trent recognized this in saying (backwards) that the words were taken, some from Mark and some from Luke. Indeed the change in the Vulgate may have been made to agree with the Mass. Innocent III documented the Roman Mass in the twelfth century, as stated in Is The Pope Catholic? and in The Enemy Is Here! I made quite an issue of the novus ordo missae “correcting” errors which had crept into the “Tridentine” Mass, guaranteed unchanged in seven centuries. Pope St. Pius V had been Inquisitor-General for the whole Church, the authority of his age on heresy and orthodoxy. His Quo primum tempore permitted the use of all rites 200 years old or older. He himself had used the . He also saved the Mozarabic and the Ambrosian rites. All three use the same Roman consecration, though the Mozarabic is said (The Catholic

272 Encyclopedia) to have conformed to the Roman in 924 A.D. I have checked the words of consecration in a Sarum Missal, and found them identical. Whatever the Vulgate said, whenever it was changed, the present words were already in the Mass, and had been for centuries. There is absolutely no reason to believe that anyone would or could have changed them. The fact that rites differ is not evidence that they do not derive directly from the Apostles. Consequently it is not evidence of their invalidity. No doubt some are, but we need other arguments to prove it. Translation is for the purpose of conveying the meaning in one language in words conveying the same meaning in another. Infallibility is for the purpose of preserving the Apostolic faith. Infallibility is a necessity for a religion. A religion without it is false. When Christ sent His Apostles to preach, and placed the supreme penalty on refusal to believe, it was absolutely necessary that they preach the truth; no one can be condemned for refusal to believe error. All the Apostles, therefore, had personal infallibility. But St. John, after the death of St. Peter, deferred to St. Peter’s successors. A standard was and is necessary, and Jesus Christ had said that upon Peter He would found His Church. Every age has referred doctrinal problems to the pope. Infallibility of the pope was and is necessary, not for the pope, but for the doctrine. Definition did nothing but define its limits. Accusations of past popes for heresy may concern occasions which don’t fit within those limits. They may be due to insufficient information. Or they may have simply excommunicated the pope involved, as in the cases of the last four, had they been eligible for the papacy. If no pope has been infallible through the centuries, all popes who accepted papal infallibility since its definition were heretics (on whose word?) for accepting it. We must turn over every rock in history to see when the Church went wrong. We have nothing for which to fight, nothing whatever which we can believe without risk of damnation. In following such a course we refuse to believe Jesus Christ Who promised to be with His Church all days that it would preach His Gospel, and are therefore damned. So —which way shall we be damned? Thoughts on Laetare Sunday After our Mass prayers, some one asked had we noticed how the divinely inspired Epistle contradicted the sycophancy from Rome, and how the , an official prayer of the Church, suggested an attitude opposed to liturgical change? Epistle, Mass, Laetare Sunday (St. Paul to Galatians, iv, 22-31) For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from Mount Sina, engendering unto bondage, which is Agar. For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is: and is in bondage with her

273 children. But that Jerusalem which is above is free: which is our mother. For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit: so also it is now. But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free. St. Paul, having persecuted the Church, knew very well who persecuted whom. He knew that the Jews, far from being “our elder brothers in the faith,” were the first group of any size to refuse to believe God, deliberately and in certain knowledge of Christ’s Resurrection. He knew that they had anticipated the Resurrection, and by attempting to guard against it had provided witnesses who were then bribed to witness instead to what had happened while they slept on guard duty. St. Paul knew who persecuted him when he was in a minority, and roused the Romans against him. He knew who should apologize to whom. Did he not write (I Thess. ii, 14-16) these inspired words? For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews: who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end. Haydock Bible comment: “The Jews filled up the measure of their iniquities by the opposition they every where manifested to the religion of Christ. The earliest Fathers of the Church testify that they dispersed people into every nation to blaspheme the name of Christ; and hence sprang the evil fame which Christians bore among the pagans. See the apologies of S. Justin, Tertullian, Origen, etc.

Postcommunion, Mass, Laetare Sunday: Grant us, we beseech Thee, O merciful God, that we may treat with unfeigned veneration and ever receive with heartfelt faith Thy holy rites which we constantly celebrate. Through our Lord, etc. Laetare, as we all knew, is the first word in the day’s , and means rejoice. Let traditional Catholics follow the liturgical instruction, and rejoice in liturgical support. * * * * * *

Let us then cultivate with the most jealous care a fervent devotion to the Church. Love of the Church was part, and a great part of the of

274 Jesus. The Jansenists, who made so light of the maternal authority of the Church, turned away with instinctive displeasure from the devotion to the Sacred Heart. We must look at the Church habitually as the sole ark in the deluge of the world, the sole mistress of salvation. We do not bind God further than He has been pleased to bind Himself. We do not limit the far-reaching excesses of His mercy. But we must remember that His ordinary law is, that there is no salvation whatever outside the Roman Church. It is His ordinary institution that no accurate beliefs, no right sympathies, no generous views, no near approaches, no sensible devotions, no felt actual graces, will make a man a living member of Jesus Christ, without communion with the Holy See. We must be jealous of the uncompromising simplicity of this old-fashioned doctrine. We must be suspicious of all the fine words, and specious theories, and ingenious abatements, which the spirit of the day would suggest. We must be misled by no circumstances of time or place, by no prevalence of heresy, by no arguments drawn from consequences, which are the affair of God’s government of the world, not ours. The sins of men cannot change the truth of God. They are at His mercy, not He at theirs. In the days of antichrist, when two-thirds even of the faithful shall fall away from the Church, their apostasy will not make it less the exclusive mistress of salvation. – The Precious Blood, Frederick William Faber On the Incarnation – St. Athanasius consider also the Word’s becoming Man and His divine Appearing in our midst. That mystery the Jews traduce, For the law was not given only for the Jews, nor was it solely for their sake that God sent the prophets, though it was to the Jews that they were sent and by the Jews that they were persecuted.

Chapter IV – The Death of Christ (22) Someone else might say, perhaps, that it would have been better for the Lord to have avoided the designs of the Jews against Him, and so to have guarded His body from death altogether. Just as it would not have been fitting for Him to give His body to death by His own hand, being Word and being Life, so also it was not consonant with Himself that He should avoid the death inflicted by others. Rather, He pursued it to the uttermost, and in pursuance of His nature neither laid aside His body of His own accord nor escaped the plotting Jews. And this action showed no limitation or weakness in the Word; for He both waited for death in order to make an end of it, and hastened to accomplish it as an offering on behalf of all. Chapter VI – Refutation of the Jews First, then, we will consider the Jews. Their unbelief has its refutation in the Scriptures which even themselves read; for from cover to cover the inspired Book clearly teaches these things both in its entirety and in its actual words. Prophets foretold the marvel of the Virgin and of the Birth from her, saying, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name ‘Emmanuel,’ which means ‘God is with us.’”[1] And Moses, that truly great

275 one in whose word the Jews trust so implicitly, he also recognized the importance and truth of the matter. He puts it thus: “There shall arise a star from Jacob and a man from Israel, and he shall break in pieces the rulers of Moab.[2] And, again, “How lovely are thy dwellings, O Jacob, thy tents, O Israel! Like woodland valleys they give shade, and like parks by rivers, like tents which the Lord has pitched, like cedar-trees by streams. There shall come forth a Man from among his seed, and he shall rule over many peoples.”[3] And, again, Isaiah says, “Before the Babe shall be old enough to call father or mother, he shall take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria from under the eyes of the king of Assyria.”[4] These words, then, foretell that a Man shall appear. And Scripture proclaims further that He that is to come is Lord of all. These are the words, “Behold, the Lord sitteth on an airy cloud and shall come into Egypt, and the man-made images of Egypt shall be shaken.”[5] And it is from Egypt also that the Father calls him back, saying, “Out of Egypt have I called My Son.”[6] (34) Moreover, the Scriptures are not silent even about His death. On the contrary, they refer to it with the utmost clearness. They have not feared to speak also of the cause of it. He endures it, they say, not for His own sake, but for the sake of bringing immortality and salvation to all, and they record also the plotting of the Jews against Him and all the indignities which He suffered at their hands. Certainly nobody who reads the Scriptures can plead ignorance of the facts as an excuse for error! There is this passage, for instance: “A man that is afflicted and knows how to bear weakness, for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and not considered, He bears our sins and suffers for our sakes. And we for our part thought Him distressed and afflicted and ill-used; but it was for our sins that He was wounded and for our lawlessness that He was made weak. Chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His bruising we are healed.”[7] O marvel at the love of the Word for men, for it is on our account that He is dishonored, so that we may be brought to honor. “For all we,” it goes on, “have strayed like sheep, man has strayed from his path, and the Lord has given Him up for our sins; and He Himself did not open His mouth at the ill- treatment. Like a sheep He was led to slaughter, and as a lamb is dumb before its shearer, so He opened not His mouth; in His humiliation His judgment was taken away.”[8] And then Scripture anticipates the surmises of any who might think from His suffering thus that He was just an ordinary man, and shows what power worked in His behalf. “Who shall declare of what lineage He comes?” it says, “for His life is exalted from the earth. By the lawlessnesses of the people was He brought to death, and I will give the wicked in return for His burial and the rich in return for His death. For He did no lawlessness, neither was deceit found in His mouth. And the Lord wills to heal Him of His affliction.”[9] (35) You have heard the prophecy of His death, and now, perhaps, you want to know what indications there are about the cross. Even this is not passed over in silence: on the contrary, the sacred writers proclaim it with the utmost plainness. Moses foretells it first, and that right loudly, when he says, “You shall see your Life hanging before your eyes, and shall not believe.”[10] After him the prophets also give their witness, saying, “But I as an innocent lamb brought to be offered was yet ignorant of it. They plotted evil against Me, saying, ‘Come, 276 let us cast wood into His bread, and wipe Him out from the land of the living.”[11] And, again, “They pierced My hands and My feet, they counted all My bones, they divided My garments for themselves and cast lots for My clothing.”[12] Now a death lifted up and that takes place on wood can be none other than the death of the cross; moreover, it is only in that death that the hands and feet are pierced. Besides this, since the Savior dwelt among men, all nations everywhere have begun to know God; and this too Holy Writ expressly mentions. “There shall be the Root of Jesse,” it says, “and he who rises up to rule the nations, on Him nations shall set their hope.”[13] These are just a few things in proof of what has taken place; but indeed all Scripture teems with disproof of Jewish unbelief. For example, which of the righteous men and holy prophets and patriarchs of whom the Divine Scriptures tell ever had his bodily birth from a virgin only? Was not Abel born of Adam, Enoch of Jared, Noah of Lamech, Abraham of Terah, Isaac of Abraham, and Jacob of Isaac? Was not Judah begotten by Jacob and Moses and Aaron by Ameram? Was not Samuel the son of Elkanah, David of Jesse, Solomon of David, Hezekiah of Ahaz, Josiah of Amon, Isaiah of Amos, Jeremiah of Hilkiah and Ezekiel of Buzi? Had not each of these a father as author of his being? So who is He that is born of a virgin only, that sign of which the prophet makes so much? Again, which of all those people had his birth announced to the world by a star in the heavens? When Moses was born his parents hid him. David was unknown even in his own neighborhood, so that mighty Samuel himself was ignorant of his existence and asked whether Jesse had yet another son. Abraham again became known to his neighbors as a great man only after his birth. But with Christ it was otherwise. The witness to His birth was not man, but a star shining in the heavens whence He was coming down. (36) Then, again, what king that ever was reigned and took trophies from his enemies before he had strength to call father or mother? Was not David thirty years old when he came to the throne and Solomon a grown young man? Did not Joash enter on his reign at the age of seven, and Josiah, some time after him, at about the same age, both of them fully able by that time to call father or mother? Who is there, then, that was reigning and despoiling his enemies almost before he was born? Let the Jews, who have investigated the matter, tell us if there was ever such a king in Israel or Judah—a king upon whom all the nations set their hopes and had peace, instead of being at enmity with him on every side! As long as Jerusalem stood there was constant war between them, and they all fought against Israel. The Assyrians oppressed Israel, the Egyptians persecuted them, the Babylonians fell upon them, and, strange to relate, even the Syrians their neighbors were at war with them. And did not David fight with Moab and smite the Syrians, and Hezekiah quail at the boasting of Sennacherib? Did not Amalek make war on Moses and the Amorites oppose him, and did not the inhabitants of Jericho array themselves against Joshua the son of Nun? Did not the nations always regard Israel with implacable hostility? Then it is worth inquiring who it is, on whom the nations are to set their hopes.

277 Obviously there must be someone, for the prophet could not have told a lie. But did any of the holy prophets or of the early patriarchs die on the cross for the salvation of all? Was any of them wounded and killed for the healing of all? Did the idols of Egypt fall down before any righteous man or king that came there? Abraham came there certainly, but idolatry prevailed just the same; and Moses was born there, but the mistaken worship was unchanged. (37) Again, does Scripture tell of anyone who was pierced in hands and feet or hung upon a tree at all, and by means of a cross perfected his sacrifice for the salvation of all? It was not Abraham, for he died in his bed, as did also Isaac and Jacob. Moses and Aaron died in the mountain, and David ended his days in his house, without anybody having plotted against him. Certainly he had been sought by Saul, but he was preserved unharmed. Again Isaiah was sawn asunder, but he was not hung on a tree. Jeremiah was shamefully used, but he did not die under condemnation. Ezekiel suffered, but he did so, not on behalf of the people, but only to signify to them what was going to happen. Moreover, all these even when they suffered were but men, like other men; but He Whom the Scriptures declare to suffer on behalf of all is called not merely man but Life of all, although in point of fact He did share our human nature. “You shall see your Life hanging before your eyes,” they say, and “Who shall declare of what lineage He comes?” With all the saints we can trace their descent from the beginning, and see exactly how each came to be; but the Divine Word maintains that we cannot declare the lineage of Him Who is the Life. Who is it, then, of Whom Holy Writ thus speaks? Who is there so great that even the prophets foretell of Him such mighty things? There is indeed no one in the Scriptures at all, save the common Savior of all, the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ. He it is that proceeded from a virgin, and appeared as man on earth, He it is Whose earthly lineage cannot be declared, because He alone derives His body from no human father, but from a virgin alone. We can trace the paternal descent of David and Moses and of all the patriarchs. But with the Savior we cannot do so, for it was He Himself Who caused the star to announce His bodily birth, and it was fitting that the Word, when He came down from heaven, should have His sign in heaven too, and fitting that the King of creation on His coming forth should be visibly recognized by all the world. He was actually born in Judea, yet men from Persia came to worship Him. He it is Who won victory from His demon foes and trophies from the idolaters even before His bodily appearing—namely, all the heathen who from every region have abjured the tradition of their fathers and the false worship of idols and are now placing their hope in Christ and transferring their allegiance to Him. The thing is happening before our very eyes, here in Egypt; and thereby another prophecy is fulfilled, for at no other time have the Egyptians ceased from their false worship save when the Lord of all, riding as on a cloud, came down here in the body and brought the error of idols to nothing and won over everybody to Himself and through Himself to the Father. He it is Who was crucified with the sun and moon as witnesses; and by His death salvation has come to all men, and all creation has been redeemed. He is the Life of all, and He it is Who like a sheep gave up His own body to death, His life for ours and our salvation.

278 (38) Yet the Jews disbelieve this. This argument does not satisfy them. Well, then, let them be persuaded by other things in their own oracles. Of whom, for instance, do the prophets say “I was made manifest to those who did not seek Me, I was found by those who had not asked for Me? I said, ‘See, here am I,’ to the nation that had not called upon My Name. I stretched out My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people.”[14] Who is this person that was made manifest, one might ask the Jews? If the prophet is speaking of himself, then they must tell us how he was first hidden, in order to be manifested afterwards. And, again, what kind of man is this prophet, who was not only revealed after being hidden, but also stretched out his hands upon the cross? Those things happened to none of those righteous men: they happened only to the Word of God Who, being by nature without body, on our account appeared in a body and suffered for us all. And if even this is not enough for them, there is other overwhelming evidence by which they may be silenced. The Scripture says, “Be strong, hands that hang down and feeble knees, take courage, you of little faith, be strong and do not fear. See, our God will recompense judgment, He Himself will come and save us. Then the eyes of blind men shall be opened and the ears of deaf men shall hear, and stammerers shall speak distinctly.”[15] What can they say to this, or how can they look it in the face at all? For the prophecy does not only declare that God will dwell here, it also makes known the signs and the time of His coming. When God comes, it says, the blind will see, the lame will walk, the deaf will hear and the stammerers will speak distinctly. Can the Jews tell us when such signs occurred in Israel, or when anything of the kind took place at all in Jewry? The leper Naaman was cleansed, it is true, but no deaf man heard nor did any lame man walk. Elijah raised a dead person and so did Elisha; but no one blind from birth received his sight. To raise a dead person is a great thing indeed, but it is not such as the Savior did. And surely, since the Scriptures have not kept silence about the leper and the dead son of the widow, if a lame man had walked and a blind man had received his sight, they would have mentioned these as well. Their silence on these points proves that the events never took place. When therefore did these things happen, unless when the Word of God Himself came in the body? Was it not when He came that lame men walked and stammerers spoke clearly and men blind from birth were given sight? And the Jews who saw it themselves testified to the fact that such things had never before occurred. “Since the world began,” they said, “it has never been heard of that anyone should open the eyes of a man born blind. If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing.”[16] (39) But surely they cannot fight against plain facts. So it may be that, without denying what is written, they will maintain that they are still waiting for these things to happen, and that the Word of God is yet to come, for that is a theme on which they are always harping most brazenly, in spite of all the evidence against them. But they shall be refuted on this supreme point more clearly than on any, and that not by ourselves but by the most wise Daniel, for he signifies the actual date of the Savior’s coming as well as His Divine sojourn in our midst. “Seventy weeks,” he says, “are cut short upon thy people and upon the holy city, to make a complete end of sin and for sins to be sealed up and iniquities blotted out, and to make reconciliation for iniquity and to seal vision and

279 prophet, and to anoint a Holy One of holies. And thou shalt know and understand from the going forth of the Word to answer,[17] and to build Jerusalem, until Christ the Prince.”[18] In regard to the other prophecies, they may possibly be able to find excuses for deferring their reference to a future time, but what can they say to this one? How can they face it at all? Not only does it expressly mention the Anointed One, that is the Christ, it even declares that He Who is to be anointed is not man only, but the Holy One of holies! And it says that Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and that after it prophet and vision shall cease in Israel! David was anointed of old, and Solomon, and Hezekiah; but then Jerusalem and the place stood, and prophets were prophesying, Gad and Asaph and Nathan, and later Isaiah and Hosea and Amos and others. Moreover, those men who were anointed were called holy certainly, but none of them was called the Holy of holies. Nor is it any use for the Jews to take refuge in the Captivity, and say that Jerusalem did not exist then, for what about the prophets? It is a fact that at the outset of the Exile Daniel and Jeremiah were there, and Ezekiel and Haggai and Zechariah also prophesied. (40) So the Jews are indulging in fiction, and transferring present time to future. When did prophet and vision cease from Israel? Was it not when Christ came, the Holy One of holies? It is, in fact, a sign and notable proof of the coming of the Word that Jerusalem no longer stands, neither is prophet raised up nor vision revealed among them. And it is natural that it should be so, for when He that was signified had come, what need was there any longer of any to signify Him? And when the Truth had come, what further need was there of the shadow? On His account only they prophesied continually, until such time as Essential Righteousness has come, Who was made the Ransom for the sins of all. For the same reason Jerusalem stood until the same time, in order that there men might premeditate the types before the Truth was known. So, of course, once the Holy One of holies had come, both vision and prophecy were sealed. And the ceased at the same time, because kings were to be anointed among them only until the Holy of holies had been anointed. Moses also prophesies that the kingdom of the Jews shall stand until His time, saying, “A ruler shall not fail from Judah nor a prince from his loins, until the things laid up for him shall come and the Expectation of the nations Himself.”[19] And that is why the Savior Himself was always proclaiming “The law and the prophets prophesied until John.”[20] So if there is still king or prophet or vision among the Jews, they do well to deny that Christ is come; but if there is neither king nor vision, and since that time all prophecy has been sealed and city and temple taken, how can they be so irreligious, how can they so flaunt the facts, as to deny Christ Who has brought it all about? Again, they see the heathen forsaking idols and setting their hopes through Christ on the God of Israel; why do they yet deny Christ Who after the flesh was born of the root of Jesse and reigns henceforward? Of course, if the heathen were worshipping some other god, and not confessing the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Moses, then they would do well to argue that God had not come. But if the heathen are honoring the same God Who gave the law to Moses and the promises to Abraham—the God Whose word too the Jews dishonored, why do they not recognize or rather why do they deliberately refuse to see that the Lord of 280 Whom the Scriptures prophesied has shone forth to the world and appeared to it in a bodily form? Scripture declares it repeatedly. “The Lord God has appeared to us,”[21] and again, “He sent forth His Word and healed them.”[22] And again, “It was no ambassador, no angel who saved us, but the Lord Himself.”[23] The Jews are afflicted like some demented person who sees the earth lit up by the sun, but denies the sun that lights it up! What more is there for their Expected One to do when he comes? To call the heathen? But they are called already. To put an end to prophet and king and vision? But this too has already happened. To expose the God-denyingness of idols? It is already exposed and condemned. Or to destroy death? It is already destroyed. What then has not come to pass that the Christ must do? What is there left out or unfulfilled that the Jews should disbelieve so light-heartedly? The plain fact is, as I say, that there is no longer any king or prophet nor Jerusalem nor sacrifice nor vision among them; yet the whole earth is filled with the knowledge of God, and the Gentiles, forsaking atheism, are now taking refuge with the God of Abraham through the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. Surely, then, it must be plain even to the most shameless that the Christ has come, and that He has enlightened all men everywhere, and given them the true and divine teaching about His Father. Thus the Jews may be refuted by these and other arguments from the Divine teaching.

ENDNOTES 1. Isaiah vii. 14. 9. Isaiah liii. 8-10. 17. “Answer” is LXX 2. Numbers xxiv. 17. 10. Deut. xxviii. 66. misreading for Hebrew 3. Numbers xxiv. 5-7. 11. Jer. xi. 19. “restore.” 4. Isaiah viii. 4 12. Psalm xxii. 16-18. 18. Daniel ix. 24, 25. 5. Isaiah xix. 1. 13. Isaiah xi. 10. 19. Gen. xlix. 10. 6. Hosea xi. 1. 14. Isaiah lxv. 1, 2. 20. Matt. xi. 13. 7. Isaiah liii. 3-5 15. Isaiah xxxv. 3-6. 21. Psalm cxviii. 27. 8. Isaiah liii. 6-8. 16. John ix. 32, 33. 22. Psalm cvii. 20. 23. Isaiah lxiii. 9.

281

St. Cyprian – Jealousy and Envy Chapter V consider the destruction of a people that perished once and for all. Did not the Jews perish on this account, since they preferred to envy rather than to believe in Christ? Disparaging the great things that He did, they were deceived by a blinding jealousy and they were unable to open the eyes of their hearts so as to recognize His divine works.

St. Cyprian – The Lord’s Prayer Chapter X this voice also reproaches and condemns the Jews, because they not only faithlessly spurned Christ who had been announced to them through the Prophets and had been first sent to them, but also cruelly slew Him; who now cannot call the Lord father, since the Lord confounds and refutes them, saying: ‘You are born of the devil as father, and you wish to do the desires of your Father. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because the truth is not in him.’ And through Isaias the prophet God exclaims with indignation: ‘I have begotten and brought up sons, but they have despised me. The ox knows his owner, and the ass the crib of his master, but Israel has not known me, and my people has not understood. Woe to the sinful nation, to a people laden with iniquity, a wicked seed, ungracious children. They have forsaken the Lord and have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel.’ And in condemnation of these we Christians say, when we pray, ‘Our Father,’ because He now has begun to be ours and has ceased to be of the Jews, who have forsaken Him. St. Cyprian – That Idols Are Not Gods Chapter XI favor which the Jews had lost by contemning their religious principles, after having received it. Chapter XII The Jews too knew that Christ would come, for He was always being announced to them by the admonishment of the prophets. But since His advent was signified as twofold, the one which would perform the office and example of man, the other which would confess God, not understanding the first advent which preceded hidden in the passion, they believe only the one which will be manifest in His power. Moreover, that the people of the Jews were unable to understand this was the desert of their sins; they were so punished for the blindness of wisdom and intelligence, that those who were unworthy of life had life before their eyes and saw it not. Chapter XIII So when Christ Jesus according to the former predictions of the prophets by His word and the command of His voice drove demons out of man, released paralytics, cleansed the leprous, illuminated the blind, gave the power to walk to the halt, brought life back to the dead, compelled the elements to be servants unto Him, the winds to serve Him, the seas to obey Him, those of the lower regions to yield to Him, the Jews who had believed Him only a man from the

282 humility of His flesh and body, thought Him a sorcerer from the freedom of His power. Hence their masters and leaders, that is those whom He surpassed in teaching and wisdom were so inflamed with anger and roused with indignation that they finally seized Him and handed Him over to Pontius Pilate who at that time was procurator of Syria for the Romans, and demanded His crucifixion and death by violent and stubborn approbations.

St. Ignatius – Martyrdom of Polycarp: sent his herald into the midst of the arena to announce three times: “Polycarp has confessed that he is a Christian.” 12:2 When this had been said by the herald, all the multitude of heathen and Jews living in Smyrna cried out with uncontrollable wrath and a loud shout: “This is the teacher of , the father of the Christians, the destroyer of our Gods, who teaches many neither to offer sacrifice nor to worship.” And when they said this, they cried out and asked Philip the Asiarch to let loose a lion on Polycarp. But he said he could not legally do this, since he had closed the Sports. 12:3 Then they found it good to cry out with one mind that he should burn Polycarp alive, the crowd came together immediately, and prepared wood and faggots from the work-shops and baths and the Jews were extremely zealous, as is their custom, in assisting at this. 17:2 Therefore he put forward Niketas, the father of Herod, and the brother of Alce, to ask the Governor not to give his body, “Lest,” he said, “they leave the crucified one and begin to worship this man.” And they said this owing to the suggestions and pressure of the Jews, who also watched when we were going to take it from the fire, 18:1 When therefore the centurion saw the contentiousness caused by the Jews, he put the body in the midst, as was their custom, and burnt it. Tertullian, Apparel: Do we not read that every word of Scripture useful for edification is divinely inspired? As you very well know, it was afterwards rejected by the Jews for the same reason that prompted them to reject almost all the other portions which prophesied about Christ. Now, it is not at all surprising that they refused to accept certain Scriptures which spoke of Him when they were destined not to receive Him when He spoke to them Himself. To all that we may add the fact that we have; a testimony to Henoch in the Epistle of Jude the Apostle. Tertullian, Spectacles: (4) For, even though David seems to have praised that well-known just man, because he took no part in the gathering and meeting of the Jews deliberating on the killing of the Lord, divine Scripture admits always a broader interpretation wherever a passage, after its actual sense has been exhausted, serves to strengthen discipline. So, in this case, too, the verse of David is not inapplicable to the prohibition of spectacles.

283 (5) For, if then he called a mere handful of Jews a gathering of the ungodly,’ how much more such a vast crowd of heathen people? Are the heathens less ungodly, less sinners, less the enemies of Christ than the Jews were then? St. Paul, I Thess.: 2:14-16. For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they have from the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men; Prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end.

Pell-mell to perdition The Melbourne archdiocese has gone this road since the maladministration of James Robert Knox. It is good to see its direction reconfirmed in the name itself of the current Arch-heretic. After Frank Little and his heretical Melbourne Guidelines, anyone at all could be only an improvement. George Pell? Among George’s accomplishments is appreciation of the right time, the opportune moment, to insist on some moral principle or practice currently flouted (as by abortion). The time to mention the Holy Eucharist is the misplaced . A column of that title, graced with George’s right profile and headed Archbishop Speaks, occupies half of page 2, Kairos Catholic Journal, 28 June - 5 July 1998: “From the time that Jesus told the crowds that he would give them His flesh to eat and His blood to drink, there has been controversy and division (Jn. Ch. 6). Many people could not accept this teaching then and left His group.” [This was admittedly Christ’s teaching, therefore binding on all Catholics.] “The differences remain today even within the Catholic community. A few teach that the Catholic Church has been mistaken for centuries, for the length of her history in teaching that Jesus is truly present in the consecrated hosts; that the bread becomes the Body of Christ. We should not be misled about truth.” [A positive statement! Many have taught that Christ was present in the bread by . (He was in the bread.) They were ejected for heresy, and a new word, transubstantiation, was coined in reaction to their heresies, to describe the fact that the substances of the bread and wine, as distinct from their appearances, are totally replaced by the substance of Jesus Christ’s body and blood. But George in his next paragraph introduces another utter irrelevancy, physical presence. This lends color to his entire mendacious, controversy- generative column. He can now raise another barrier to the Catholic faith in the Holy Eucharist under pretense that physical presence was at some stage, and even now, a rational consideration genuinely dividing Catholics. George is surely a theologian; theologians have created most problems.] “It is certainly true that Our Lord is not physically present; the wine is not turned into physical blood. Appearances do not change, contrary to the expectations of

284 some youngsters when they first hear Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.” [Until they correct these expectations they are not given the Holy Eucharist. What is George’s point?] “However” [a problem?], “the Church has solemnly defined that the Scriptural words: ‘This is my Body’ and ‘This is my Blood’ are to be taken literally” [but not physically]. “Our Lord is really” [but not physically] “present ‘Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity’ under the remaining appearances of bread and wine. “As St. Augustine preached to his people early in the fifth century in North Africa, ‘Dear people, that which you see on the Lord’s table is bread and wine. But when a word is added, that bread and wine become the Body and Blood of the Word.’ This is not an expression of common sense. Faith is needed to believe this.” [Against reason, or fact?] “We speak of the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the consecrated species. This is different from and superior to the presence of God in baptised individuals, in communities of believers, in a priest, in nature or even in the Scriptures. None of these are God or become God; although in a variety of ways they can be described as ‘godly.’ [Is this an episcopal instruction? Or a grade-school essay?] “God is much more than nature, which, while it exhibits God’s plan, is always unforgiving and often cruel. Floods, bushfires, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes often cause immense damage. Respect for the environment is only one small step towards worshipping the Transcendent God.” [Or towards nature-worship. Could George have been assigned a certain number of column inches to fill?] “All human beings are imperfect, condemned to death and decline and we are sinful too. God is obviously much more than any individual or collectivity. “The Scriptures are certainly inspired by the Holy Spirit; truly the Word of God.” [Word, capitalized, usually refers to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Is George confused? Is George trying to confuse us? Are the Second and Third Persons not merely equal but equivalent? Or is George merely unequal to grammar and expression?] “But they are human creations, which also contain historical and scientific errors or misunderstandings” [like Calvary and Creation?]. “God used the Scriptures to speak to us; they have a unique” [flawed] “authority. But the Scriptures are not Christ himself.” [Nor, says George, are they historically or scientifically reliable. More space filling? Or more deliberate distraction?] “Therefore, to receive the Body of Christ in communion requires faith and recognition that this is an immense privilege.” [Therefore? In consequence to what? Can true faith find bases in error or misunderstanding? Faith is that divine virtue by which we believe what God has revealed because He, Eternal Truth, has revealed it. The Sacred Scriptures were written by men in the languages and (often poetic) usages of their respective days, without regard for the scientific accuracy of universal human expressions. Such expressions have no tutorial purpose and are not errors. Presenters of such irrelevancies have one purpose — to shake our faith.]

285 Compendium of Catechetical Instruction, Hagan, Vol. II, p. 150: (The pastor) “will show that Christ our Lord is not present in this sacrament as in a place. Place relates to things only in so far as they have magnitude. Now, when we say that Christ our Lord is present in this sacrament, we do not assert that this has any reference to whether He is great or small—terms which concern quantity—but simply in His substance. For the substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christ—not into magnitude or quantity; while substance, as must be acknowledged by all, is contained just as much in a small as in a large space. For instance, the substance of air and its entire nature is necessarily as much in a small as in a large quantity of air, and in the same way the whole nature of water is no less entire in a tiny glass than in a great river. Since, then, the body of our Lord succeeds the substance of the bread, we must acknowledge that it is present in the sacrament after the same manner as the substance of the bread was before consecration—whether in a greater or lesser quantity is a matter of perfect indifference.” Jesus Christ is God. God is everywhere. George Pell will next explain that after reception of the Holy Eucharist we are not bigger than God.

The War Is Now! # 36 (out of sequence) NOPERY Canon Law rules that a public heretic loses all office and jurisdiction in the Catholic Church by the very fact of his heresy, and without any declaration. When we must search through a “pope’s” public pronouncements to distinguish orthodoxy from heresy, we are reduced to Protestantism = selective Catholicism. Catholics accept the whole Deposit of Faith on faith in God Who has revealed it. If we must pick and choose among a man’s religious pronouncements, that man is not Catholic and cannot, therefore, be pope, bishop, priest, or teacher in the Catholic Church. When in addition such men forbid undeniably true Catholic worship and sacraments, they far exceed their mandate and violate their oath to preserve what was preserved, even by law, for them, and are thus proven apostates, if indeed ever Catholic. If I acknowledge authority or competence of such men, I must obey them. If the new “mass” is genuine I have no legitimate reason except personal preference for adhering to the traditional Mass, if a pope whom I must obey and with whom I must maintain unity orders its suppression and replacement. When the current usurper creates a commission of cardinals to find the true Mass never legally forbidden, the fact that it was forbidden (In 1976 Paul VI stated in Conclave that he had forbidden it) is not altered. When he offers a choice of a near-traditional 1963 mass if I grant the validity of the novus ordo missae, a new rite incorporating Judaism, Arianism, Lutheranism, and apocatastasis, presided over at least half the time by a man who has undergone a new, invalid ordination, why must I accept such conditions for the Mass to which I have an absolute right, guaranteed by canon and liturgical law? What right have I to the traditional Mass if I grant validity to the new, idolatrous sacrilege or the “authority” behind it? I depose no one; but I must, in defense of my faith, point out the laws by which public heretics depose or exclude themselves. I am bound by the same laws,

286 and must neither acknowledge nor submit to such heretic “popes,” bishops, and priests. I must not choose points on which I can accept them; I must reject them totally. I can accept that they sometimes teach true doctrine, but if I must depend on them for its truth it must be new, therefore outside the Deposit of Faith. Easter, 1994 the papal usurper declared new truths in the interest of Judaism, the original heresy. A Cardinal addressed a small group at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem March 23, 1995 on anti-Semitism, a Catholic legacy for which we are all to do penance. In only 24 pages, which he could not forbear to waste on a mere hundred people in the Near East, and would impose as a booklet on his archdiocesan clergy so that they can belabor their parishioners, he condemned St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, the early Christians, and St. John’s Gospel, the inspired word of God, as origins of . With credentials like that, there could be something in it. Perhaps he was only trying to alert us to our antisemitic duty. Had he intended to adhere strictly to historical origins, he could have mentioned Abraham leaving his native heath to worship the true God, that he ran into persecutors, including a king who tried to steal his wife, that Jacob had a few encounters with non-Jews, and that all Hebrews were enslaved by a pharoah or two, and maltreated to the extent that they finally fled. Nebuchadnezzar hauled them off to Babylon for seventy years, and tried to force them to eat pork. They were invaded regularly, not least in the times of the Maccabees, as related in two books which they reject as Scripture, but to which they appeal as precedent. They considered themselves persecuted also by the Romans, and treated tax gatherers as traitors, and were smashed and scattered in 70 A.D. by the Roman army of Titus, before St. John wrote his Gospel. Was St. John trying to line up on the winning side? Or had he really seen the events which he reported, including the central fact of history, Christ’s crucifixion, death, and resurrection? Had Saul of Tarsus really held the coats of Jews who stoned St. Stephen to death. Was he really en route to Damascus to institute persecution of Christians there? After his conversion was he really informed on and complained against by local Jewish colonies everywhere? Bernardin accuses the Church of for centuries promoting anti-Judaic theology. He must know better. The Church preserved Old Testament theology, and was at first recruited largely from the Jewish people. Those still identifiable as Jews are those who rejected their own theology and its logical consequences, and eventually developed their own new Talmudic theology. And where their descendants have prevailed, as in medieval Spain or contemporary Russia, they have killed far more Christians than the number of Jews for which Hitler was given credit. When you consider that cremation of a body requires a litre of fuel and twenty minutes, and that Hitler used two million hours of cremation time and six million litres of fuel in his gas ovens (and that was just for the Jews), all those victims could make a great case for having defeated the German armies, most of which were immobilized when they ran out of fuel. Bernardin proposed that students at every level of Catholic education be taught about the Holocaust, that all students be educated about recent Church pronouncements against anti-Semitism, and that the Church’s liturgy and

287 Scripture, particularly its Holy Week liturgy, be purged of texts which “can serve to reinforce classical stereotypes of Jews and Judaism if not interpreted carefully.” The Passion is read four times in Holy Week, once from each Gospel. God’s inspired word is to be censored. If this can be done, what authority has the Bible? Can we maintain its truth? We have Tradition, but what will happen to Protestantism? I was forced to remove several children from “Catholic” schools; they were taught nonsense in lieu of religious instruction. What will Bernardin remove to fit in his new courses? Bernardin, I submit, knows which way the wind blows, and hopes to beat out Lustiger as the next antipope. [Wrong again! Bernardin died just to spite me.]

The War Is Now! # 47 By Logic and Law, a Non-Catholic Cannot Be Pope Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. (Matt. vii, 24, 25) [Nothing, then, tears the structure from its solid, immovable foundation—not gradual erosion, not violent tempests, not waves, not tides, not centuries, not millennia! For the foundation is eternal, immutable, divine truth.] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matt. xvi, 18,19) But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke xxii,32) But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (Jn xiv, 26) But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me: because he shall receive of mine and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath are mine. Therefore I said that he shall receive of me and shew it to you. (Jn xvi, 13-16) [The Spirit of truth came upon these men, to whom Jesus Christ had promised Him, fifty-two days later. He inspired them to preach His identical message in full throughout the known world. This message roused tremendous opposition and resentment; all but one of these men died for their message. It cannot be said or imagined that they accommodated Jesus Christ’s message to the men of their time. Under divine inspiration they infallibly preached the entire message, to which nothing may be added, from which nothing can be removed.] 288 The Holy Ghost has promised the successors of Peter, not that they may disclose new doctrine by His revelation, but that they may, with His assistance, preserve conscientiously and expound faithfully the revelation transmitted through the Apostles, the deposit of Faith. ....we teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when exercising his office as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals which is to be held by the universal Church—thanks to the divine assistance promised to Blessed Peter, he enjoys that infallibility which the divine Redeemer wished to confer on His Church for the definition of doctrines of faith or morals; and therefore the definitions of the same Roman Pontiff are, by themselves and not by virtue of the consent of the Church, irreformable. (Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870, Vatican Council) The Papacy, Wladimir d’Ormesson (Hawthorn, 1957): “Papal infallibility embraces the whole of divine revelation, but it is confined to that revelation. The pope can impose nothing beyond what forms part of the deposit of revelation. His mission is to profess it, to teach it, to maintain it, and to preserve it. He has an immense task of conservation and exposition. It is not for him to establish new doctrine. The revelation is complete. .... A pope can pronounce only in the name of and for the universal Church. .... The pope knows .... that he is in full agreement with the successors of the apostles. .... he expresses and, so to speak, sums up their wishes. The principle of unity is manifested thereby in all its fullness and all its power. They are One. .... “Beyond these boundaries it is clear that the pope cannot exercise his infallibility. It is no less clear that this infallibility can and must be exercised throughout the whole area contained within these boundaries. .... the primary object of the papal Magisterium is the deposit of faith. In the implicit as well as the explicit sense, this deposit embraces doctrines concerning the mysteries and dogmas; practical laws concerning natural and supernatural morality; the means of sanctification established by Christ, the sacraments above all; the constitution of the Church; liturgical and juridical order. “The secondary object of the papal Magisterium is the conservation, interpretation, and maintenance—in the face of errors which may arise—of all that constitutes this primary object.” Cum ex Apostolatus Officio – Law or history? From the 1917-18 Code of Canon Law: Canon 6 (6): “All other disciplinary laws of the old law which were in force until now, and which are neither explicitly nor implicitly contained in the Code, have lost all force of law with the exception of laws contained in the approved liturgical books and laws derived from the natural and positive divine law.” The Code itself legislated nothing new; it summed up existing law. Canon 23: In doubt whether the former law has been revoked, the repeal of the law is not to be presumed, but the more recent laws are to be, as far as possible, reconciled with the former laws so that one may supplement and not contradict the other.

289 Charles B. Augustin’s A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law: “This canon expresses the law of continuity in the legislation of the Church. It would be unwarranted to assume … that the new Code came into being like a Deus ex machina and that an insurmountable wall is now erected between the (in a wider sense) and the Code. The sources (fontes) quoted will show the continuity of legislation.” Canons 188(4) and 2314 §1, therefore, are to be read in concordance with Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which they abbreviate—not supersede. Canon 2314, *1: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic incur the following penalties: (1) ipso facto excommunication; .... Canon 188, *4, provides, moreover, that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration.”

CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFlCIO Paul IV, 15 March 1559 Let them be driven out of Christ’s fold who despise to be disciples of truth, and let not the teaching of error continue. The Roman Pontiff can be contradicted if he be found wandering from the faith, [Please note two points: 1) The Roman Pontiff is subject to the faith. His occupancy of the Holy See depends on his holding and propagating the faith. 2) The Roman Pontiff is subject to this law. He is not subject to merely ecclesiastical law, so this is either natural or divine law. Since it is merely an extension of Christ’s own mandate to His Church (Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. – Mark xvi, 15-16) it is surely divine law, and derived from divine law.] and because where danger is more greatly extended, there it must be more fully and assiduously questioned, lest false prophets ..... lamentably ensnare the souls of the simple, and draw innumerable peoples committed to their care ..... with themselves into perdition and into the ruin of damnation. [This law is not merely punitive. Its ultimate purpose is to preserve the faith, therefore the salvation, of all Catholics.] By Apostolic authority we approve and renew each and all sentences of excommunication, suspension, interdict, and privation, and any other sentences, censures, and penalties by any Roman Pontiffs our Predecessors ..... or by sacred Councils accepted by God’s Church, or decrees of the Holy Fathers, and statutes, or holy Canons, and Constitutions, and Apostolic Ordinances against heretics and schismatics, howsoever made known and promulgated, [This obviously includes legislation against Jews by the Councils of Toledo, which somehow escaped specific inclusion in the 1917 Code.] and that they must constantly be observed, and if there be, perchance, those not in vigorous observance they must be replaced. .... this our constitution to prevail in perpetuity, in hate of so great a crime, than which nothing in God’s Church can be greater or more pernicious, 290 of the fullness of Apostolic power we enact, determine, decree, and define that the aforesaid sentences, censures, and penalties remaining in their strength and efficacy, and fixing their effect, each and all bishops, , patriarchs, primates, cardinals, legates, counts, barons, marquesses, dukes, kings, and emperors, who thus far, as shown, are discovered, or confess, or may have been convicted of having deviated, or fallen into heresy, or incurred schism, provoked, or committed (these), and in future will deviate, or fall into heresy, or incur schism, or provoke or commit (these), and will be found to have deviated.... (etc) ....since more inexcusable in this than the rest, let them be punished beyond sentences, censures, and penalties aforesaid, let them be also by the crime itself and apart from any application of law or fact, utterly, totally, perpetually deprived of their orders, and cathedrals even metropolitan, patriarchal, and primatial churches, and of the honor of the cardinalate, and of the office of whatever legateship, likewise of active and passive voice and of every authority, and of monasteries, benefices, and ecclesiastical offices ..... secular and regular of whatever orders ..... obtained from whatever concessions and Apostolic dispensations unto title, charge, and administration, or any other manner, in which they may have any right ..... Moreover let those who may have presumed knowingly to protect, defend, favor, or believe or teach the doctrines of those so discovered, or confessed, or convicted automatically incur sentence of excommunication, and let them be made infamous, and let them not be admitted in voice, person, writings, representative, or any agent to public or private offices, or deliberation, or Synod, or general or provincial council, or conclave of cardinals, or any congregation of the faithful, or election of anyone, or the presentation of testimony, nor can they be so admitted. [Since this is divine law, legislated against so great criminals, than whom no one in God’s Church can be greater or more pernicious, it would indeed be rash to mitigate the sanctions necessary to criminal law against any and all violators. When has it become not sinful to destroy faith and other means to salvation? Or to co-operate in any way in such destruction? Furthermore, this law has not been revoked (see Canon 6 (6); therefore all its provisions remain current and intact.] ..... Should ..... it happen that a bishop (..... archbp., patriarch, or ), cardinal, or legate, or even the Roman Pontiff had deviated from the Catholic Faith or had fallen into some heresy before his nomination as bishop, cardinal, or pope, the following dispositions are compulsory: The promotion or election, even if the cardinals have consented to this of common accord, are null and void. They cannot acquire validity by the fact of the subject’s entry into function or by the fact of consecration or subsequent exercise of authority, nor—in the case of a pope—by the fact of enthronement, of the act of veneration or of subsequent general obedience, whatever be the duration of this situation—nor can they be considered as partially legitimate. Nor can they confer upon such persons promoted to the dignity of bishop, archbp., or primate, or called to the dignity of cardinal, or to occupy the See of Peter, any power to command either in the spiritual or the temporal domain. On the contrary, all their words, actions, and dispositions and their

291 consequences have not the least juridical effect and confer no slightest right upon anyone. [End of excerpts] This law, enacted early in the Protestant revolt, confirmed the obvious traditional doctrine, uncontested for centuries, of revelation and reason, the logical conclusion from Mark XVI, 16, “… he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Yet we hear that this law, necessary to the Church’s survival when enacted, bearing the marks of positive divine law, is replaced by the 1917 Code of Canon Law, was condemned by Pius XII (Why?—if it had already been replaced?), or has no effect because it was never applied. Is there no law against murder in a monastery because no murder has taken place to cause the law’s application? Can facts be denied because no law makes them criminal? Is it not indisputable fact that a heretic is not a Catholic? Is it not absurd that one who contradicts Jesus Christ and refuses His mandate to preach His entire doctrine to every creature can be His vicar? The 1917 Code of Canon Laws was introduced to organize and simplify the laws, not to change them. The same purpose remained after its introduction as before: the good of the Church and its members. Objection—You have quoted Cum ex Apostolatus Officio against our recent popes. This was superseded by St. Pius X, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and Pius XII who condemned it. Reply—Did he, now? Why bother to condemn a law superseded forty years earlier? It was the law of the Church since 1559, legislated against clear and present danger, in effect at the time of Cardinal Bellarmine’s oft-quoted opinion on resistance to a pope—which is thus shown inapplicable, and which Bellarmine himself corrected in his next chapter (De Romano Pontifice, 30). The 1917 Code of Canon Law eliminated several former safeguards without appreciable reason. Let us not forget Rampolla’s contribution to its codification. Notably missing are the Toledan Councils’ laws against Jews. No comparison is possible between Jews who accepted Christ and those who rejected Him down the centuries, especially those who hid in the Church to preserve property or to bore from within. One of these, Pierleone, secured a thumping majority of the Cardinal-electors. In a mere eight years (1130-38) he nearly destroyed the Church. Only Paul VI has accomplished greater destruction. Why is he not tarred with the same brush? Why is he not also condemned as antipope? An anti-Church cannot condemn its founding fathers? Objection—Canon 188 superseded Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Reply—But never invalidated its provisions. The “superseded” law “was” official Church law for 360 years, since its necessity to protect Christendom’s unity with explicit codification in the face of mass schism and heresy. (A logical conclusion from Mark xvi, 16 [“He that believeth not shall be condemned”], it is of the nature of things in a Catholic civilization.) In like circumstances the same natural law applies, whether codified, in effect, or “superseded.” Objection—Since the Church no longer applies the law to civil rulers it picks and chooses by applying it to Church officials. Selectivity smacks of heresy. Reply—Choice here is a matter of judgment on the part of the Prosecutor. In all legal systems prosecutions with little prospect of success seldom go to court. 292 This in no way binds the prosecutor’s hands when he can win. There is simply no excuse to continue a heretic in ecclesiastical office because it is impractical to remove one from civil office. Objection—Cum ex Apostolatus Officio is a dead letter because it was never applied. Reply—Laws are not merely punitive; they also mark out limits for men of good will. If no driver is caught drunk then probably the drunken driving laws are effective though not applied. What law was applied in St. Pius V’s excommunication of Queen Elizabeth, and his freeing her subjects from all obligations to her sovereignty? St. Pius V made use either of this law or of the divine law upon which it is based, as expressed by St. Jerome: “It is intolerable that heretics rule over Catholics.” Either way he was clearly in accord with the mind of the Church. Objection—Canon 188 applies to clerics, not bishops. Canon 2227 reads: “Cardinals are not subject to the penal law, unless they are explicitly mentioned, nor are bishops subject to penalties of suspension and interdict latae sententiae.” Reply—Canon 188 concerns all offices in the Church. Canon 118: “Only clerics can obtain the power of either orders or ecclesiastical jurisdiction.....” Canon 107: “The clergy are distinct from the laity.....” Canon 108: “Those who have been assigned to the Divine ministry at least by the first tonsure, are called clerics...... they form a sacred hierarchy in which some are subordinate to others.....” Canon Law’s definition of a cleric is established; Canon 2255: “The censures are as follows: (1) excommunication, (2) interdict, (3) suspension. An excommunication is always a censure; interdict and suspension can be either censures or vindicative penalties, but in case of doubt they are presumed to be censures.” This includes one more censure than Canon 2227 exempts: excommunication, which can hit anyone in any office, per Canon 2314, §1, (1). Christ said He would be with His Church all days after commanding His Church to preach His Gospel in its entirety to all nations. Here, in a nutshell, are the Four Marks—One, Holy Gospel preached (Apostolic) to all nations and ages (Catholic)—by which His Church is recognized. Will Christ recognize His Church by its declarations on religious freedom, or its willingness to listen to error, to dialogue with atheism, instead of its efforts to wipe these out? Will He recognize it by its several sets of doctrines to suit each generation, each stage of civilization? Will He commend it for ecumenism, the death of its Apostolic purpose? This new “Church”—even if recognizable—no longer obeys Him, carries out His mandate, His assistance for which, said ChaIloner, is the purpose of His promise. Why must He be with it all days? The Catholic Church has suffered since 1958 under a new and illegitimate regime imposed by four ineligible heretics publicly in violation of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. Even if, impossibly, they held office legitimately, they all acted beyond the competence of that office, contrary to its purpose and mandate, in opposition to Jesus Christ, as Whose vicars they posed, on Whose authority they claimed to function, as they “corrected” Him.

293 The papacy’s purpose is preservation “The pope can impose nothing beyond what forms part of the deposit of revelation. His mission is to profess it, to teach it, to maintain it, and to preserve it. He has an immense task of conservation and exposition. It is not for him to establish new doctrine. The revelation is complete. .... the primary object of the papal Magisterium is the deposit of faith. In the implicit as well as the explicit sense, this deposit embraces doctrines concerning the mysteries and dogmas; practical laws concerning natural and supernatural morality; the means of sanctification established by Christ, the sacraments above all; the constitution of the Church; liturgical and juridical order.” Is it not the pinnacle of absurdity to grant competence to change or augment to the office established to guard and preserve Jesus Christ’s eternal, immutable truth? Despite proof that all heretics and heresies exclude themselves by divine law from the Catholic Church, too many fear to defend their faith with the readiest weapon at hand. What holds them back? Can it be logical, or of divine ordinance that the Catholic faith cannot defend itself? Who is empowered to reject the superb defense which God and His Church have provided? Clergy and laity alike have failed, nay refused, to prevent usurpation of office and perversion of doctrine by men of no possible standing in the Church. Application of Cum ex Apostolatus Officio would clearly have prevented not only these, but the idolatry imposed through new man-made worship and sacraments. Can we justify failure and refusal? They augment the robbery and destruction of our and our children’s ordinary means of salvation. We cannot brook this continuing catastrophe. We have the (1) means to reverse the entire Vatican II Renewal; (2) right to use of the churches and schools for which our Catholic ancestors and we have paid; (3) right to evict heretics and usurpers. Canon 682: “The laity has the right to receive from the clergy the spiritual goods and especially the necessary means of salvation, according to the rules of ecclesiastical discipline.” A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Woywod & Smith, New York, Nov, 1957: “The spiritual goods .... are the ordinary suffrages, sacramentals, indulgences, ecclesiastical burial, etc., while the necessary means of salvation .... are the sacraments, especially those necessary as a means or by precept for salvation. This right is conferred by divine law in reference to the necessary means of salvation, especially the sacraments .... To this right of the laity corresponds an obligation on the part of the clergy.” (Divine law is not subject to review or revision by canon lawyers, or popes.) Vatican II itself (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 37) pretends to recognize canon law: “Like all Christians” (christifideles, Catholics?), “the laity have the right to receive in abundance the help of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially that of the word of God and the sacraments from the pastors. To the latter the laity should disclose their needs and desires with that liberty and confidence which befits children of God and brothers of Christ. By reason of the knowledge, competence or pre-eminence which they have the laity are

294 empowered— indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church.” – Austin Flannery translation. We know how hollow are these words promulgated in a “dogmatic constitution” of the Second Vatican Council by an ineligible public heretic posing as pope. How can these monsters deny their own words and refuse to listen? We are characterized as ignorant for knowing our religion, unstable for refusing to move, fanatical for inability to keep abreast of times and accept change in a religion changeless by definition. We are mad because we cannot abide their mania for universal novelty. So why should our “superiors” entertain the ravings of ignorant, unstable, fanatical, madmen unable to cope with modern times? Surely you can appreciate their vexation with our disobedience to apostolic authority with which they oppose the Apostles, and to divine authority with which they correct Jesus Christ! Are we mad enough to grant them any semblance of legitimate authority? To your objection that you cannot judge that John XXIII and his successors were (and are) not popes, I repeat: no judgment is required. You ascertain the fact, clearly demonstrated in Is The Pope Catholic?, that these men put their names to blatant heresies. Then you apply the relevant law, which would remove all ecclesiastical office from these men, had they been Catholic in the first place. You need not judge them; fact and law judge them. But you are subject to the law, and must act in harmony with it. This course, in turn, relieves you of any possible obligation of obedience to these men, and from any necessity of sifting through their prolix pronouncements to see which you should obey or disobey. Why complicate such a simple problem? Would a genuine pope place us in a situation in which we sin grievously in obeying him? Is it not a grievous sin to replace genuine worship to which we are obliged with a man-made new order of idolatry? Can we grant competence to a man, charged by his office to preserve everything Catholic, to replace anything Catholic?—to correct Jesus Christ and His Apostles? OZIAS, Fifty-two years king in Jerusalem (II Paralipomenon, xxvi, 3), attempted to usurp the functions of the priests. He was immediately stricken with leprosy, and cast out of both his throne and his city. His subjects had immediately made a judgment; they had chosen to obey the law rather than the king, whose disease had banished him. The conciliar “popes” have tried to usurp the divine power of Jesus Christ by institution of new worship and new sacraments. They brought upon themselves banishment from the Church which they appeared to govern. Even had they been popes, this excommunication would have lost them their office and its jurisdiction and authority. Which is more dangerous, leprosy which might infect a few, or apostasy by which “popes” may lead all who adhere to them to eternal damnation?

EAST TIMOR Continued Betrayal

295 Australia owes East Timor. Its people—at their own peril—saved the lives of Australian troops sent there (Dec. 7, 1941) during Japanese occupation. But Australia turned its back, and not only permitted unprovoked invasion (Dec. 7, 1975) by Indonesia, but is widely seen to have conspired with Suharto to permit this genocidal invasion for the sake of an oil treaty with the invader. Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, who signed the treaty, proffered the excuse that Australia could not treat with East Timor since it had no viable economy. (Level playing field?) Perhaps this is Australia’s reason for refusing to treat with its own citizens, whom it progressively defrauds and pauperizes. Is Indonesia a viable economy? Would the same almost unlimited undersea oil resources not have rendered East Timor’s economy viable? Does not the excuse itself admit criminal conspiracy on the part of Australia’s government? Does not the approving subsequent visit of Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer to Indonesia, where he shook the blood-drenched hand of Suharto and called him the greatest man of the half-century, prove complicity of the federal opposition? Did this action not condone the murder of not only more than a hundred thousand East Timorese civilians but also (Dec. 13-14, 1975) of Australian newsmen covering the scene? Horrifying as was this betrayal, it was not a patch on the despicable actions of what is seen as the Catholic Church, through its “pope.” When the world’s most theatrical tarmac-kisser visited East Timor he pointedly forbore to follow his invariable routine on grounds that he had already kissed Indonesian ground in Java. Then, as he presided over his usual television circus he distributed its “sacramental” product first of all to the Indonesian general in charge of the rnassacre. The Mass murderer backed the mass Murderer. Not only have the anguished pleas of our friends and allies, the East Timorese, fallen on deaf ears both in Canberra and Rome; from Rome has come pressure on the Catholics of East Timor in the person of their Nobel Peace Prize-winning prelate, to install a number of Indonesians as parish priests—partially to replace those lost during the racial and religious persecution, partially to add religious inducement to supine submission to invasion. This, in turn, continues the foreign policy of Paul VI, this century’s most influential enemy of Portugal, by John Paul II, this century’s most influential friend of Israel. With friends like Australia and the Vatican, who needs enemies?

PETITIONS IN THE ORDINARY OF THE MASS May Almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to life everlasting Amen. May the Almighty and merciful Lord grant us pardon, absolution, and remission of our sins. Amen. Show us, O Lord, Thy mercy. And grant us Thy salvation. Take away from us our iniquities, ….. that we may be worthy to enter with pure minds into the Holy of Holies. Through Christ our Lord. Amen

296 We beseech Thee, O Lord, by the merits of Thy saints whose relics are here, and of all the saints, that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to forgive me all my sins. Amen. Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. (Gloria) Lord Jesus Christ, ….. Who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; Who takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer; Who sit at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us; Cleanse my heart and my lips, Almighty God, Who cleansed the lips of the Prophet Isaias with a live coal; deign of Thy gracious mercy, so to cleanse me, that I may worthily proclaim Thy holy Gospel. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. Receive, holy Father, almighty eternal God, this spotless Victim, Which I Thy unworthy servant offer to Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, offenses, and negligences, and for all here; but also for all faithful Christians, living and dead, that for me and them It may avail for salvation unto life eternal. Amen. O God, Who wondrously created and more wondrously recreated the dignity of human nature, grant through the mystery of this water and wine, that we be made partakers of His divinity Who deigned to partake of our humanity, Jesus Christ Thy Son, our Lord, Who lives and reigns with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God forever. Amen. We offer Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, imploring Thy clemency: that it may ascend with the savor of sweetness in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty for our and the whole world’s salvation Amen . ….. may we be received by Thee, O Lord, and may our sacrifice today be made so in Thy sight that it please Thee, Come, Thou Who makest holy, almighty eternal God, and bless this sacrifice, prepared for Thy Holy Name. () Destroy not my soul with the wicked, O God: nor my life with men of blood. Receive, O Holy Trinity, this offering, which we make to Thee in remembrance of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor of blessed Mary ever Virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, of these and of all the saints, that it may avail them unto honor and us unto salvation, and may they deign to intercede for us in heaven whose memory we celebrate on earth. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen. May the Lord receive the sacrifice from thy hands, for the praise and glory of His Name, for the benefit also of us and of His entire holy Church. Amen Wherefore, O most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ Thy Son, our Lord, that Thou wouldst deign to accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these holy and unblemished sacrifices, which in the first place we offer Thee for Thy Holy Catholic Church: that it may please Thee to grant her peace, as also to protect unite, and govern her throughout the world :

297 Remember, Lord, Thy servants and handmaids N & N. And of all here present whose faith and devotion are known to Thee: for whom we offer or who offer Thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves and theirs : for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their safety and salvation : and who pay their vows to Thee, the etemal, living and true God. (Communicantes) grant that in all things we may be shielded by the help of Thy protection. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen. We therefore beseech Thee, Lord, that appeased Thou mayest accept this offering of our bounden duty, as also of Thy whole household, order our days in Thy peace; grant that we be rescued from eternal damnation and counted in the flock of Thy elect. Through Christ our Lord. Amen . Which offering do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all things to bless, consecrate, approve, make reasonable and acceptable : that for our benefit it may become the Body and Blood of Thy most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Deign to regard these gifts with favorable and serene countenance: and to hold them accepted ….. ….. command that these things be borne by the hands of Thy Holy Angel to Thine altar on high, in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty, that as many of us as, at this altar, shall partake of and receive the most holy Body and Blood of Thy Son may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen. Remember, O Lord, Thy servants and handmaids N & N, who have gone before us with the sign of faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace. To these, O Lord, and to all that rest in Christ, we beseech Thee, grant a place of refreshment, light, and peace. Through the same Christ our Lord Amen. To us sinners, …deign to grant some part and fellowship with Thy holy Apostles and martyrs and with all Thy saints, into whose company we pray Thee admit us, not considering our merit, but of Thine own free pardon. Through Christ our Lord. The Lord’s Prayer Deliver us, we beseech Thee, O Lord, from all evils, past, present, and to come ….. mercifully grant peace in our days: that helped by the power of Thy mercy, we may be ever free from sin and safe from all trouble. Through the same Jesus Christ Thy Son May this mingling and hallowing of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ avail us that receive it unto life eternal. Amen. Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us, ….. have mercy on us, ….. grant us peace. ….. look not on my sins but upon the faith of Thy Church: and deign to pacify and unite it according to Thy will : Who livest and reignest God forever and ever, Amen. ….. deliver me by this, Thy most sacred Body and Blood, from all my iniquities, and from all evils: and make me ever cleave to Thy commandments, and never suffer me to be parted from Thee : Who with the same God the Father and Holy Ghost livest and reignest God forever and ever. Amen. 298 Let not the receiving of Thy Body ….. turn to my judgment and damnation : ….. may it avail me as safeguard and remedy for soul and body : Who with God the Father and Holy Ghost livest and reignest God forever and ever. Amen. ….. only say the word, and my soul shall be healed (x 3) May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my soul unto life eternal. Amen. May the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve my soul unto life eternal. Amen What we have taken by mouth, O Lord, may we keep with a pure mind: and from a temporal gift let an eternal remedy be made for us. Amen. May Thy Body, O Lord, Which I have received, and Thy Blood Which I have drunk, stick fast to my heart : and grant that no stain of sin may remain in me whom Thy pure and holy sacraments have refreshed: Who livest and reignest forever and ever. Amen. May the homage of my service please Thee, O Holy Trinity, and grant that the sacrifice which I, though unworthy, have offered in the sight of Thy Majesty may be acceptable to Thee, and through Thy mercy win forgiveness for me and for all those for whom I have offered it. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. May God Almighty bless you, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. * * * * * *

All these things are achievable, or God would not have His Church pray for them We must not only know what we need, we must ask for it. God forces nothing on us. But He has given several guarantees. Matt. 7:7-8. Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened. 21:22. And all things whatsoever you shall ask in prayer believing, you shall receive. Mark 11:24. ….. all things, whatsoever you ask when ye pray, believe that you shall receive: and they shall come unto you. John 14:13-14. ….. whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: ….. If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do. 15:7. If you abide in me and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will: and it shall be done unto you. 16:23-24. ….. if you ask the Father any thing in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto, you have not asked any thing in my name. Ask, and you shall receive; that your joy may be full. Whatever benefits us and is asked in the name of Jesus Christ is sure of being granted. The Church attaches the phrase italicized eleven times in the Ordinary, and additionally three to six times (, Secrets, Postcommunions) in the Proper. Most of these uses have in the novus ordo missae been deleted as

299 “useless repetitions”—on those few occasions where the petitions themselves remain.

The Catholic Leader (Brisbane), Sunday Nov. 8, 1988. Page 2 depicted an earlier issue’s front page, proclaiming in type rivaling the masthead: “Search for truth.” We expect to see this great goal of Vatican II periodically published, proclaimed, and even instanced. We cannot understand how it continues to gull clergy, hierarchy, and editors. Was the Catholic Church not founded to spread all truths necessary to salvation? Has it not enlightened nineteen centuries with these truths? Are there now new necessary truths which oblige our search? If not, why does the postconciliar “Church” waste time seeking these truths? Why is this new duty imposed? If so, the Catholic Church has short-changed us for nineteen centuries, so why follow its guidance in our recently implemented search? Why accept its imposition of this new duty? How shall we discover unaided what has eluded the nineteen-century supposed search of the Catholic Church? How shall we— how will the Church?—know if it is found? (Perhaps in the Pidgin “mass”) Page 6 highlights three problems. 1. Garrulous Karolus confirms his date with destiny (, 2000) on which he will request forgiveness of many dead generations for “methods of intolerance and even violence in the service of truth.” This may appear intended as a disclaimer of the Inquisition, but apologizes at least as profusely for Charles Martel at Tours, Sobieski at Vienna, Ferdinand and Isabella at Granada, Don John at Lepanto, and all the other heroic Crusaders. Nor is the Inquisition matter for apology. That horror, the Spanish Inquisition, “persecuted” no one who had not declared himself Catholic. That heroic defender of the Faith, Queen Isabella, whom Garrulous Karolus, canonizer of unprecedented crowds while reducing requirements, could not possibly canonize, understood that her country would enjoy internal peace if all adhered to one true religion. The same principle, perverted to serve heresy and disruption of Christendom, was applied by the German princes in that ideal modus vivendi (compromise formula), cuius regio eius religio—whose region his religion. An outstanding perversion of this same principle was provided by King Henry VIII, who removed such prominent Catholics as Bishop John Fisher and Lord Chancellor Thomas More for failure to believe in his marriage annulment. His actions resulted in ferocious restriction of liberty and civil rights for adherence (defined as high treason) to the religion of nine centuries of Englishmen, and eventually to unparalleled genocide in Ireland. Such considerations must not prevent the “Church’s” humblest apologies. 2. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, illegitimate successor to the Congregation of the Inquisition, has issued a document in connection with the Vatican's publication of papers prepared for a 1996 symposium on “The Primacy of the Successor of Peter” [a re-examination of a long settled non- issue] “in the Mystery of the Church.” Mysteries are obviously exempt from

300 logic, reason, or common sense. Postconciliar terminology has yet always a reason—obfuscation! 3. Warning on Latin Mass. Garrulous Karolus “told Catholics who prefer the celebration of the old Latin Mass that all members of the Church must make ‘gestures of unity’ so their differences do not become a source of division.” [What more public gesture of unity with the Catholic Church could exist than open adherence to all its tradition? How can traditional worship of the Catholic Church become a source of division? Another mystery, right?] “Ten years after he authorized bishops around the world to allow the celebration of the pre-Second Vatican Council liturgy,” GarKar “said his permission must not be seen as a denial of the good” [Fragmentation? Idolatry?] “accomplished by the council in ordering liturgical reform.” [But not a new rite of Mass.] GarKar “said the permission to celebrate the Mass according to the Roman Missal of 1962” [for which permission would truly be needed] “is ‘a sign of the Church’s understanding’ of those who prefer the old liturgy.” [The postconciliar “Church” ignores us who demand the traditional rite at which we undeniably have the traditional right as well as the obligation to assist.] “But, he said, the permission was extended while confirming the good found in the liturgical form desired by the Second Vatican Council and implemented by Pope Paul VI.” [On paper at least, two mutually exclusive concepts.] “The liturgy, he said, must never be used as a source of division.” [It was never a source of division until new liturgy was imposed. A source of division is always and ever the interloper—the newer variation.] Page 7. Lutheran Church joins the NCCA. The fact that the Lutheran Church has at long last become a full member of the National Council of Churches in Australia could, let us suppose, mildly interest Australian Catholics. Our concern is more easily excited by the article’s final paragraph: “Brisbane’s (“Catholic”) Archbishop John Bathersby is president of the NCCA and ..... formally welcomed the Lutheran Church into the council.” What can we expect of the brazen, postconciliar, ecumaniac, apostate hierarchy? Page 8 carries several letters from lay people who apparently think they belong to the Catholic Church.

“Not who said it, but what was said.” While the rest of the world took it because of who said it (ICEL, Bishops, loquacious experts, the liturgical coterie) Patrick Henry Omlor looked at what was said, viz. “for all” instead of “for many” along with other outrageous deviations. He sharpened up his pen. Deo gratias! What he wrote he wrote with surgical precision. All his arguments conclude. If they are not accepted it is not because they lack cogency but because to accept them is like annihilation. The thought of twenty-five years of invalid Masses is crushing. The thought of twenty-five years of no propitiatory sacrifice in the West drains the spirit of life. That the living should be left without means of atonement, the dead without suffrage, that stipends should have been given and taken but left void of the contracted reality is prostrating.

301 Is he right? To my knowledge no one has proven him wrong. Very few have tried. That they are few is understandable. The task of proving him wrong, not just saying he is wrong appears impossible. The arguments so far arrayed against his thesis do nothing but excite pity. One argument which has languished for some years was recently dusted off and brought to my attention again. It purports to find all that is needed summarily to dispose of Questioning the Validity ..... and further works sprung from it, by appealing to the indefectibility of the Church. It was said that the Church could not legislate an invalid Mass. Well said! Of course it could not. But then, it didn’t. The originating piece of legislation which underpins the Novus Ordo Mass is Missale Romanum. Examination of that document shows that it legislated nothing. I speak, of course, of the document as it issued from Paul VI, not of the forgery, replete with internal inconsistencies, which found its way into the subsequently. With Missale Romanum a non-law, all the ground is occupied by Quo Primum, the of Pope St. Pius V. What to do? Well, some things are so clear there is not much need of reflection. The via tutior beckons. Return to the immemorial Mass! I am glad the works of Patrick Henry Omlor are going to be assembled in one cover. About time! The world needs it. I hope every Latin rite priest secures a copy. – Rev. P. D. Meuli, LL.B., S.T.D., U.J.D., Ph.L., Advocatus Rotalis, Mt. St. Mary, 4 Rangiwai Road, Titirangi, Auckland 7, New Zealand The War Is Now! # 48 Discussion on Execrabilis Canon 2332 never mentions a reigning pope...... a legibus, decretis, mandatis Romani Pontificis pro tempore exsistentis ad Universale Concilium appellantes, ..... appealing to an Ecumenical Council from laws, decrees, mandates of a Pope visible according to circumstances. Charles B. Augustine’s Commentary: “The theory that a general council is above the Pope now appears absurd. It was called ridiculous by Pius II (‘Execrabilis,’ Jan. 18, 1459)—not by Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini—, but in those sad times of schism even well-meaning men like Gerson looked upon it as the only anchor available on a troubled sea. Today, of course, the error is neither excusable nor intelligible. It was proscribed several times and our Code fixes its penalty. “1. The persons who incur the penalty here stated are: ..... “2. It makes no difference whether the general council appealed to, is in session, or to be held in future. For appeal means recourse to a higher instance, and the fundamental error involved here is that there exists a higher tribunal than the Pope, and the injury is therefore committed against the supreme judge. “3. The appeal must be made from laws, decrees, or ordinances issued by a Pope actually governing the Church. The text includes laws which the “Apostolica Sedes” had omitted: therefore all laws, also privileges and favors, decrees, either dogmatical or disciplinary, ordinances, for instance, provisions or

302 appointments, or judiciary sentences in particular cases, provided these have emanated from the Roman Pontiff, as such, not as a temporal ruler or an international judge. The canon does not include decisions or ordinances issued by the S. Congregations and Tribunals. “Some have raised a difficulty concerning an appeal from a law, decree, or ordinance of a Pope who has died after having issued said law, etc., and therefore seems not to exist any more. However, this is a rather subtle interpretation” (by their nature laws must be clear and binding) “and certainly nullifies the intention of the lawgiver. Besides, it entails the absurdity that after the death of a Pontiff his laws, decrees, and ordinances could be appealed. Finally, such laws, etc., are intended not only for the lifetime of the Pope. Most probably the phrase ‘pro tempore exsistentis’ was inserted in view of a possible resignation. An appeal from laws, decrees, or ordinances already abrogated would be senseless.” “Reigning,” even if included in the canon, would be therefore nearly meaningless. All such laws, decrees, and ordinances, to have any effect, must emanate from a reigning pope. Indeed, there is in this connotation no such animal as a non-reigning pope. We have at least three infallible papal pronouncements on appeals of this kind, as Denzinger bears out. “Reigning” occurs in none of them. Vatican II was just such an appeal from the definitions of every pope in history, and even from Christ’s own words—on the authority of its convoker. Its purpose, said Roncalli, before its opening, was to update the Church, to re-examine every doctrine except papal infallibility (which he needed to implement change). How is this not an appeal to a future council to correct ordinances of past “reigning” popes? How much more is needed to demonstrate the absurdity of Vatican II’s legitimacy? It was necessarily illegitimate by the nature of things and by its essential conflict with not only reason but defined dogma. We tie arguments to scientific and theological principles because these principles are misused against tradition. A revealed religion cannot be changed after the revelation is complete. The papacy, created for preservation of that revelation, has no possible power to modify that revelation. Nothing new is Catholic. All other argument corroborates what needs no corroboration. We believe on God’s own authority. We cannot accept a variable standard, a metric yardstick, a new economy of the Gospel. We receive the Church as one single eternal unit. And so must a pope! “Reigning” does not appear in Canon 2332. Both Woywod and Bouscaren incorrectly translated “pro tempore exsistentis” as “reigning.” We gave the proper translation. I backed it up with Augustine, whose Benedictine Order has a much greater reputation for scholarship based on a far longer tradition and familiarity with both the legal system and the language in which it is couched than almost any Jesuit or Franciscan you can name. Naturally he lived up to that reputation or the Benedictines would never have made him a professor of Canon Law. Even the length of his comment on Canon 2332 bears out this superiority—2¼ pages in comparison with Woywod’s ½ page and Bouscaren’s 8 lines. If we can’t check the Latin original we are at the mercy of

303 the translators. In this case two priests (or whoever they copied) made a snap judgment instead of looking it up. I no longer trust myself so I looked it up in my old (1928) Lawrence Englmann Latin Grammar, § 216, page 239: “Pro, 5. ‘In relation to, in accordance with, in proportion to, by virtue of’; as pro dignitate, pro magnitudine periculi vos obtestor; hence, pro tempore, according to circumstances; pro tempore ac re, according to time and circumstances; .....” My two exhaustive Latin Lexicons, Leverett and Lewis & Short, cite such use by Livy and Julius Caesar. Should anyone have wished to express reigning, he need not have employed three words (which appear to express something else); he could have written regnantis. No one can be subjected to a vague law. If a phrase can be taken in several ways it cannot bind. This whole argument is non ad rem, off the point, irrelevant. Canon 2332 is referred back to Execrabilis in Augustine’s Commentary. The law, then, appears based on an infallible definition recorded as a doctrine in Denzinger, along with the other two papal (St. Nicholas I, Denz 333) and conciliar (Vatican 1870, Denz 1830) citations in my original article. All three state what is obvious: there can be no legitimate appeal from defined doctrine. Execrabilis, based on the principle that there can be no appeal from defined doctrine, interdicted future councils which might consider such appeals. The principle preceded the laws. The laws’ immediate occasion is irrelevant. If a pope has reasons to condemn a council, he can do it; he has no need of Execrabilis. Nor is it required to void decrees of a council until papal approval, for until that approval the conciliar decrees have no effect. CANON LAW, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, formerly Professor of Canon Law, Pontifical Institute of Canon Law, S. Apollinare, Rome, 2d Revised Edition. Authorized English version, Rev. Joseph M. O’Hara, Ph.D. & Rt. Rev. Msgr. Francis J. Brennan, D.D., J.U.D. from Latin original as revised and enlarged by author, Newman Press, Westminster, Md. 1949. Copyright 1934, Most Rev. A. G. Cicognani, D.D. Page 453: “The Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda in a decree addressed to the Apostolic Delegates in the Orient, dated 8 November 1882, decided that Constitutions of the Holy See are binding on the Oriental Church in the three following cases: (a) if they concern matters of faith and Catholic doctrine; (b) if their subject matter shows that they are binding upon Orientals also, for the reason that they are not ecclesiastical laws merely but declarations of the divine and natural law; (c) if the laws themselves, though disciplinary in character, expressly state that they are meant for the Oriental Church also ...... The Code binds the Oriental Church in the following cases: (a) if there be question of the divine law, natural or positive; e.g. the legislation contained in Canons 100 and 107; ....; and Canon 1068, §l, .... antecedent and perpetual impotence .... prevents marriage by the very law of nature. The above legislation has really had its force independently of the Code, and the Code itself in Canon 6, 6° abolishes only disciplinary laws not contained therein.

304 If there be a question of faith and Catholic doctrine, for there is no exception of place or persons in matters of dogma and doctrine. Consequently all Catholics are subject to dogmatic canons of Ecumenical Councils and pronouncements of the Holy See. The decrees of Roman Pontiffs condemning propositions contra fidem et mores, the various instructions of the Holy Office, The Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda, the Congregation for the Oriental Church, and of the Sacred Penitentiary, the prohibition of books and theories opposed to Catholic faith and morals, all pertain to Catholic doctrine...... All the above pronouncements, though they do not pertain strictly to the divine law, follow, however, as deductions or declarations therefrom, and they concern the doctrine of the Church and not its discipline properly so called. The same reasoning applies to Canon 222 sqq ...... 228 §2, 1257, 731 §2 contra sollicitantes. (Etsi pastoralis 5/26/1742, IX, n. 5) Canons 904 and 2368, 2335, 2314, 2317, 2320, 2343 §1, 2367, 2369. Canons 257, 622 §4, 782 §5, 804, 816, 819, 1004, 1006 §5, 1099 §1, 3°. Canon 6, page 499: Introductory clause establishes a general principle: The Code, as a rule, retains the discipline hitherto in force, though it makes some opportune changes. The Code is not new legislation as was the Code Napoleon, but it is a new systematization or codification of legislation in order to have “all the laws of the Church hitherto published collected together and arranged in clear order.”… The Code brings together into one volume the above enactments and in a large measure replaces them with respect to their form, but not with respect to their substance. Consequently, after the Divine Law, the Code occupies the first place in the current legislation of the Church. It is the fountainhead of universal legislation, in such wise that the former discipline is no longer the immediate source of legal authority, but becomes a source of interpretation. Canon 12. pp. 576-7: Are legislators subject to laws which they have given? And if so, in what way are they subject to their own laws? If the authority which establishes the laws belongs to a group (as happens in Councils, whether Ecumenical or Provincial) the individual legislators are bound by those laws which they enacted as a body; thus bishops are obliged by laws made in Councils, be they Ecumenical or Provincial (Canon 291§2); similarly religious superiors are subject to Chapter Laws. An exception is made in the case of the Roman Pontiff, since he is not a member, but the head of the Ecumenical Council. The local legislator is not bound, under penalty, by his own laws with respect to their coercive force, since “no one is capable of exercising either commanding or prohibitory power with regard to himself”; hence “the Superior is free of law,” says Ulpian, since no one properly speaking is coerced by himself, nor is the successor bound, for the legislator and his successor are one juridic person; “an equal has no dominion over an equal.”

305

Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue and Consensus A Joint Declaration on Justification is to be signed by both sects October 30-31 (long signatures, apparently), 1999, when all the witches are loose. Some compromise has evidently been reached. Luther’s doctrine excommunicated him. To return to the Church he needed to repudiate it. He would not. But the defenders of his doctrine have retreated a few feet in thirty years of dialogue with compromisers of the decrees of Trent, called to define Apostolic doctrine never before questioned, to combat the Protestant Revolt. Let us cheerfully grant the right of Lutherans to correct their founder. But who has the competence to correct ours? Not only “Cardinal” Cassidy and his Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, but also the “authority” which established them and will ratify their compromises, have publicly defected and deviated from the Catholic Apostolic Faith. If never before, they have at least now lost all offices and membership in the Catholic Church, under provisions of Canons 2314 and 188 of the 1917-18 Code of Canon Law, as well as of the divine law which provides their basis.

More Things Are Fouled Up At The U.N. Many criminals go to confession, though it is hard to find. It has been largely replaced by a new Rite of Reconciliation. A busy confessor would be hard put to it to remember who confessed what, even if he knew which criminal was which. Not only are we sure he won’t tell anyone; we are almost sure he can’t tell anyone. Perhaps we shall soon find out. Last year (1988) the United Nations established a new agency, the International Criminal Court, to investigate genocide (as in East Timor, perhaps) and crimes against humanity (a separate offense?). A preparatory commission of this court is considering revoking the “so-called priest-penitent privilege.” [As though they, or even their parent body, had granted it.] Led by Canada and France, delegates from Western nations argue that many Catholic priests possess information which, if disclosed, would speed prosecution of war criminals and those suspected of crimes against humanity. [Naturally, all war criminals are Catholic, and dash off to confession after each session at the gas ovens.] Will this court accept the unsupported word of renegade confessors? Will there be two confessors in each box? Or will each confessional be fitted up with recording gear and voice profile determination? Will Simon Wiesenthal sport earphones in a panel truck outside? Can they do this without Mirandizing us? What of us? We confess these inhumanitarian deeds partly that we may maintain sanity—as much as mass murderers may maintain. If we can’t obtain forgiveness because we dare not approach the tribunal, we may leave the rails entirely—even assault the prosecutors. They may open a can of worms and discover cobras. This proposed abolition of sacramental privilege would presumably apply also to private religious counselors of all recognized religions. But not all is lost; we

306 may still hide behind what we confide to a Red Cross worker, as we line up by the dozen to share our clandestine felonies, torts, and misdemeanors. What of the priest? Canon 2369 § 1. A confessor who presumes to violate directly the seal of confession, shall incur excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See; he who violates it indirectly only, shall be liable to penalties of 2368. §1. Canon 889, §2, obliges also interpreters and all others who may in any way have acquired knowledge of confession, to keep the seal. Has the priest no right to perform his duty without prosecution? A spokeswoman for the Canadian mission at the U.N. told CNSNews.com Canada’s position was still being worked out. “We certainly understand and sympathize that some things have to be protected, as in the solicitor-client privilege, but there’s still a fuzzy gray area …. and we’re still trying to find a compromise.” [We steal your property and offer part of it back if you make no trouble.] Here is a privilege granted by Jesus Christ, and Canada is willing to compromise it. It is an absolute right; there is nothing to compromise. A spokesman for the French delegation said: “This discussion also concerns lawyers and doctors and their clients. There is nothing which grants this privilege in the statute.” The ICC statute was passed in Rome last summer by 120 nations but will not go into effect until ratified by 60 governments. So it’s a done deal. What will Garrulous Karolus say? What will the novus ordo clergy do? Said Austin Ruse, spokesman for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute: “It offends their sensibilities that there should be any barrier to them going after their suspects. They’re not going to go after Castro, or the head of the Chinese government.” [or even the Indonesian] “They’ll go after who they consider to be the right-wing bad guys, and eventually that will include private citizens and not governmental leaders.” The War Is Now! # 49 Question Time Query—You wrote (last issue) that you assist at Mass regularly. Where? Reply—I assist regularly at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as standardized by Pope St. Pius V, who directed that all conform to the oldest rite in existence, though permitting rites in use for more than two hundred years at the time of his Quo primum tempore. It is celebrated at St. Jude’s Shrine in Stafford, Texas, just outside southwestern Houston, usually by a priest ordained in 1955, who omits the names of all heretics from the first prayer of the Canon, Te igitur. In so acting he complies with the Missal promulgated by Quo primum tempore which allows for vacancy of the Holy See—and other sees. The priest left his diocese of ordination when the novus ordo missae was introduced, because his bishop would not permit the Mass for which he had been ordained. He severed himself from his heretical bishop, who had exceeded the competence of a Catholic bishop or pope in forbidding true worship of God. He is not bound, indeed he is bound not, to recognize the authority of a heretic, who, by Canon Law, has no jurisdiction or authority over a Catholic. Nor may he request permission to obey Quo primum tempore from any other heretic

307 who pretends to be a Catholic bishop. Only in the diocesan boundaries of a Catholic ordinary bishop need he request the (formerly automatic) permission. He himself retains the jurisdiction conferred on him in 1955 by a Catholic diocesan ordinary, if only because there is now no authority to restrict or remove his jurisdiction—or his priestly faculties and functions. He was sent, according to St. Paul’s requirements (Romans x, 15); neither the death of his pope nor the apostasy of his bishop has any effect on his mandate—which he continues to fulfil and obey, as the clergy has ever done during all interregna. Objection—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol III, p. 745, defines the Church as “A body of men united together by profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth.” (Bellarmine) You say that the Church exists on earth while one live Catholic holds the faith. We may have used that line to wriggle out of a tight corner. Have you a doctrinal basis for this difficult point to defend? Reply—Baptism is a sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and heirs of heaven. The only true Christian is Catholic. Protestants all reject Christ on some vital point—private judgment excludes faith. By the communion of saints is meant the union of the faithful on earth, the blessed in heaven, and the souls in purgatory, with Christ as their Head. The blessed in heaven comprise the Church triumphant; the souls in purgatory, the Church suffering; and the faithful on earth, the Church militant. All three comprise the one Church. Has the Church ever included all men? Of course not! So it is Catholic in intent. It is to be preached to all men, according to Christ’s command. Whether they believe and are baptized is another matter. If so, they belong to the Catholic Church and to the Communion of Saints. They never belonged to a majority, and were often a small minority. But membership in the Catholic Church has never been determined by how many others belonged, or where. Thus if only one man is in heaven, that man with Christ is the Church triumphant. If only one man suffers in purgatory, that man with Christ is the Church suffering. If only one faithful Catholic lives on earth he remains Catholic through his faith and Baptism, and retains membership, which only heresy or apostasy can take from him, in the Catholic Church. (If any one love me, he will keep my word. And my Father will love him and we will come to him and will make our abode with him. – John xiv,23) He is by faith and Baptism with Christ in the Church militant—in the Communion of Saints. He can be saved only through the Catholic Church. Can he be saved through something which does not exist? Is he damned because everyone else has died or defected? He has done neither. Has the Catholic Church not existed nineteen centuries also through popeless periods (such as our own)? Can we throw out the last survivor because he is all alone? Does the Church not include all Catholics of all times and places, with whom this last survivor is in complete union? Was not the last of the Mohicans as much a Mohican as his ancestors? He belonged to the tribe as long as he lived, though it no longer existed when he

308 died. Is not the last man killed when one army wipes out another as much a soldier as those killed earlier? He may argue that he was the best soldier of all. Did he not fight longer than anyone else on his side? The army was not wiped out until he was killed. He was killed because he belonged to it. Should his side eventually win, would he not be entitled to a grave in its military cemetery? Perhaps in a tight corner? Query—What made Garrulous Karolus kiss the Koran? Reply—His burning desire to become the head of the One World Religion. In his capacity as a ham actor he itches for approval and applause. He already has it from his blindly devoted postconciliar “Catholic” Church, which accepts his every new apostasy without turning a hair; but there are other fields to invade and conquer, though not in the traditional manner with the Gospel in hand. You want Moslems? Kiss their “revelation,” in which it is written with all the authority of a camel driver, Allah (identical with our Blessed Trinity, says Garrulous Karolus) forbid that Allah should have a son. Perhaps he wishes to incorporate their notable missionary activity. The Koran Kisser and his illustrious predecessor, Montini, have certainly facilitated Moslem entry and takeover, by progressive elimination of our priesthood in the Latin rite. All needed was replacement of Holy Orders with invalid “ordinations” to the presidency and episcopacy at the time the novus ordo missae replaced the Mass. Moslems have no priests—and no sacrifice. And the postconciliar “Church” has presented us the same deficiencies. Our priests die out. The presidents offer fruits of the earth, as did Cain, and work of human hands like the golden calf. No special power is needed for such functions—any Moslem can perform them without removing his shoes.

The War Is Now! # 50 Statement Apparently aware of what one day was to come, Pope Paul IV promulgated on the 15th of February 1559 the Bull “Cum ex Apostolatus Officio” (When by virtue of the Apostolic office) of which only comparatively few have ever heard. Modernist principal executives in the hierarchy who now have everything arranged according to plan have, obviously, never wished to disclose their intentions, which run counter to this Bull. In spite, however, of all their attempts to suppress it, that Bull is still in force. Under it the man, presently and by the world at large, regarded as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, only pretends to officiate as such. This, because of his deviation from the Faith, before his election, as a result of accepting the false doctrines of the so-called “Second Vatican Council,” and in view of what Pope Paul IV ruled. Even if he were to abjure his heresies in public, “he will never at any time be able to be restored, returned, reinstated, or rehabilitated to his former status.” The same applies to all those in the hierarchy who have before their appointment fallen into heresy. “As to those who in any way knowingly

309 receive, defend, favour, or believe and teach their tenets: they shall, among other censures, automatically incur sentence of excommunication.” This not only affects the whole hierarchy of the conciliar church, but also those recognizing these heretics as their superiors: the “regular” church-goers therefore, as well as most “traditionalists,” among whom both those supporting “Ecône” and those recognizing Karol Wojtyla “only” materialiter. Utrecht, , 2000 Nicolaas Maria Hettinga P.O. Box 9692 – NL 3506 GR Utrecht – Europe

Hilaire Belloc (The Great Heresies, 1938): “… in the Protestant culture (save where it was remote and simple) the free peasant, protected by ancient customs, declined. He died out because the old customs which supported him against the rich were broken up. Rich men acquired the land; great masses of men formerly owning farms became destitute. The modern proletariat began and the seeds of what we today call Capitalism were sown. We can see now what an evil that was, but at the time it meant that the land was better cultivated. New and more scientific methods were more easily applied by the rich landowners of the new Protestant culture than by the Catholic traditional peasantry; and, competition being unchecked, the former triumphed. … But the great, the chief, example of what was happening through the break-up of the old Catholic European unity, was the rise of banking. Usury was practiced everywhere, but in the it was restricted by law and practiced with difficulty. In the Protestant culture it became a matter of course. The Protestant merchants of Holland led the way in the beginnings of modern banking; England followed suit; …”

Objection—St. Patrick was granted the right to judge the Irish. How could he be more merciful than Our Lord? Reply—You know how it is with us Irish; we like our easier way out. We have been told that at our judgment justice, not mercy, will prevail. So we run in an intermediary pleasing to God and more likely to listen to Gaelic. We have offended God, not St. Patrick. Father Hamilton, a New Englander chaplain with the army in World War II, reconciled many a sinner to God with his widely known approach: “Please come to confession. I won’t shout at you. You have done nothing to me.” He could well have added: “Anyway, I’ve heard it all before.” And so had St. Patrick. Luckily, however, Ireland will supposedly sink into the sea seven years before the end. That should give St. Patrick time to judge us. So are we foreign-born Irish included? * * * * * * Hilaire Belloc (The Great Heresies, 1938):

310 “The Mohammedan struggle was a very close thing; it nearly swamped us; only the armed reaction in Spain, followed by the , prevented the full triumph of Islam. The onslaught of the barbarian, of the northern pirates, of the Mongol hordes, brought Christendom to within an ace of destruction.. Yet the northern pirates were tamed, defeated and baptized by force. The barbarism of the eastern nomads was eventually defeated; very tardily, but not too late to save what could be saved. The movement called the Counter-Reformation met the hitherto triumphant advance of the sixteenth-century heretics. Even the Rationalism of the eighteenth century was, in its own place and time, checked and repelled. It is true that it bred something worse than itself; something from which we now suffer. But there was reaction against it; and that reaction was sufficient to keep the Church alive and even to recover for it elements of power which had been thought lost forever.” For this, let Garrulous Karolus the Koran Kisser apologize!

Roughly twenty-five years ago I quit making jokes about what the innova- tors might do next. It was uncanny. Each of my jokes without exception was soon seriously introduced into liturgy, schools, official public episcopal and papal statements. The time has come to resume the practise. The competition has lifted its game, particularly in South Africa. From the Internet: Archbp Buti Tlhagale of Bloemfontein argued that because animal worship is commonplace in African custom and used by millions across the country to celebrate birth, marriage, or death, it deserves a place in church ritual. “Animal sacrifice has a special place in the scheme of things and is celebrated in almost all African families. We have kept it out of the Church of God for too long. It is time we welcomed it openly into the Christian family of the living and the dead.” He has proposed that blood taken from an animal—goat, chicken, sheep, cow—why not wildebeest or rhinoceros? Games? Why not game?—could be brought to the altar before the offertory [Who has an offertory?] during Mass [Who has Mass?] as “a gift to the ancestors, not to God.” George Daniel, Archbp. of Pretoria for 25 years, is aware that sacrifice involving goats and chickens takes place in some of his parishes. “When we first spoke about the process we did not foresee some of the problems that would arise.” [Why not? Any other fool could!] “As to what would happen to those priests who decide to continue with the practice of animal sacrifice if we ultimately ruled against incorporating this activity into any services, we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.” [anthrax vaccination, butchers’ union] White people are reported leaving goat-killing parishes. Racists! The Church brings back traditional apartheid! Earlier this year a group of 25 black priests formed the African Catholic Priests’ Solidarity Movement. [I like “Movement”; it indicates action!] Led or driven by Father Dabula Mpako, they feel “like strangers in our very own Church where black Africans constitute the largest majority.” [But whites constitute the next largest majority.]

311 Father Dabula laments that the Church is “dragging its feet” on the Pope’s call for the “inculturation” of rites. He has created his own exuberant African Mass. [If a fat Vincentian can do it, why not a tall, dark stranger?] Parishioners join enthusiastically in the singing and don’t seem to mind the two-hour service. [Bread, wine, and circuses!] The altar [Who has an altar?] now has an “African altar” laid out on the floor in front to fit. [What fit?] It includes wooden [they burn better?] carvings representing the ancestors, gourds, bowls, baskets [no basketballs?], bells, and flowers. Parishioners bring offerings such as eggs, frozen chickens, toilet paper [no comment], and oil. Bishop Louis Ndlovu, head of the conference, dismissed the claim that the Church is racist. He said the Church had not yet decided on which elements of ancestor worship could be adopted. “It’s a very complicated issue.” [$$PX could solve it instanter—long years choosing among “papal” orders.] The Church has not yet decided on which elements of the idolatry from which it rescued these people can be adopted! We suggest the ritual meal by which the ancestors became one, by the single mouthful. Nostra culpa ad nauseam For years we have seen the sorry spectacle of men who hold themselves up as heads of the Catholic Church infesting the United Nations, and Jewish, Lutheran, Orthodox, Anglican, Buddhist, Moslem, ecumenical, and heathen rites, to which they traveled countless miles to take back seats. All were to be condoled for the terrors to which Catholics had subjected them and for their cultures which Catholic missionaries had stolen. Let the Church ask pardon of the Jews for rejecting Jesus Christ; of the Moslems for their permanent war against all forms of Christianity; of the Orthodox for separating from Christ’s vicar; of the Anglicans for stealing churches, suppressing monasteries and convents, and treating the religion to which all English had belonged for nine centuries as high treason; of the Buddhists for their atheism; of Martin Luther for deliberately bringing back the religious war as exemplified by the . So it has eventually come to the Koran Kisser to begin his Lenten penances with official regrets and apologies for our heroic crusaders, our martyred missionaries, our unified Christendom. Apologies imply faults. We are guilty of something or other—like the holocaust for which Germany continues to make huge reparations, though the perpetrators have nearly all died. Today’s Jew pleads innocence of the Deicide. He was not there at the time; how can he be guilty? He insists on payment from contemporary Germans and others, none of whom were present at the “holocaust.” Consistently he must almost certainly sue for reparations also from a Church admitting guilt. But Garrulous Karolus has done insufficient public penance. He has not apologized to the Irish for St. Patrick. He has not apologized to the Germans for St. Boniface and what he did to that sacred tree. He has not apologized to the English for St. Augustine. He has not apologized to Hungary for St. Stephen. He has not apologized to the Slavs for Sts. Cyril and Methodius. He has not apologized to Filipinos and Latin Americans for Spain and Portugal. Above all,

312 he has not apologized to the Roman Empire for the Apostles, or to the Apostles themselves for Jesus Christ. Santa Fe archdiocese would ask pardon of heretics, Indians, victims of sexual abuse. [Church inflicted?] Los Angeles apologized to sodomites. [Clerical?] Conversion, anyone? Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Vol. X, p. 340: “Miracles are signs of God’s Providence over men; hence they are of a high moral character, simple and obvious in the forces at work, in the circumstances of their working, and in their aim and purpose. Now philosophy indicates the possibility, and Revelation teaches the fact, that spiritual beings, both good and bad, exist, and possess greater power than man possesses. … Granting that these spirits may perform prodigies—i. e., works of skill and ingenuity which, relatively to our powers, may seem to be miraculous—yet these works lack the meaning and purpose which would stamp them as the language of God to men.” The War Is Now! # 51 Query—Is “which is broken for you” Scriptural? Reply—Depends on whose “scripture.” This clause appears in St. Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians, xi, 24 in King James’ Authorized Version. The same words are found in Young’s Analytical Concordance to the (Protestant) Bible, which gives also “To be broken, κλαομαι.” But κλαομαι (first person indicative) = I am broken, broken off, broken into pieces. So I checked my Greek New Testaments. “.……..ελαβεν αρτον και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο μου εστιν το σωμα το υπερ υμων τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν.” He took bread and giving thanks broke and said: this of me is the body that for you; this do ye in the of me remembrance. Υπερ as used means for the benefit. A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Orchard): “The best texts read (literally): ‘This is my body which is on your behalf’.” The Vulgate reads: accepit panem, et gratias agens fregit, et dixit: Accipite et manducate; hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur ; hoc facite in meam commemorationem. The Douay-Rheims, translated from the Vulgate: “..... took bread, And giving thanks, broke, and said: ‘Take ye and eat : this is my body, which shall be delivered up for you : do this for the of me.’” The Revised Standard Version (1946) Catholic Edition (1965): “..... took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’”

The Mystery of Iniquity—Brother Thomas, TOSF in Chapter 3, The ‘Broken’ Form of Consecration, purports to prove invalidity of all Oriental Rite Mass consecrations. Byzantine – Ukrainian Rite Divine Liturgy of our Father St. John Chrysostom (Imprimatur Ivan Prasko, Melbourne, 23.9.1968) Consecration of the bread:

313 TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS BROKEN FOR YOU FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. Later, just before the Communion, the following prayer puts the Consecration formula into perspective: The Lamb of God is broken and distributed, broken but not divided, ever eaten and never consumed, sanctifying those that partake thereof. Franciscan Brother Thomas maintains that broken invalidates the bread consecration because the words of consecration must be taken literally. To demonstrate the necessity of literal interpretation he cites The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Vol. V, p. 574-5, from which he quotes only: “The Church’s Magna Charta, however, are the , …, whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times. … in all debatable points the words of a will must be taken in their natural, literal sense; …” The article from which he selects shows that eight words of the Consecration formula must be taken literally. I include enough of the article to demonstrate overkill of this single point, and to underline his sparse, incomplete selections: The Church’s Magna Charta, however, are the words of Institution, “This is My body—this is My blood”, whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times. The Real Presence is evinced, positively, by showing the necessity of the literal sense of these words, and negatively by refuting the figurative interpretations. As regards the first, the very existence of four distinct narratives of the Last Supper, divided usually into the Petrine (Matt., xxvi, 26 sqq.; Mark xiv, 22 sqq.) and the double Pauline accounts (Luke, xxii, 19 sq.; I Cor., xi, 24 sq.), favours the literal interpretation. In spite of their striking unanimity as regards essentials, the Petrine account is simpler and clearer, whereas the Pauline is richer in additional details and more involved in its citation of the words that refer to the Chalice. It is but natural and justifiable to expect that, when four different narrators in different countries and at different times relate the words of Institution to different circles of readers, the occurrence of an unusual figure of speech, as, for instance, that bread is a sign of Christ’s Body, would, somewhere or other, betray itself, either in the difference of word-setting, in the unequivocal expression of the meaning really intended, or at least in the addition of some such remark as: “He spoke, however, of the sign of His Body.” But nowhere do we discover the slightest ground for a figurative interpretation. If, then, the natural, literal interpretation were false, the Scriptural record alone would have to be considered as the cause of a pernicious error in faith and of the grievous crime of rendering Divine homage to bread (artolatria)—a supposition little in harmony with the character of the four Sacred Writers or with the inspiration of the Sacred Text. Moreover, we must not omit the very important circumstance, that one of the four narrators has interpreted his own account literally. This is St. Paul (I Cor., xi, 27 sq.), who, in the most vigorous language, brands the unworthy recipient as “guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord”. There can be no question of a grievous offence against Christ Himself, unless we suppose that the true Body and the

314 true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist. Further, if we attend only to the words themselves, their natural sense is so forceful and clear that even Luther wrote to the Christians of Strasburg in 1524: “I am caught, I cannot escape, the text is too forcible” (De Wette, II, 577). The necessity of the natural sense is not based upon the absurd assumption that Christ could not in general have resorted to the use of figures, but upon the evident requirements of the case, which demand that He did not, in a matter of such paramount importance, have recourse to meaningless and deceptive metaphors. For figures enhance the clearness of speech only when the figurative meaning is obvious, from the nature of the case (e. g. from a reference to a statue of Lincoln, by saying: “This is Lincoln”) or from the usages of common parlance (e. g. in the case of this synecdoche. “This glass is wine”). Now, neither from the nature of the case nor in common parlance is bread an apt or possible symbol of the human body. Were one to say of a piece of bread: “This is Napoleon”, he would not be using a figure, but uttering nonsense. There is but one means of rendering a symbol improperly so called clear and intelligible, namely, by conventionally setting beforehand what it is to signify as, for instance, if one were to say: “Let us imagine these two pieces of bread before us to be Socrates and Plato”. Christ, however, instead of informing His Apostles that he intended to use such a figure, told them rather the contrary in the discourse containing the promise: “the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world” (John, vi, 52). Such language, of course, could be used only by a God-man; so that belief in the Real Presence necessarily presupposes belief in the true Divinity of Christ. The foregoing rules would of themselves establish the natural meaning with certainty, even, if the words of Institution, “This is my body—this. is my blood”, stood alone. But in the original text corpus (body) and sanguis (blood) are followed by significant appositional additions, the Body being designated as “given for you” and the Blood as “shed for you [many]”; hence the Body given to the Apostles was the selfsame Body that was crucified on , and the Chalice drunk by them, the selfsame Blood that was shed on the Cross for our sins. Therefore the above-mentioned appositional phrases directly exclude every possibility of a figurative interpretation. We reach the same conclusion from a consideration of the concomitant circumstances, taking into account both the hearers and the Institutor. Those who heard the words of Institution were not learned Rationalists, possessed of the critical equipment that would enable them, as philologists and logicians, to analyse an obscure and mysterious phraseology; they were simple, uneducated fishermen, from the ordinary ranks of the people, who with childlike naïveté hung upon the words of their Master and with deep faith accepted whatever He proposed to them. This child-like disposition had to be reckoned with by Christ, particularly on the eve of His passion and death, when He made His last will and testament and spoke as a dying father to His deeply afflicted children. In such a moment of awful solemnity, the only appropriate mode of speech would be one which, stripped of unintelligible figures, made use of words corresponding exactly to the meaning to be conveyed. It must be remembered, also, that Christ as omniscient God-man. must have foreseen the shameful error into which He would have led His Apostles and His Church by adopting an 315 unheard-of metaphor; for the Church down to the present day appeals to the words of Christ in her treating and practice. If then she practises idolatry by the adoration of mere bread and wine, this crime must be laid to the charge of the God-man Himself. Besides this, Christ intended to institute the Eucharist as a most holy sacrament, to be solemnly celebrated in the Church even to the end of time. But the content and the constituent parts of a sacrament had to be stated with such clearness of terminology as to exclude categorically every error in liturgy and worship. As may be gathered from the words of consecration of the Chalice, Christ established the New Testament in His Blood, just as the Old Testament had been established in the typical blood of animals (cf. Ex., xxiv, 8; Heb., ix, 11 sqq.) With the true instinct of justice, jurists prescribe that in all debatable points the words of a will must be taken in their natural, literal sense; for they are led by the correct conviction, that every testator of sound mind, in drawing up his last will and testament, is deeply concerned to have it done in language at once clear and unencumbered by meaningless metaphors. Now, Christ, according to the literal purport of His testament, has left us as a precious legacy, not mere bread and wine, but His Body and Blood. Are we justified then, in contradicting Him to His face and exclaiming: “No, this is not your Body, but mere bread, the sign of your Body!” … Not one word of this article supports the good brother’s broken thesis. Nor do the defined dogmas, which, too, he quotes sparsely. One would almost expect that he could see the point of his own thesis. Brother Thomas then presumes to derogate commentary on his subject by the eminent liturgiologist, Father Nicholas Gihr, whose monumental The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass had been a seminary textbook for most of a century. He has the colossal nerve to list his scant selections from this genuine scholar among “Examples of Double Jointed Theology.” Brother’s bracketed insertions are too stupid to be insulting. (The first two brackets are mine.) He writes: “Unable to explain their way through these dogmas of the Church and still retain their corrupted form of liturgies” [but they still retain these liturgies, in which no quarrel with dogma exists] “many proponents of the Eastern Rites have sought to explain the words of their ‘consecration’ in other ways. Most of these explanations are confused and jumbled. … they might claim that it is Christ’s Body which is broken, only to add that it is not really His Body which is broken, but it is the species of bread, or maybe even the substance of bread itself which is broken.” [But even in the Latin Rite is a ceremony called the , in which the large host is broken, so that the priest may fit it into his mouth after breaking off a segment to dissolve into the chalice.] “The Rev. Dr. Nicholas Gihr gave us a very good example of this type of confused thinking. He writes thus: ‘The word broken (frangere) can in this place be applied only to the body of Christ [Christ’s Body, broken!?!], inasmuch as, under the appearance of bread, [Is he now referring to the species?] it is presented and eaten as a food; [Maybe he is talking about the substance of bread!] for only the Eucharistic body is broken or distributed. [Eucharistic Body!?! That is a nebulous term. Is he referring to Christ’s Body again?] … He goes on to say, ‘The literal meaning of the Apostle is, therefore: This is My body which as food

316 under the appearance of bread is broken for you.’ … Gihr is taking the round- about way to admit that this supposed version of I Corinthians 11:24 (which the Eastern Rites falsely use as the basis for their form) must be interpreted as saying that our Lord’s Body is broken.” Enough twaddle! Let us now read Gihr’s full comment. We again underline the brother’s minimal selections. According to St. Luke our Lord consecrated the bread with the words: “This is My body which is given for you;” St. Paul in the Greek text has the formula: “This is My body which shall be delivered for you.” [footnote: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur (διδομενον), Luc. 22,19. Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur (κλωμενον). 1 Cor. 11, 24.] Hence Christ does not say that His body shall be given, or broken, to the disciples, but He declares that His body shall be delivered for (υπερ, pro) His disciples and “for many unto the remission of sins,” as is to be supplied in this place from the formula of the consecration of the wine. Now, the vicarious immolation of the body of Christ for the atonement of sin is indisputably a true sacrifice. The words of our Lord: “This is My body which is given and delivered, or broken, for you,” have, therefore, this meaning: This is My body which is sacrificed for you. —The giving or breaking of the body of Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist is characterized or designated in the present time, not merely as about to take place in the future on the Cross; consequently, there can be here literally meant and understood only the unbloody Sacrifice of the body of Christ in the Eucharist, and not the bloody Sacrifice of the Cross. — This is proved, in the first place, by the use of the present tense: the “body which is given and broken for you” (διδομενον = quod datur; κλωμενον = quod frangitur); for so long as there is no reason to compel us, we dare not depart from the meaning of the present tense in the text. In this case nothing either requires or justifies us in applying or transferring the present form of the verb to the future Sacrifice of the Cross. On the contrary, there are reasons which preclude such an application. — For, from the circumstance that the shedding of the blood is to be understood in the present time, it necessarily follows that the Sacrifice of the body must be considered also as taking place in the present time. — And the expression of St. Paul, “the body broken for you” (corpus pro vobis fractum) is of such nature that it unequivocally designates the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. The word broken (frangere) can in this place be applied only to the body of Christ, inasmuch as, under the appearance of bread, it is presented and eaten as a food; for only the Eucharistic body is broken or distributed. The literal meaning of the Apostle is, therefore: This is My body which as food under the appearance of bread is broken for you. — Now these words necessarily have the same meaning as those of St. Luke: “This is My body which is given for you,” that is, sacrificed; hence they must in like manner express the Sacrifice of the Body of Christ. The full meaning of the words of St. Paul is accordingly: This is My body which is sacrificed for you in the sacramental state, in which it is given as food. [footnote: Oportet intelligere verba illa de vero corpore, sed sub specie panis, ut sensus sit: Hoc est corpus meum, quod nunc pro vobis in specie panis frangitur, i.e. datur et immolatur Deo —It is necessary to understand those words concerning the true body but under the appearance of bread, that the meaning be: This is 317 My body, which now in the form of bread is broken for you, i.e. is given and sacrificed to God (Bellarmin., De Missa, 1. 1, c. 12)] Thus Christ gave His body, primarily, to His Heavenly Father as a sacrifice for His disciples, and He then distributed to them His Body sacrificed for them to be eaten as food. By this He accomplished a former prediction: “the bread (of heaven) that I will give (vobis) is My flesh for the life of the world” (pro mundi vita – Joann. 6, 52) Hence it is clearly expressed in Holy Scripture that the first celebration of the Eucharist, which our Lord arranged for the eve of His passion, in the presence of His Apostles, was a true Sacrifice and a sacrificial repast. —The Sacrifice was accomplished in the words: “This is My body; this is My blood;” for by these words, Christ’s body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine were placed in the sacramental state of sacrifice, that is, they were sacrificed to adore and appease the Divine Majesty. —The declaration that this action and change was a true Sacrifice, a real sacrificial act, is contained in the additional words: “which shall be given or broken for you; — which shall be shed for you and for many.” They designate and testify to this, namely, the sacrifice of the Eucharistic Body taking place at that moment, and likewise the shedding of the Eucharistic Blood then taking place in the chalice; they designate, therefore, the Body and Blood of Christ under the sacramental appearances as a truly and really sacrificed Body and as a truly and really sacrificed Blood. (so far Nicholas Gihr) Luke, 22:19. And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake (εκλασεν) and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Luke, 24:30-35. And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread and blessed and brake (κλασας) and gave to them. And their eyes were opened: and they knew him. And he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in the way and opened to us the scriptures? And rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were with them, Saying: The Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way: and how they knew him in the breaking (κλασει) of bread. Acts, 2:42. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles and in the communication of the breaking (κλασει) of bread and in prayers. Κλωμενον (broken) is not found in I Corinthians xi, 24 in the Κοινη. So it was not translated into the Vulgate. According to the New Testament Students’ Workbook, Collegeville, Minnesota, footnote (p. 459) it follows υπερ υμων in several other Greek manuscripts, however. When Pope St. Pius V in Quo Primum Tempore returned us all to the most ancient Roman practice, he permitted all rites of Mass then in use more than two hundred years to continue. He surely considered Ambrosian, Dominican, Mozarabic, and Oriental Rite liturgies valid, or he could not have permitted them to continue. But, says Brother Thomas, broken is not Scriptural, so it invalidates the consecration. When he discovers that our Latin Rite consecration formula is not

318 found in Holy Scripture, perhaps he will realize that Mass was celebrated for many years before the first words of the New Testament were written.

Argument Corner Objection—Since we are under Divine Interdict (see enclosed article) we are not allowed Mass or sacraments. Reply—I note a few loose definitions in that article. In column 1 paragraph 3 a parenthesis was inserted into Canon 2315. Suspension a divinis is not divine suspension but rather suspension from celebration of Mass and administration of sacraments. Page 8, right column, paragraph 2 defines crimen laesae majestastis as crime of provocation against the majesty of God. It is, however, the crime of lese majesty—a civil crime, cf. Webster: “Law. Any crime committed against the sovereign power; often, specif., any of various offenses violating the dignity of a ruler as the representative of the sovereign power, as in Germany against the Kaiser.” (It’s a 1932 dictionary. The Kaiser had been gone fourteen years. But he wasn’t God, even in 1918.) Interdicts of various stripes are mentioned more than sufficiently. But they seem to concern us little. The relevant legislation is contained in Exsecrabilis. I quote: “But if anyone, of whatever status, rank, order, or condition, even if he shine forth with imperial, royal, or pontifical dignity, after two months from publication of these presents in the Apostolic Chancery shall oppose them, he will automatically incur sentence of anathema from which he cannot be absolved except by the Roman Pontiff and on the point of death. Let a university or corporation lie under ecclesiastical interdict, and nevertheless aforesaid universities and corporations, and all others whosoever, incur those penalties and censures which promoters of lese majeste and heretical depravity are known to incur. Notaries moreover and witnesses who shall be present at acts of this kind and generally who knowingly shall give advice, help, or favor to such appellants, shall suffer equal punishment.” We see that universities and corporations, not mere disorganized Catholics in general, fall under provisions of this (what type?) interdict. But this is a divine interdict, we hear second- or third-hand. It seems to apply if we have no Mass or sacraments, and not to apply if they are available. In absence of a specific proclamation, how have we become subject to this interdict? What are its terms and limitations? Who has decreed it? God? How, when, where? Where is the law that prevents pursuit of the God-given ordinary means of salvation? Who or what excuses me from this pursuit? I am, in fact, bound to practise the Catholic faith when and where I can, and to assure that my children have the same opportunity. Augustin’s A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. 8, page 329, in its treatment of Canon 2332: “4. The penalties are: For the individuals mentioned in the first clause (I,a) excommunication incurred ipso facto, reserved speciali modo to the

319 Apostolic See; besides, suspicion of heresy. b) For corporations, as such, mentioned in the second clause (I,b) the interdict ipso facto, reserved to the Apostolic See. Single members of the corporation, however, do not incur this censure. If they are partakers or accomplices, they, as individuals, incur excommunication, but not the interdict. Thus the members of a parliament or senate may vote against appeal to a council, and in that case they would not incur the penalty, even though the minority had appealed in their name; the single members would be excommunicated, not interdicted, nor would the whole body be interdicted.” Old priests who celebrate Mass in private fail in their duty toward the laity. They allow the incompetent innovator to restrict the very reasons for their priesthood. The days of private priesthood are several centuries behind us. They take advantage of Paul VI’s escape clause. Had Paul forbidden them to celebrate privately many more of them would have risen against the idolatrous innovations, and Paul might not have succeeded in banning the Mass. He had granted this private “privilege” to avoid open rebellion, and the old boys took advantage rather than fight for the faith—of which they should have had more. And they should not have spoken for God on an issue which admits of more than one alternate legitimate solution.

The Nobel Peace Prize fell in 1986 to Elie Wiesel, not to be confused with Simon Wiesenthal. He is said to have first applied the word holocaust to Hitler’s “final solution” of his Jewish problem. He surely had a many-sided view of the subject. The New York Times in a November 1986 Sunday edition published his picture, captioned “Elie Wiesel, winner of Nobel Peace Prize, at far right on top bunk in the Buchenwald concentration camp in April 1945 when the camp was liberated by American troops.” “In a speech to the National Press Club in Wash., D.C. in April 1983, Wiesel ‘noted that on April 11, 1945, he was one of the survivors liberated at Dachau by the U.S. Army.’” – Jewish Telegraph Agency Daily News Bulletin, April 12, 1983, page 3 Two papers, The New York Times (Sunday Jan 4, 1987, A Portfolio of ’86, page 3) and The New York Post (Thursday Oct. 23, 1986, page 2) reported: “Wiesel recalled the day the Soviets arrived at Auschwitz.” – late January 1945! Wiesel had obviously been hounded above and beyond the call of Aryan duty. It is small wonder that he strove so recognizably for peace—as befits a surviving testimony to the efficiency of three sets of gas ovens.

The War Is Now! # 52 Edited excerpts from two 1930 radio sermons of Father Charles E. Coughlin

320 As a matter of history, there was neither race of man nor religion of any sort which had not its sacrifice until the coming of Mohammed with his legalized polygamy and his hypocritical detestation of the fruits of the earth. The idea of sacrifice, which is so intrinsically wrapped up in the idea of giving back to God the life which you have from Him, is the first and highest form of worship by which we acknowledge God’s supreme dominion over us. Without this there is no such thing as religion. Sacrifice is the essence of all religion. It is not prayer. You can offer a prayer to God or a prayer to a man. You may ask God for a favor or a man for a favor. You may beseech God’s forgiveness or forgiveness of a friend. You may thank God for some benefaction or thank some human being. But a sacrifice may be made by man to God only. We have churches without altars and pulpits without priests. We are a proud people, whose hearts are devoid of the spirit of sacrifice. We have come to identify religion with sermonizing and with prayers until too many pulpits have become political rostrums and religionists have stepped down to the gutter of fanaticism. The essential thing of offering up sacrifice has become mingled with the mist of either romanticism or paganism as we solely and foolishly rely upon the one sacrifice which Jesus Christ made on Calvary’s altar, deceiving ourselves that, because He redeemed us by the sacrifice of His life, we in turn are free to live lives independent of offering our daily homage to the God who created us. Redemption is greatly different from salvation. The mere fact that Christ redeemed us by His infinite sacrifice of Calvary is no argument that you and I and everyone who proclaim faith in Jesus Christ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. You remember what the Scripture says about those who cry, “Lord, Lord,” and “shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven?” You remember the multiplicity of Scriptural passages which signify that “faith without good works is dead?” Christ redeemed us, but we save ourselves through the application to our own souls of His grace and merits which were won on Calvary’s heights. In the twenties, when we were so accustomed to the silent motion picture, how often have you sat enraptured in some great theater as you watched unfolded upon the silver screen a masterpiece like “The King of Kings?” How often have you enjoyed such a spectacle without a word being spoken? Without a direction manifested except for an incidental title which interrupts the steady progress of the drama? The sacrifice of the Mass, in one sense, is a dramatic representation of the greatest event which ever occurred in the reality of life. To the audience the language employed is not altogether understandable. In the silent moving picture drama, no language at all is used save here and there for titles. But it is the action which counts. Our people are taught from childhood what these symbolic actions of their priests entail.

Necessity of Tradition in Religion and in Science By Leonard Giblin

321 The most common and essential question during scientific discussions is, “What does the literature say?” Why? Because every new result must be reconciled with the “tradition” in the scientific literature. As I write my dissertation and discuss my experiments, every result that I report must be presented in the context of what is known in the literature (fallible tradition), & I must provide an explanation for contradictions. Why the emphasis on a fallible tradition? It is impossible to progress toward a clearer understanding of the truth without it. Newton said, “If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.” Without tradition, even a fallible one, we lack foundation and therefore make no progress. The loss of genuine tradition is the loss of truth. Tradition is crucial to the scientific method. All pseudo- sciences display contempt for genuine scientific tradition. If we understand that tradition, even though fallible, is necessary for progress in the natural sciences, then we can clearly see that any diminution of or disregard for the Church's infallible tradition is a diabolical attack on Truth. The love of Catholics for tradition is not mere nostalgia, it is the love of Truth itself. Contradiction of genuine tradition is the hallmark of a charlatan and a shyster. St. Paul and countless saints warn that we should never accept anything that contradicts or diminishes received tradition, even if it were to come from an “angel from heaven.” The necessity of tradition for understanding and progressing toward truth makes the reason for these admonitions quite clear. The Church has progressed by teaching and expressing Her received traditions with ever greater richness and explicitness. This is also how our knowledge of the natural sciences develops. As we try to understand new results in the light of tradition (the literature), we find that results often have more than one interpretation. In these cases, our understanding of the truth is clouded. To progress toward truth, we try to design experiments that will yield results for which there can be only one interpretation. This has, historically, been the reason for calling councils and issuing papal bulls, instructions and encyclicals. When there have been questions about applying the Church’s received Tradition to a situation, or if some heresy has created confusion, then the councils and pontiffs have issued clear and unequivocal teaching—with only one possible interpretation. In this way truth has been made ever more manifest and Sacred Tradition has developed in ever greater fullness and explicitness. Ambiguity is the enemy of Truth, even more diabolical than an outright lie. Therefore the Church censures ambiguities. Progress toward a deeper understanding of truth, in both the natural sciences and the Church, requires respect for tradition and removal of ambiguities by explicit teaching. This is how the spirit of Truth, the spirit of Christ works. With this reality in mind, we can easily understand what underlies the crisis in the Church. Vatican II was not convoked for the historical reason of clarifying Church teaching but rather for unprecedented “pastoral” reasons. Did V2 progress by producing explicit teaching in conformity with infallible tradition? On the contrary, previous unequivocal teachings were presented in an, at best, ambiguous (if not outright heretical) manner. A major problem with V2 is not entirely that wrong interpretations have been made but rather that wrong

322 interpretations can be made. Those who love Truth understand that this is the opposite of progress. Therefore, we know without doubt that the “spirit of V2” is not the spirit of Truth but rather Anti-Truth, Anti-Christ. If V2 is the work of the Holy Ghost, then deception is truth, black is white, evil is good, saints are sinners, and sinners are saints. And the fruits clearly prove the V2 tree. A good shepherd guides his flock with clear commands and protects it by driving off the wolves. The postconciliar “shepherds” have done violence to the truth, confused the flock with ambiguities and told the sheep to embrace the wolves, to whom they have “opened the windows.” For what reason? To achieve a false, political unity and a false peace. How many “Catholics” have the same faith? How many even know the fundamentals? Most openly deny not just one but multiple de fide dogmas and doctrines. Where is true unity, unity in the faith? Is it anywhere to be found in the Novus Ordo church? No, but there is political unity. JP2 et al. are trying to build an ecumenical church, a man-made church based on political principles, not on faith. This is why heretics and schismatics are allowed to rampage unchecked. How can they be condemned when the goal is to achieve “unity” of all heretical and schismatic sects by not condemning them and hiding or removing previous condemnations? The truth is not allowed because it would impede political “unity” by offending those who perniciously cling to error. In fact, the term “schismatic” is reserved for only those who refuse to leave the one true Church and follow in this the greatest of all apostasies—apostasy from the Truth. The Novus Ordo church is to the true Church what pseudo-science is to true Science. In both cases, the former displays contempt for genuine tradition and explicit teaching while the latter embraces and thrives upon them. The crisis in obedience is secondary only to the crisis in authority. People love JP2’s cult of personality, in the way they love other actors and celebrities. But, no one can argue that he is a defender of the Faith. He hides it and suppresses it in his prolific obfuscations in the hope that those who have been seduced by the lies of false religions will not be offended and will join him in “unity” and apostasy against the Truth. It is ironic that the Catholics and members of the false sects who refuse to join in this political “unity” have a more profound unity with each other because they recognize that the goal is to separate and expunge error, not ignore it and allow it to destroy faith and do violence to truth. Our Lady of LaSalette warned “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist … The Church will be in eclipse, the world will be in dismay.” How prophetic are the words of Pope Leo XIII in his prayer to St. Michael, “In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.” Who can deny that the sheep have been scattered? Could this have happened had the pastor not been struck? Like Pope Leo XIII, many Church fathers and saints have taught that the great apostasy foretold in Holy Scripture could come about only through the usurpation and abuse of the authority of the Holy See to lead the faithful into

323 apostasy, out of false obedience. Just as the Jews crucified Christ in false obedience to the chief priests, Catholics will participate in the crucifixion of His Mystical Body in false obedience to a usurped Holy See. St. Francis taught “There will be an uncanonically elected pope who will cause a great Schism, there will be diverse thoughts preached which will cause many, even those in the different orders to doubt, yea, even agree with those heretics which will cause my Order to divide, then will there be such universal dissensions and persecutions that if those days were not shortened even the elect would be lost.” (Rev. Gerald Culleton, The Reign of Antichrist, 1951, Academy Duplicating Service, Fresno, California, page 130) From the fathers of the Douay-Rheims (1582): “St. Augustine ... and St. Jerome ... think that this sitting of Antichrist in the temple, doth signify his sitting in the Church of Christ, rather than in Solomon’s temple. Not as though he should be a chief member of the Church of Christ ... But ... that this Antichristian revolt here spoken of, is from the Catholic Church: and Antichrist, if he ever were of or in the Church, shall be a renegade out of the Church, and he shall usurp upon it by tyranny, and by challenging worship, religion, and government thereof ... And this is to sit in the temple or against the Temple of God, as some interpret. If any Pope did ever this, or shall do, then let the Adversaries [Protestants] call him Antichrist.” (II Thessalonians 2:3-4 – “Annotations,” New Testament, page 558.) Commentary, Fr. Sylvester Berry on Apocalypse, “In the foregoing chapter [12] St. John outlines the history of the Church from the coming of Antichrist until the end of the world ... he shows us the true nature of the conflict. It shall be a war unto death between the Church and the powers of darkness in a final effort to destroy the Church and thus prevent the universal reign of Christ on earth. “Satan will first attempt to destroy the power of the Papacy and bring about the downfall of the Church through heresies, and persecutions that must surely follow ... he will raise up Antichrist and his prophet to lead the faithful into error and destroy those who remain steadfast ... “It is a matter of history that the most disastrous periods for the Church were times when the Papal throne was vacant, or when antipopes contended with the legitimate head of the Church. Thus also shall it be in those evil days to come. “The Church deprived of her chief pastor must seek sanctuary in solitude there to be guided by God Himself during those trying days ... In those days the Church shall ... find refuge and consolation in faithful souls, especially in the seclusion of the religious life. … “Our Divine Savior has a representative on earth in the person of the Pope upon whom He has conferred full powers to teach and govern. Likewise Antichrist will have his representative in the false prophet who will be endowed with the plenitude of satanic powers to deceive the nations. “... As indicated by the resemblance to a lamb, the prophet will probably set himself up in Rome as a sort of antipope during the vacancy of the papal throne ...”

324 “ . . The ‘abomination of desolation' has been wrought in many Catholic churches by heretics and apostates who have broken altars, scattered relics of martyrs and desecrated the . At the time of the a lewd woman was seated upon the altar of the cathedral in Paris and worshipped as the goddess of reason. Such things but faintly foreshadow the abominations that will desecrate churches in those sorrowful days when Antichrist will seat himself at the altar to be adored as God. “. . Antichrist and his prophet will introduce ceremonies to imitate the Sacraments of the Church. In fact there will be a complete organization—a church of Satan set up in opposition to the Church of Christ. Satan will assume the part of God the Father; Antichrist will be honored as Savior, and his prophet will usurp the role of Pope. Their ceremonies will counterfeit the Sacraments. . . " (Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, The Apocalypse of St. John, 1921, The Catholic Church Supply House, Columbus, Ohio, pages 120-138.) Fr. Kramer agrees, “The ‘sign’ in heaven is that of a woman with child crying out in her travail and anguish of delivery... In that travail, she gives birth to some definite ‘person’ who is to rule the Church with a rod of iron (verse 5). It then points to a conflict waged within the Church to elect one who was to ‘rule all nations’ in the manner clearly stated. In accord with the text this is unmistakably a papal election, for only Christ and his Vicar have the divine right to rule all nations. . . But at this time the great powers may take a menacing attitude to hinder the election of the logical and expected candidate by threats of a general apostasy, assassination or imprisonment of this candidate if elected. This would suppose an extremely hostile mind in the governments of Europe towards the Church, because an extended interregnum in the papacy is always disastrous and more so in a time of universal persecution. If Satan would contrive to hinder a papal election, the Church would suffer great travail.” “The dragon will want to intimidate the new pope into non-interference—to let affairs run and develop as heretofore. In that way would he ‘devour the son,’ absorb the papacy, and alone direct and rule the world.” (Rev. Herman Bernard Kramer, The Book of Destiny, 1955, Buechler Publishing Company, Belleville, Illinois, reprinted by Tan Books, Rockford Illinois, pages 277-285) [Leonard Giblin’s point has been made: Tradition is not an option but rather an essential in our more important disciplines.] This Declaration issued forth August 6, 2000 from that hallowed hall of orthodoxy, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, over the signature of Joseph Ratzinger, with the cited approval of that other paragon of Catholicity, Garrulous Karolus, the Koran Kisser. It was greeted by approval of conservative Catholics and loud complaints of non-Catholic groups who had been let down. [Welcome to the club!] Both were wrong. The Declaration’s orthodoxy is confirmed throughout by the intrusion of 102 footnotes, of which 88 refer to documents and decrees of the Second Vatican Council, or subsequent official sources. Four of these manage to cite traditional origins in late addition to “official sources.” Of the other 14, footnote #1 (1st Council of Constantinople, Symbolum Constantinopolitanum: DS 150) 325 furnishes the origin of the creed quoted in the Declaration’s first article. This early creed “believe(s) in one Lord, Jesus Christ, … begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. … the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father” [and the Son?]. “With the Father and the Son he is worshipped …” Already the Orthodox are accommodated. In Article 2 “… Magisterium’s particular attention to giving reasons for and supporting the evangelizing mission of the Church, above all in connection with the religious traditions of the world. “In considering the values which these religions witness to and offer humanity … the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions states: ‘The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men’. … the Church … makes use of the practice of inter- religious dialogue. Such dialogue certainly does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio , directed toward that ‘mystery of unity’, from which ‘it follows that all men and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit’. Inter-religious dialogue, which is part of the Church’s evangelizing mission, requires an attitude of understanding and a relationship of mutual knowledge and reciprocal enrichment” [They have new truth for us?] “in obedience to the truth and with respect for freedom.” [The truth shall make you free! Not surprisingly, the word mystery occurs 34 times in this Declaration.] “3. In the practice of dialogue between the Christian faith and other religious traditions, as well as in seeking to understand its” [What’s? Our faith’s?] “theoretical basis more deeply, new questions arise that need to be addressed through pursuing new paths of research … to recall … certain indispensable elements of Christian doctrine, which may help theological reflection in developing solutions consistent with the contents of the faith and responsive to the pressing needs of contemporary culture.” [Aggiornamento! All non- Christians are accommodated.] Art. 7. “… the differences between Christianity and the other religions tend to be reduced at times to the point of disappearance.” [Naturally! All religions, having in themselves truth and holiness, necessarily lead one to God, nicht wahr?] “14. … theology today, in its reflection on the existence of other religious experiences and on their meaning in God’s salvific plan, is invited to explore if and in what way the historical figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation. In this undertaking, theological research has a vast field of work under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium. The Second Vatican Council, in fact, has stated that: “the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude, but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a participation in this one source’”.

326 [Theology, then, is expected to discover to what extent an absurdity may be true.] “16 … The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity—rooted in the apostolic succession—between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vati-can Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”. [This Declaration, then, repeats a heresy of the Second Vatican Council when it states that God, Eternal Truth, dispenses His gifts and graces through the medium of false religions. Incidentally, subsistit has, according to Lewis & Short, the following meanings: to take a stand or position, to stand still, remain; to stop, halt. Remains in its place. To stay, tarry, abide, remain (in a place). To remain alive. To make a stand, i.e., to stand firm, hold out; to withstand, oppose, resist. To stop, halt, pause; stay, continue, remain, subsist. Still remains, subsists only in. We pause, hesitate, are in doubt. To come to a stop, to cease. To stand, withstand, be adequate to, sustain, support a thing. To stand by, support anyone. To stand or hold good, to subsist. To withstand, make resistance. It is used here without an object, intransitively. It is certainly used to cloud an issue in place of the orthodox word, est = is. Properly, This Church … is the Catholic Church.]

“17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in” [?] “the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion” [partial communion cannot exist—a man or a church is either Catholic or not.] “with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.” … “The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection—divided, yet in some way one—of Churches and ecclesial

327 communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”. “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”. [The Church has always tried to convert non-Catholics—not to soft-soap them with how well off they are. What they retain of truth they took with them when reprehensibly they rejected the rest. “Separated Churches” includes some (Orthodox) who “carry out sacred actions” and have kept genuine sacraments. Whether these greatly benefit them in their separation is a moot point. The Mass, for instance, belongs to the Catholic Church, and is either Catholic Mass or no Mass; to award the channeling of its graces to the schismatic Churches that kidnapped it when they left the Catholic Church is gratuitous nonsense. The ordinary means of grace, Mass and Sacraments, benefit all recipients solely through the Catholic Church. This Declaration and Vatican II advance an irrelevancy true in a limited sense, to be deceptively employed in its widest sense.] There seems here no reason for a conservative to rejoice or an ecumaniac to worry. This Declaration is merely another consolidation from which to launch further attacks on orthodoxy—unrelated to the orthodoxy to which Garrulous Karolus pretends, and which is gratuitously attributed to him from his loose words.

Hermeneutics of Suspicion This term was coined by Stephen Hand on the Internet some months back. If he understands it, it seems one of very few intelligible ideas in just over two pages. He appears to believe the only thing wrong with the postconciliar “Church” is its worship. Even that will accommodate most Catholics if we are allowed to use some form of the traditional Mass. Hand described concern over change of words in the Consecration, “forgetting that if the Church wished she could reduce the words of consecration to only those” [known to the liturgy freaks?] “used by Our Lord at … the Last Supper. …” “Whatsoever the Pope binds … is bound … That ought to be—and always was—sufficient … for a Catholic.” [There, it would seem, is his solution: Pope St. Pius V returned the whole Church to the oldest Mass extant, and backed up fact with law in De defectibus, Formae, wherein he demanded the literal use of the Consecration formula under pain of grievous sin and/or invalidity—which

328 converts into idolatry. Pope St. Pius X, among others, stated officially that the Church has no power over the substance of a Sacrament. These two popes would appear to have settled the issue for a Catholic. ] “Were it not for the terrible liturgical changes … most people would have had no problem with Vatican II,” [except those few who read its decrees and documents, and might have noticed aggiornamento, ecumania, approval of anti-Christian “religions,” and freedom to believe what they liked.] “… we must separate the two issues (i. e., Vatican II and the Mass) and address the Mass as the real problem. … What a colossal miscalculation the New Mass was!” [But we can have John XXIII’s insult mass now, if we agree that nothing is wrong with its colossally miscalculated Judaeo-Arian replacement.] Hand considers Montini a genuine pope, and his pope imposed the “New Mass” to the practical exclusion of the traditional Mass which, along with all Tradition, a pope is sworn to preserve. “Whatsoever the Pope binds … is bound … That ought to be … sufficient … for a Catholic.” [So why not for Stephen Hand?]

We Resist You To The Face (four authors) Tradition in Action, Inc., Los Angeles Page 4: 6. In this document one will not find any hasty labeling — “He is a heretic!” “He is schismatic!” “He is no longer the Pope!” etc. … The document is a polished and fearless invitation to enter into a serious polemic. [Good! Though not polished, I am a fearless polemicist. When I label some one a heretic I prove it from his own words and actions. When I accuse him of schism I point out his division from the Catholic Church. But I have never said of the last four schismatic, heretical usurpers of the Holy See: “He is no longer the Pope!” because they were never popes in the first place. No man who is or has ever been a public heretic can be eligible for the papacy, no matter how many votes he has received. What is hasty about documentation by the decade? I charge the four authors with failure or refusal to draw obvious conclusions. This has led to production of yet another inconsistent compromise.] Chapter II mildly lists a few of the legitimate complaints that have been sent to Rome without reply for more than thirty years. It manages to gloss over as an exercise in Ecumenism that horrible sacrilege at Assisi—only one example of “papal” participation in idolatry and rites of false religions, which crime attracts at least (under Canon 1258 of the 1917-18 Code of Canon Law) suspicion of heresy. This specific offense must be defused within six months or the offender is officially recognized as an outright heretic. Why complain of this to the heretic who has introduced another set of laws because he had regularly and massively violated the code in force? Not even he is a mind reader. Chapter III has the nerve to accuse the “Most Holy Father” of vulgarity! In mentioning the canonization-beatification explosion, it comments: “it has sensibly relativized the idea that papal infallibility is implicated in the declaration of a saint.” Whether or not are infallible, they fall outside the scope of papal infallibility, which is confined to the Deposit of Faith.

329 The same chapter cites the democratism introduced into Church government by the “binding power” conferred on that advisory body, the Synod of Bishops, which, of course, does what is expected of it by the man who convokes it. Page 35: “Your Holiness no longer(?) distinguishes the degree of authority that You want to give to a papal teaching. One no longer knows if the teaching is infallible or not.” [Who would listen to any of it were it not “papal?” Garrulous Karolus looses such a volume of unnecessary comment that not only can no one read it all, no one could have written or spoken it all. When you strike such loose verbosity it is safest to ignore it all. Aside from the confusion generated by a veritable torrent of inconsistent “papal” pronouncements, this “safe course” appears, according to these four authors, to be the torrent’s desired result. Garrulous Karolus belongs, it seems obvious, to that fabled Congregation of the Imposition, whose motto is: “Let’s see how much these stupid sheep will take!”] “Who can read all the papal documents? … Since the vast majority of Catholics cannot read all of them, how can one expect them to serve as the basis to orient the Church? This inflation of documents has the practical effect of preventing the teachings from being followed.” [And a good thing, too!] “A paradoxical fruit: to speak and not be heard, to write and not be read.” [And Wojtyla doesn’t know this?] Page 41 lists a score of ecumenical pranks, each beyond the capacity of a Catholic, but continues the fiction that this pantheist is pope. Page 42 continues: “You have said more than once that it has reached a point of no-return, that ecumenism is irreversible.” [He has obviously lied!] “Thus, even though we desire it, there seems little basis for hope of a change of direction on the path” [away from the Catholic Church] “taken by your Holiness and for a return to traditional Catholic Doctrine and the centuries-old practices of the Church prior to Vatican II.” [So why this book? I could see it intended as condemnation, but as mere resistance?]

Page 51 outlines some of the pressures exercised by the Vatican on the various traditional groups. “Those who will not cede could be led, by the force of pressure, to fall into sede-vacantism, separating themselves disciplinarily and canonically from the Vatican. Perhaps some, lacking orientation or confidence, could be led even to leave the Catholic Church.” [Catholics are bound to keep the Faith. We are not bound to dialogue with non-Catholics, even though they have usurped the Holy See. We have no basis for such dialogue, any more than have these four resisters who lack orientation and have no confidence in Canon Law or logic. When we refuse recognition or obedience to usurpers we do not thereby leave the Church.] Chapter V begins with a Declaration of Resistance. It “does not imply” (page 52) “… *The desire to declare that the Apostolic See is vacant. In our view, a possible future declaration of a sede vacante (the period of time when the Apostolic See is empty, as a consequence of the heresy of the Pope) would take place automatically when the Church would become aware of the gravity of the present day errors” [All instructed Catholics are aware of the gravity of the present day errors.] “and of who is responsible for them.” [Even these resisters

330 know who is responsible. Or why do they address the responsible party? What would they gain by addressing an irresponsible party?] “Should such a situation not become public and notorious,” [It is public and notorious!] “the declaration of the aforementioned judgment would fall to future Pontiffs.” [How determined?] On Page 57 these four compromisers run true to form: they quote St. Robert Bellarmine as a great authority on the papacy in Chapter 29 of De Romano Pontifice to the effect that we may not “judge, punish, or depose him, since these are the acts proper to a superior,” but refuse to quote the same authority in Chapter 30: ‘.... it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Ep. ad Titum, 3), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate—which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves on their own from the body of Christ. Now, a pope who remains pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us? “This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot by any means be pope, as Cajetan himself admits. The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (ser 2 contra Arian.), St. Augustine (lib de grat. Christ. cap 20), St. Jerome (cont. Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be pope.”

“We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right.”— St. Cyprian, who also teaches that heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been bishops or priests in the Church before their heresy. St. Optatus, St. Ambrose. St. Augustine St. Jerome all teach that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. All based their arguments on the nature of heresy, refusal to believe God. No heretic is my superior in the Church. Chapter VI: “In the face of this crisis, there is indisputably a serious conflict in the minds of traditionalist Catholics. Our Lord Jesus Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. … The question arises: How will this happen, since the progressivist infiltration within the Church has gone so far that one could say that it has conquered, and the promise was not fulfilled? The reality is unparalleled: in fact, the Conciliar Revolution would seem to be victorious over the Church. The words of Our Lord, however, are very clear. There is, then, an apparent contradiction. Before this contradiction, the correct position is not to try to explain the present reality only under the light of our understanding. Nor is the correct position one of critical revolt, much less 331 one of despair. In the explanation of this apparent contradiction, there is something that goes beyond our understanding.” To this they oppose humility [and well they should!], confidence, and fortitude. But the solution stares them in the face. Firstly, Christ never said that the gates of hell would not almost prevail. Secondly, where they seem to have prevailed is not over the Catholic Church but over a crew of usurpers impossibly Catholic, and over those foolish enough to adhere to them as genuine. Page 64 introduces an argument that clergy and hierarchy are excused for heresy under obedience to heretics, while the laity may argue with these heretics but not burn them. An editorial by another Matt, printed in the August 10, issue of The Wanderer, slams the four “resisters” from every angle and even refers to even-Handed treatment in a series of articles closing in that same issue. He accuses the resisters of arrogantly (and alliteratively) attempting to appropriate Catholic Tradition exclusively to your own interpretation. He wants his share— fortunately not the lion’s share, but greater than the share preserved by the fatherless lions in Rome. He quotes liberally from that great recent traditional document, JP2’s The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 25% of which could not have been written before the Second Vatican Council. Concerning legitimate grievances, he says, regarding Vatican II—that huge howling heresy—and strange statements by recent popes, the resisters have ruled out discussion by claiming knowledge of their subject. “In fact, among all the tons of newsprint spent by the ‘resisters’ … not an ounce … to explain why their suspension of obedience to the Pope and their ‘state of resistance’ to Vatican II do not constitute objective schism.” Funnily enough, he is correct. When else has he been correct? What traditions has he upheld? You could have forestalled his entire column by presenting just a few facts: 1) Whoever resists a public heretic in pursuit of his heresies does not thereby resist a pope. The first requirement for a pope is that he be a Catholic. His office exists to preserve; he has no competence to innovate. 2) Resistance to a council steeped in multiple heresy cannot constitute schism from the Catholic Church. Had the resisters presented a delation for heresy against the last four “popes” and the council whose reforms they so perduringly and perversely implemented and continue to implement as a matter of policy, they would have placed themselves in an unassailably logical, traditional, Catholic position. This arrogant critic would have been forced to deal with a real position with real arguments—and he has none. Instead the resisters permitted him to class them with a traitor and phony traditionalist, Marcel Lefebvre, and to make a rather good case—at least until he imposed Vatican II as part of Tradition. It is no trick at all to expose the entire council from its inception as a most radical departure from Tradition. It is perfectly logical to conclude from its intention, its content, and its results that anyone who has signed or promulgated its documents and decrees has

332 apostatized from the Catholic Church. We are obliged to resist and to disobey all such persons in all things—to deny them any authority and recognition.

The War Is Now! # 53 I met Brian Harrison, a recent (1972) convert from Adelaide, after a traditional Mass celebrated for the Latin Mass Society of Australia at Oak Hill College, Castle Hill, (A Sydney suburb) NSW, one Sunday between February 3, 1974 and September 21, 1975—that being our tenure at the school chapel. He had come to investigate the value of traditional arguments and the Mass which they tended to preserve and support. We couldn’t tell him where to receive proper training for the priesthood. When next we heard of him, he had become a seminary professor in Puerto Rico. He is not a priest, but rather a victim of Paul VI’s new rite of “ordination.” I have cited him in The Enemy Is Here!, pp. 283, 286, and 288 in support of one of Vatican II’s major heresies, the Declaration on Religious Freedom. He has also entered the liturgical field, as documented in The War Is Now! # 38, page 7. Speaking for Adoremus, a “Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy,” he went on record: “While certainly intending to promote … the most reverent and dignified style of celebrating the Novus Ordo, our long-term goal is to revise the preconciliar Missal … (The Traditionalist position) does not help to achieve the reforms lawfully mandated by the Council.” He had written a pamphlet, What Luther Really Wanted, an urgent matter for our day. The title implies that Luther wanted something different from what he got. So deliberately (he had the benefit of ’ example) he destroyed European religious unity for an unattained purpose. Mr. Harrison published in Living Tradition, May 2000 an article in support of a non-existent animal, an heretical pope. He has done this in evident ignorance of applicable law and a number of notorious facts. We quote applicable law: 1917-18 Code, Canon 6: The Code for the most part retains the discipline hitherto in force, but makes some opportune changes. Thus: 1.° All laws, whether universal or particular, that are opposed to the prescriptions of this Code, are abrogated, unless some special provision is made in favor of particular laws; 2.° Those canons which restate the ancient law without change, must be interpreted upon the authority of the ancient law, and therefore in the light of the teaching of approved authors; 3.° Those canons which agree with the ancient law only in part, must be interpreted in the light of ancient law in so far as they agree with it, and in the light of their own wording in so far as they differ from the ancient law; 4.° When it is doubtful whether a canon contained in this Code differs from ancient law, the ancient law must be upheld; 5.° As regards penalties not mentioned in the Code, whether spiritual or temporal, medicinal or (as they say) vindictive, whether incurred by the act itself or imposed by judicial sentence, they are to be considered as abrogated;

333 6.° If there be one among the other disciplinary laws hitherto in force, which is neither explicitly nor implicitly contained in this Code, it must be held to have lost all force unless it is found in approved liturgical books or unless it is of divine right, positive or natural. In order to determine the obligatory force of a law, it must be noticed, … that a difference exists between divine (positive) and human laws. We may safely say that all moral laws which are based on the dictates of reason, have been laid down in Holy Writ. However, there are also positive divine laws which, per se, do not regulate the morality of acts, but determine the constitution of the Church and the Sacraments or essentials of divine worship. These positive divine laws are out of reach of human legislation and subject only to declaration or interpretation. They receive their obligatory force from divine law, natural and positive, and bind all the members of the Church without further injunction. Such laws evidently have no territorial limits. It is otherwise with positive human laws, which admit of distinction. Canon 16:§ 1. Ignorance of nullifying laws does not excuse from their observance, unless the contrary is expressly stated. § 2. Ignorance or error concerning a law or a penalty or a fact which touches one’s own person, or a notorious fact which touches another, as a general rule is not to be presumed; if, however, there is question of a fact regarding another, which is not notorious, ignorance or error may be presumed until the contrary has been established. Ignorance is the lack of necessary knowledge, whereas error is a state of mind approving falsehood for truth. The former is negative, the latter positive and hence more obnoxious, but perhaps also less imputable. A notorious fact is one which is publicly known and committed under circumstances that cannot be excused by any artifice (tergiversation) or aid of law (cf. can. 2197). Presumption is anticipating a judgment, or forming a judgment from probable arguments and conjectures. Hence our Code defines presumption (a means of defence, but may here serve as a definition in law) as “a probable conjecture of a thing otherwise uncertain” (ca. 1825). For “that which comes nearest to the proof of the fact is the proof of such circumstances as either necessarily or usually attend such facts; and these are called presumptions, which are only to be relied upon till the contrary be actually proved.” Canon 19: All penal laws as well as those which restrict the free exercise of rights or embody an exception to the law, are subject to strict interpretation. Canon 23: Where there is doubt whether or not a law has been revoked, [by the Code or by another general law], it may not be presumed that the law has been revoked, but the old law should be compared with the new, and both made to harmonize, as far as possible. “This canon expresses the law of continuity in the legislation of the Church. It would be unwarranted to assume—as has, strangely enough, been done—that the new Code came into being like a Deus ex machina and that an insurmountable wall is now erected between the Corpus Juris Canonici (in a

334 wider sense) and the Code. The sources (fontes) quoted will show the continuity of legislation.”–A Commentary on the New Code Of Canon Law, Charles Augustine, B. Herder, 1918 “The Code brings together into one volume the above enactments and in a large measure replaces them with respect to their form, but not with respect to their substance. Consequently, after the Divine Law, the Code occupies the first place in the current legislation of the Church. It is the fountainhead of universal legislation, in such wise that the former discipline is no longer the immediate source of legal authority, but becomes a source of interpretation.” – Canon Law, Cicognani, Newman Press, page 499 Ius Canonicum de Personis, Joannes Chelodi, 1942: The pope’s power is removed: (a) through death .... (b) through resignation .... (c) through 1apse into certain and incurable insanity .... (d) through notorious lapse into heresy. This possibility certain people soberly deny a priori, but no reason is speculative which absolutely excludes this. For the pope is not given infallibility as a private teacher. If he infringingly (perfracte) and publicly deny a dogmatic truth, he is no longer a member of the Church, and therefore cannot be its head, and by the very fact loses jurisdiction. This is done by divine law; for this reason the sentence, which in this case the Church would pronounce, would be not of deposition but of mere declaration. .... controversy concerns a heretic pope. Innocent III openly grants the possibility. (Sermo IV in cons. Pontif.: “He can be judged by men, or rather be shown judged, if he clearly vanishes into heresy, because he who does not believe has been judged.”) This admitted, canonists have differed in various opinions, of which the two extremes are: (1) of those affirming that a pope loses jurisdiction on account of heresy merely occult, (2) of those contending that a pope can neither appear nor be deprived of jurisdiction even for public heresy. Both are considered improbable today. And the same judgment (improbability) must be applied to a third, formerly held even by many doctors of great reputation (Cajetan, Suarez), according to whom a publicly heretical pope would not be ipso facto deposed, but must be deposed by the Church. For this contradicts the certain principle of law: that a legitimate pope is subject to no human power. Citing our standard of unity as authority for change is clearly self-defeating, for his authority is confined to preservation of the entire Faith. Citing infallibility is of no more use, for, as Father J. W. Flanagan points out (Fatima International 4 Feb. 1975): “If Pope Paul imposed a mass that is ‘null and void,’ ‘immoral,’ ‘not a mass at all,’ and ‘a great sacrilege’ on the Church and called it ‘the will of Christ’ and the ‘breath of the Holy Spirit,’ it should be obvious to all that Pope Paul VI is not a legitimate pope or has fallen into heresy which ‘ipso facto’ ends his pontificate.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, vol VII, p 261, published the substance of Canon 188, §4 eight years before the Code was promulgated: “Heretical clerics and all who receive, defend, or favor them are ipso facto deprived of their benefices, offices, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.” Volume XI, page 457 spells out the consequence:

335 “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would be null and void.” Clearly, therefore, Canon 188, §4 embodies a doctrine already received, an essential feature of the divinely instituted Church, as defined by Pope Innocent III in 1215, in the Fourth Lateran Council (Denz. 430): “There is one universal Church of believers, outside which no one at all is saved.” A publicly unbelieving pope, a pope that is a public heretic, would be incompatible with the nature of this Church of believers. Adolphe Tanquerey, the eminent theologian, writes: “All theologians teach that notorious heretics, i.e., those who by public profession adhere to a heterodox sect or refuse the infallible teaching authority of the Church, are excluded from the body of the Church, even if their heresy is merely material.— Are occult heretics also excluded, who depart from the Catholic faith only by an internal act, or who manifest their heresy in external acts but not by public profession? The more common opinion holds that occult heretics are still in the bosom of the Church because they retain an external connection with the social body through profession of Faith and obedience to legitimate Pastors.—All agree that infants validly baptized among heretics are truly and perfectly members of the Church until they become notorious heretics by public adherence to heresy. Of schismatics, whether notorious or occult, about the same may be said as of heretics. The same of apostates.”—Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae “Should ..... it happen that a bishop (..... archbp., patriarch, or primate), cardinal, or legate, or even the Roman Pontiff had deviated from the Catholic Faith or had fallen into some heresy before his nomination as bishop, cardinal, or pope, the following dispositions are compulsory: The promotion or election, even if the cardinals have consented to this of common accord, are null and void. They cannot acquire validity by the fact of the subject’s entry into function or by the fact of consecration or subsequent exercise of authority, nor—in the case of a pope—by the fact of enthronement, of the act of veneration or of subsequent general obedience, whatever be the duration of this situation—nor can they be considered as partially legitimate. Nor can they confer upon such persons promoted to the dignity of bishop, archbp., or primate, or called to the dignity of cardinal, or to occupy the See of Peter, any power to command either in the spiritual or the temporal domain. On the contrary, all their words, actions, and dispositions and their consequences have not the least juridical effect and confer no slightest right upon anyone.” – Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Paul IV This law, enacted early in the Protestant revolt, confirmed the obvious traditional doctrine, uncontested for centuries, of revelation and reason, the logical conclusion from Mark XVI, 16, “....he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Yet we hear that this law, necessary to the Church’s survival when enacted, bearing the marks of positive divine law, is replaced by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Is it not indisputable fact that a heretic is not a Catholic? Is it not absurd that one who contradicts Jesus Christ and refuses His mandate to preach His entire doctrine to every creature can be His vicar?

336 Harrison reads what law he finds without comprehension and without commentaries of trained canonists. He never addresses the continuity of the Church legal system, nor the fact that no one may supersede divine law. He pretends that the near abolition of traditional worship was accomplished according to law rather than in its open violation. He tries to saddle God’s Church with God’s enemies. He views the chaotic fluidity of the Church, and shows by his legal expertise how God has prevented the existing chaos. Nothing can be more obvious than that Christ’s Vicar on earth, Bishop of Rome, visible head of the Catholic Church, must of necessity be Catholic. Or did Jesus Christ found His Church upon a rock and then award the rock’s title deed to the devil? The pope is our standard of unity. It is absurd that the standard of Catholic belief, of orthodoxy, of what we must believe to be saved, should be, or ever have been, in heresy, schism, or apostasy. It is absurd also to maintain that at and since the Second Vatican Council the Church has enjoyed the benefits of a properly filled papacy, when obviously we enjoy little or no orthodoxy, hold few essential beliefs in common with nineteen centuries of Catholics, and can discern no unity whatsoever. Since these are the benefits of a properly filled and functioning papacy, we must recognize the fact that we have no visible pope. Therefore those posing as popes since 1958 have been usurpers—non-Catholic and ineligible. If a man is ineligible, no amount of electing will legitimize his tenure of the office for which he is ineligible. Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio placed this fact into specific law, where, as divine law governing the government of Christ’s divine institution, the Catholic Church, this law enjoys not only currency but eternity. This is only reasonable; shall we not be governed by the same laws as past generations of Catholics? How can the introduction of a new codification of the same laws abrogate laws of the greatest benefit to the Church and its members? Harrison is “well aware that St. Robert Bellarmine and some other noted theologians” [including Popes Innocent III and Paul IV] “have held that a Pope may cease” [not may cease—will cease] “to be Pope if he falls into heresy. But that is not doctrine,” [It is not only doctrine; it is fact and it is law—specifically guaranteed by at least two popes—both then and now.] “to which all Catholics are obliged to give their assent; it is debatable opinion, with which we are free either to agree or disagree.” [What Catholic would disagree? Who would want his means of salvation under control of an apostate or a heretic, who cannot himself attain salvation while in such status? Who but a man whose “priesthood” depends upon validity of a heretic’s new “sacraments?”] “I have no access at the present time” (May 2000 Living Tradition, of which Mr. Harrison is Associate Editor) “to all the relevant canonical legislation which was in vigor four centuries ago, in St. Robert’s time, but for present purposes that does not matter.” Mr. Harrison’s footnote 2: “It goes without saying that Divine Providence would never permit him to define his heresy ex cathedra, for the dogma of papal infallibility assures us that this can never happen.” [Since Paul VI affixed his “papal” signature to manifestly heretical documents and decrees of the

337 Second Vatican Council, it follows that Divine Providence fails to recognize him as pope.] Mr. Harrison quotes (footnote 7) legislation according to which no cardinal, even if excommunicated, may be excluded from participation in a papal election . But public heretics lose all offices in the Church, and are therefore not cardinals, bishops, priests, or even popes. But a man may be excommunicated for reasons other than heresy—possibly for the purpose of excluding him and nullifying his vote. The automatically excommunicated apostates in the cardinalate, according to Mr. Harrison, must not be denied a privilege conferred on only Catholics, but, in another postconciliar innovation, cardinals who merely grow old automatically lose all right to elect. They probably can’t be elected, either. Mr. Harrison again: “Now, it is quite obvious that none of the post-conciliar Popes has ever acted in any way which is even remotely comparable with these sorts of ‘public defections’ from the faith. [Mr. Harrison has obviously never read the decrees and documents of the Second Vatican Council, promulgated over the “papal” signature of Paul VI.] “Every sedevacantist must admit that these occupants of the in Rome, recognized” [erroneously] “by nearly all the world as Popes, have all at least publicly professed to be Catholics throughout their respective pontificates,” [How else could they keep the job?] “and have shown every public sign of intending to continue exercising the papal office right up to their dying day.” Mr. Harrison quotes Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis that no cardinal may be excluded from active and passive participation in a papal election by reason of excommunication, suspension, or interdict, and avers that conclave rules have included this provision from the fourteenth century. “Active,” he says, means that the cardinal can vote; “passive,” that he can be elected. If, however, he is a public heretic, schismatic, or apostate, he is not a cardinal because he has lost all offices in the Catholic Church.

Mr. Harrison then wanders off into the irrelevant issue of whether a man can be a secret heretic. Then: “… if a heretic, apostate, or Freemason can thus validly be elected as Pope,” [Canon law says he can’t!] “then obviously he can validly remain acting as Pope until he dies.” [Canon law says he can’t!] “… the legislation by which he binds us” [He can’t!] “will have to be obeyed (insofar as it does not command us to sin or do something manifestly opposed to the common good of the Church.)” [So we are reduced to picking and choosing—the very definition of heresy—among myriad innovations of a publicly heretical apostate!] “Thus, the continuity of the framework and structures of the universal Church will be preserved,” [except its doctrine, law, worship, and sacramental system] “until, in God’s Providence, a more worthy Pontiff is elected.” Mr. Harrison may never be promoted. Nor will he ever recognize that God has protected us from this horrible situation by Divine Law, which we need only to apply and observe to escape the situation.

338 Mr. Harrison denies any connection between 1917 Code (Canons 188 §4 and 2314 §1) and older laws (such as Cum ex Apostolatus Officio) upon which they are based, and in agreement with which they must be read. He waters down 188 §4 because 188 penalizes also several other offenses, supposedly comparatively unrelated or minor. He would deny roast beef to a diner who hated carrot cake. But he reads 2314 §1 in conjunction with 2264, which has less to do with 2314 than comparative weights of the roast beef and the carrot cake. He quotes Canon 2264: “An act of jurisdiction carried out by an excommunicated person, whether in the internal or the external forum, is illicit; and if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is also invalid, without prejudice to c. 2261 §3; otherwise it is valid”. In his footnote: “The words omitted after validus in the above (Latin) citation also have nothing to do with the question of losing the papal office.” Nor has the entire section, headed in Charles Augustine’s Commentary “Exclusion from legal acts.” But Mr. Harrison continues anyway: “These last four words” (otherwise it is valid—obviously not the last four words—see last paragraph) “are highly significant. Let us assume that this Pope – the validity of whose election nobody is disputing –” [Almost everyone I know disputes the last four elections.] “refuses to admit that he has now fallen into heresy.” [He denies it? It is all on record.] “… while … this Pope will be offending God gravely by stubbornly exercising his office while under an (undeclared) excommunication, all his official acts are still juridically valid and binding on the rest of the Church’s members.” Mr. Harrison sums up: “A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic, but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate, would thereby legally incur excommunication.” [He would automatically lose all office, and membership itself, in the Church] “However, even if his heresy or apostasy should become publicly discernible,” [as in exercising papal prerogative in signing and promulgating heresies in Vatican II’s documents] “… the absence of any competent authority on earth who could lawfully declare” [The law reads “sine ulla declaratione”—without any declaration; the law’s violation itself deposes.] “his excommunication would mean that, if he refused to resign” [His heresy, schism, or apostasy would constitute his resignation.] “and continued to insist on carrying out acts of papal authority, those acts,” [papal acts of an ex-pope!] “though illicitly exercised, would still be valid. … He would still be juridically the true Pope, whom we would have to recognize and obey in all things but sin,” [and to whom obedience itself is sinful and heretical] “even though at the inner level at which grace operates, he might well be” [and surely is] “totally separated from the Mystical Body of Christ. Thus God guards his Church from the possibility of being cast into chaos by being left” [as during sixty-nine previous interregna lasting from two months to nearly four years] “without an earthly governing authority.” Mr. Harrison happened too late on the scene. He has never seen the unity of the Catholic Church with all its past, but rather Ecumaniac unity with Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Lutherans, Anglicans, and anyone else but Catholics—whom the postconciliar “Church” has contrived to divide into

339 linguistic groups—largely deficient in the unifying language in which our doctrines are written and our laws promulgated.

Who sent Brian Harrison? The War Is Now! #53 mentioned Mr. Brian Harrison. A subscriber responded with more information. He had been in the same class with Mr. Harrison. He had the good sense to leave, so was not ordained, as was Mr. Harrison, by the Koran Kisser himself, Garrulous Karolus, John Paul II. This may account for Brian’s conservative stance. He must defend JP2’s legitimacy in the papacy, or he has no clerical standing whatsoever. I predict, however, that he will not wait long for his episcopacy. Good men go not long unrewarded.

Another Aspect of Antipapal Authority Canon 2314, *1: “All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic incur the following penalties: (1) ipso facto excommunication; (2) if they have been admonished and do not repent, they shall be deprived of any benefice, dignity, pension, office, or other position which they may hold in the Church; they shall be declared infamous, and, if they are clerics, they shall after renewed admonition be deposed; (3) if they have joined a non-Catholic sect or have publicly adhered to it, they incur infamy ipso facto, and, if they are clerics and the admonition to repent has been fruitless, they shall be degraded. Canon 188, *4, provides, moreover, that the cleric who publicly abandons the Catholic faith loses every ecclesiastical office ipso facto and without any declaration.” We have belabored the fact that Canon 2314 has removed all authority and jurisdiction from the last four apostate, heretic antipopes. Facts plus laws equal ineligibility. This is so obvious that we have neglected the equally effective aspect of schism. We quote from Father Noel Barbara’s Fortes in Fide, Vol. 1, Nr. 6, starting with his quotation of Suarez: “ ... Equally there would be schism if a person separated himself from the Body of the Church by refusing to communicate with her by participation in the sacraments ... The Pope could become schismatic in this manner if he did not wish to be in normal union with the whole Body of the Church, as would occur if he attempted to excommunicate the whole Church, or, as Cajetan and Torquemada observed, if he wished to overturn ecclesiastical ceremonies based on Apostolic tradition.” Jean de Torquemada (uncle of the Spanish Inquisitor) was a valiant champion of pontifical prerogatives in the 15th century and the author of works on the Church whose arguments still carry authority (his Summa de Ecclesia, writes Fr. Y. Congar [!], is a treatise “of real and lasting value”). To show that a Pope can separate himself in an illicit manner from the unity of the Church and from obedience to the Head of the Church, Cardinal Torquemada develops three arguments. Here are the first two:

340 1. ... By disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ as Principal Head of the Church since it is in relation to Christ that the unity of the Church is primarily constituted. And the Pope can separate himself either by disobeying (We are concerned here with not just any disobedience, but with a disobedience which denies the very principle of authority within the Church, thus breaking ecclesiastical unity.) Christ’s law, or by ordering something contrary to the natural or divine law. In acting thus, the Pope would separate himself from the Body of the Church, inasmuch as this Body is subject to Christ by obedience. In this manner, the Pope could without any doubt fall into schism. 2. The Pope can also, without any reasonable cause, but of his own free will, separate himself from the Church and from the college of priests. He would do that if he did not observe that which the Universal Church observes in basing herself on the Tradition of the Apostles (according to the chapter Ecclesiasticarum, di. 11), or if he did not observe that which has been ordained for the whole world by the universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See, above all in that which concerns divine worship: for example in being unwilling personally to observe that which concerns the universal customs of the Church, or the universal rite of ecclesiastical worship. This would be the case of one unwilling to celebrate with priestly , or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he refused to make the sign of the cross as other priests do, or other similar things which, in a general way, relate to perpetual usage in conformity with the Canons “Quæ ad perpetuum”, “Violatores”, “Sunt quidam” and “Contra statuta” (25 q.1). By thus setting himself apart, and with obstinacy, from the universal observances of the Church, the Pope could fall into schism. The conclusion is sound and the premises are not in doubt, since just as the Pope can fall into heresy, so also he can disobey and transgress with obstinacy that which has been established for the common order of the Church. [End of excerpt] So Roncalli’s “minor” changes to the Mass would have excommunicated him for schism as well as for heresy and apostasy. Montini’s imposition of the novus ordo missae would have done the same for him, had he been eligible for the papacy. Luciani and Wojtyla by continuing the offences of the first two would also have been excommunicated for schism, had they never signed the apostatic, heretical documents and decrees of the Second Vatican Council. But these same changes that excommunicated recent and present “popes” for schism incorporated within themselves elements of Arianism, Protestantism, and superseded Judaism. While we recognize that these four usurpers are self- excommunicated for schism, let us never forget that they have also excommunicated themselves for heresy and apostasy.

“We are from the Government, and we are here to help you. I once published an article written by a Wisconsin high school science teacher, Thomas E. Heckenkamp. This article, On Theories of Origins, can be read in my book, The Enemy Is Here!, pp. 26-28.

341 Tom later returned to Wisconsin with his young family. Familiar with the school system, he home-schooled his children. The oldest child, Jerome, at fourteen became the youngest ever admitted to the University of Wisconsin During the night of December 8-9, 1999 the university security police raided his dormitory room without a search warrant. The FBI arrived twenty-four hours later with the required warrant. Meanwhile the security police had grabbed his dormitory computer and spent several months trying to discover evidence of a major crime. Not surprisingly, they found evidence of a number of hackers who had broken into Jerome’s hardly secret files on this computer which had been open twenty-four hours a day to the internet—and could have left or taken anything that a computer will take. But at least one hacker was known going in; the university security police on their own letterhead admitted that they had themselves hacked into Jerome’s computer. This is, I understand, a violation of the law. But they had good reason. Some one using the name “Magic Effects” had shut down E-Bay for two minutes and implied that its proprietors’ credit-card security could be better. Jerome finished his graduate year, and secured employment with Los Alamos National Laboratories in Los Alamos, New Mexico. He returned home to Pewaukee, Wisconsin for Christmas holidays. He left before noon Monday, January 8, 2001 for Los Alamos. He thus avoided a convoy of federal agents which arrived at 12:30 p.m. Two of the vehicles blocked the driveway and disgorged six armed men, one of whom wore a vest sporting large initials, “FBI,” to take this hardened criminal into custody. One, hardly recognizing the doorbell, pounded on the door and demanded the whereabouts of this vicious public enemy whom they had identified, they said, as the man who had more than a year earlier interrupted E- Bay for two minutes. E-Bay is regularly down for hours at a time because California cannot supply enough electric power. But Jerome could receive sentences totaling eighty-five years, and fines up to four million dollars. Three agents pounced on Jerome the moment he arrived in Los Alamos, put him under restraints, and requested permission to search his quarters. He refused, but they went in anyway, and spent some time questioning him. Eventually they took him to jail and instructed that he be deprived of his shoes! Coincidentally, perhaps, Jerome’s employer fired him. And the court released him to a friend’s recognizance on condition that he keep away from computers, find a job, and attend arraignment proceedings at San Jose and San Diego, hundreds of miles apart in California. The “crime” was supposed to have been committed in Madison, Wisconsin. What kind of justice is it to try a man on the home grounds of the powerful interests he is supposed to have damaged, though minimally? Jerome was further put to the expense of traveling to these outlandish venues. Jerome made reservations to San Jose, San Diego, and return to Albuquerque. He had confirmed his reservation the night before, but the first leg had mysteriously disappeared. No record of his reservation to San Jose existed, though the flights from San Jose to San Diego and back to Albuquerque were 342 firmly on the record. Seats were still available, however, and he caught the right flight, though it appears that some one in officialdom wanted to prove that he could not comply with the terms for his temporary freedom. Jerome was given a time to appear in San Jose federal court, January 25 at 9:30 a.m. in courtroom 5 on the fourth floor. But when he arrived his case was not on the court calendar. Everything was word-of-mouth, nothing on record! When he and his attorney found the hearing, the court would not accept the sixteen guarantors from New Mexico, but demanded $100,000 bond. Jerome said: “Put me in jail.” So they reduced it to $50,000 bail. “No!” So the court let him go to San Diego, and he needn’t put up the bond till next week. Is this for real? In San Diego, where he could have taken public transport across the Mexican border, he was turned loose by Judge Larry Burns with the words: “If you screw up again …,” which surely indicate the court’s prejudice. Restrictions placed on Jerome: He can’t travel home to his family. He can’t own a gun. He can’t own a computer. He can’t access the Internet. He must return February 12, again at his own expense, to watch the court set a trial date. The federal prisons are loaded with innocent people who have no idea how they got there. It is standard practice to set people up for imaginary crimes. Evidence is easy to manufacture, and to make credible with the authority of government agencies applied in the interests of perfectly reputable corporations which literally kill potential threats to profits. Defense is nearly impossible. To continue to function, an agency must show why it should continue. This is best demonstrated by a high conviction rate. It may be taken as obvious that a computer hacker is, on average, brighter than the average law enforcement agent. So the agent can’t catch a good hacker. The “criminal” knows how to protect himself. But no one can protect himself unless he knows his danger. In too many cases the danger is the enforcement agency. These agents are empowered to prosecute, but they can’t identify the criminal, so they manufacture a substitute, who has no idea why anyone is on his trail. He is a victim of statistical need. The War Is Now! # 54 Alter Boy — X = the well-known quantity For about a year we have applied for Mass and sacraments to a retired novus ordo cleric under Canon 2261 §2. He professed his willingness to comply with our wishes and requirements, but fell short of the mark regularly. Some of us objected to his and other novus ordo practices. We were told to write him directly. So I wrote Father X (heavily edited):

9/11/00 … objectionable comments: You hailed charismatic circuses in terms almost conveying approval. You had apparently used the confessional to inquire concerning sins of others than the immediate penitent, to the possible detriment of parental authority. [You blamed parents for their children’s sins.] You

343 profitlessly and erroneously commented on the Catholic’s obligation to worship God properly. Aside from the scandal you must have created for a family which first attended Mass here yesterday [and has not returned], as well as for several who assist only at their spouses’ importunations, you aroused reactions which ill disposed the rest of us to assist at the true Mass at which we have taken great pains to assist. … You said in effect that God would judge us more harshly on misuse of His Holy Name (according to the Second Commandment) than on assisting at the blasphemous, sacrilegious, idolatrous, man-made novus ordo missae (according to His First). Priorities? I object to you displaying … such compromising, time-wasting publications as The Wanderer, Soul, and CUF and Medjugorje material. These operate in direct opposition to [us]. I object to your greeting all on their way out, in the Protestant tradition of novus ordo presidents.

9/24/00 … your unnecessary, irrelevant comment that you would not deny that people receive graces from modern church attendance, or words to that effect. When you discuss keeping the Sabbath holy, you use as an example the people who are identified as Jews only by their continued official resistance to the message of Jesus Christ. We come here, passing the doors of many churches for which we paid, to assist at Mass. We are not to be distracted by justifiable anger. Or are you trying to convert us to the Great Renewal by gradual erosion? Another Catholic tradition, handed down by the laity suffering clerical prevalence of the Arian heresy, is to controvert heresies immediately. It is Catholic doctrine that no one is granted grace through false worship or false religion. The novus ordo missae is false, … and the authority behind it cannot but be false religion, impossibly the Catholic Church.

10/29/00 You [hung up on] my telephoned offer last evening. A priest should have at least as much zeal for God’s word as an ignorant layman. And what is read out of that John XXIII-Paul VI mass book is not God’s word. It is an unauthorized version of selections from Scripture deliberately written to accustom the laity to change, some heretical, all substandard English. That book was a stage in introduction of the novus ordo missae and is therefore obnoxious to the traditional Catholic. We all disliked the “translations” when we first heard them, and we don’t want to hear them again. Please compare these [accompanying] authentic translations with those in that wretched book. These are not my innovations; these are what was always read in Mass during our childhood and for centuries before.

344 10/30/00 In your schedule of October 29 had you some purpose in changing the [name of our Mass venue]? It was a canonically erected church with an assigned territory in the archdiocese before the general apostasy, after which the archdiocese moved out. But it had lost any authority by which it could “decommission” the site. But you on priestly “authority” have determined in your maltreatment of the toties quoties All Souls Day indulgence that this is not a parish church, and have prescribed that we go to some parish church where only bread is reserved to gain this indulgence. And we must pray for the intention of the Holy Father. Who? The apostate usurper in Rome whose pontificate is dedicated to further implementation of the Second Vatican Council? Is this the same Holy Father to whose intentions you have dedicated the Third Mass of the day? 11/6/00 “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins.” (II Maccabees xii, 46) November is known as the month of the poor souls. The Church has ever promoted this emphasis, and the faithful have ever remembered families, friends, and even priests. If you consider this custom a scam or a take you can easily refuse money for remembrance at Mass for these hundreds of beneficiaries. You must have some idea of the value of a true Mass. You may even struggle to the realization that we also appreciate its value. It is not as though many priests are offering the true Mass. You, in effect, refuse suffrages for the dead. And you make a virtue of it! You defer offering of Mass for the souls of individuals because you have an obligation to offer Masses pro populo—the obligation of a parish priest. And you recently told us that we cannot gain the toties quoties indulgence here because it is not a parish. On your own evaluation, therefore, you are not a parish priest and have, therefore, no such obligation. Nor are you obliged to issue a bulletin. After being told that we cannot in conscience go to the novus ordo “Church” for anything but demolition, you tell us that there we can easily obtain plenary indulgences by prayers for “the pope.” You appear to mean the usurper who last week signed a doctrinal agreement with the Lutherans, who originated in refusal of indulgences. You continue also to recommend reading heresy as promulgated by the living usurper, Wojtyla, and the dead usurper, Montini. You cannot be that obtuse. If you are manufacturing cause to leave us, that is your privilege, perhaps. But you have no possible excuse for trying to weaken or dilute our faith in the process. 11/19/00 This morning you read from Dom Columba Marmion. But what was your point in citing his recent beatification? You thus clearly implied that the apostate, idolatrous postconciliar “Church” has power and jurisdiction to canonize and beatify. Whether the holy abbot was holy enough is utterly irrelevant. His authority could easily [necessarily?] have been established by other means.

345 You began your homily with that Protestant reference to brothers and sisters (in emulation of St. Paul?) which grates on every Catholic—even musical—ear. Why not “Dear friends in Christ” or (if applicable) “My fellow Catholics?” … You referred to Revelations instead of Apocalypse. In your latest weekly bulletin you placed Baptism in an odd light. “We welcomed Leonardo Rafael … into our community through baptism.” No one could ask for a less orthodox, more Protestant appraisal. When Marcel Lefebvre drew fire for speaking too softly to the Roman problem, his spokesman, Richard Williamson, pleaded that Marcel tempered his hot air to the shorn lamb, who could be fed only milk because he could not digest strong meat. You, too, underestimate the local flock. You speak as to children. We have been hardened in decades of defense of Catholicism; we can stand stronger meat. Don’t waste our time. 12/11/00 We find difficulty in accepting what is based on private revelation. December 3 you appealed to, among other authorities, Fatima. The Deposit of Faith is not affected by Fatima, Garabandal, La Salette, Lourdes, Medjugorje, or the messages of the Marian Movement of Priests. If we use any of them we lay ourselves open to use of all. They are in no sense corroboration of our doctrine. They are judged on their conformation with the original Deposit of Faith. While we recognize no orthodoxy or authority of the Second Vatican Council, we use paragraph 37 of its Lumen Gentium against its promulgators: “The laity have the right, as do all Christians, to receive in abundance from their sacred pastors the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the assistance of the Word of God and the sacraments. Every layman should openly reveal to them his needs and desires with that freedom and confidence which befits (sic) a son of God and a brother in Christ. An individual layman, by reason of the knowledge, competence, or outstanding ability which he may enjoy, is permitted and sometimes even obliged to express his opinion on things which concern the good of the Church.” After a few ambiguous lines which suppose the existence or future existence of agencies set up by the Church for this purpose, and a few admonitions to obedience (which apply equally to laity and clergy) the paragraph continues: “Let sacred pastors recognize and promote the dignity as well as the responsibility of the layman in the Church. Let them willingly make use of his prudent advice.” Wednesday, November 29 at a gathering for the purpose of religious instruction you spoke on icons and played a videotape which wandered away from its subject to compare our holy Sacrifice of the Mass with the cruder aspects of a Jewish wedding. If this is religious instruction who needs it? It reverts, as does all Protestantism, to Old Testament customs, to the denigration and denial of the New Testament with which Jesus Christ replaced the Old. Why cling to foreshadows when we have the substance? But you described this foul material as non-controversial. Controversy would be avoided in your classes. Your December 3 bulletin, I note, promoted the next Wednesday gathering as “sharing.” Sharing no fighting during a crusade! You share with the group?

346 God is everywhere. Mary is everywhere, too, you say. She is there when and where we receive Our Lord’s Body and Blood—to distract attention from this great Sacrament? To participate with her divine Son in worship paid Him? Many of us have heard the blasphemous new doctrine that when we receive Communion we receive also the body and blood of Mary, the Mother of God. You came within a millimeter of propounding this nitwitted heresy in your homily of Sunday, December 10, in which also you deplored the uselessness of St. John the Baptist and Fulton Sheen. If their preaching had so little effect why do you preach? At the same Mass you chose the third and Postcommunion for the pope! Whom had you in mind? You should have used the more appropriate option, contra persecutores ecclesiae (against the persecutors of the Church), which applies to the whole postconciliar establishment—especially the last four “popes.” 12/28/00 I base my complaint on two sections of the Missale Romanum. … If you read through page 42 from Ritus servandus, you cannot but note the care and precision demanded in the celebration of Mass. If you continue to read pp. 47 and 48 from De defectibus, you can readily see how easily the Mass may be turned into idolatry, as well as the intimate bond between the consecration and the immediately preceding words—needed to effect it. In defects in the bread, the celebrant must go back to Qui pridie quam pateretur to consecrate the replaced bread. In defects in the wine, the celebrant must go back to Simili modo postquam coenatum est to consecrate the replaced wine. There is an unbreakable bond between preambles and consecrations. Let us return to your Christmas midnight Mass. You followed the rubrics and said: Qui pridie quam pateretur, accepit panem in sanctas, ac venerabiles manus suas, et elevatis oculis in caelum ad te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens, benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens: Accipite, et manducate ex hoc omnes. You’re in the wrong place! Take that behind me! Hoc est enim Corpus meum. You broke the bond with an utter triviality. How much of the necessary concentration and intention did you bring to what you were supposed to be doing? Is this your ordinary attention to the most important and effective words ever spoken on earth? 12/31/00 Your bulletin featured the “Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick,” another fiction of the postconciliar “Church.” … It is time you take into account the Catholic religion as taught us in childhood, and our deep prejudice against novelty, nearly all of which is heretical and/or invalid. Catholics have always taken a lot from our clergy, but we take nothing from heretics. The Faith comes first. Please investigate it. 1/8/01

347 Am I to assume from your bulletin that you take the trouble to write your disjointed, scatter-shot homilies? that you then memorize what you have written so that you may amaze all with the number of bases you can touch? And that having taken all this trouble you allow yourself to be distracted by crying babies and snoring adults? I shudder to think of that myriad clergy which from Apostolic times has faced and overcome the same problems by real preaching. One of the best sermons I ever heard took three minutes. The priest told no jokes to keep us awake; he had put no one to sleep. He neither reminisced nor digressed. He threw in no personal opinions. He taught from authority, he made his point—and it was worth making—and he stopped. And we listened, and were edified, not angered. If you really were to write your Sunday homily, you might edit it to make it effective. But you simply must improve on your bulletin. And don’t cry about your “only alternative.” You would please many of us if you would read the Epistle and Gospel, then go right back to the . We come for Mass and sacraments; we know the doctrine. … We see little point in your passing references to sodomite perversions, such as same-sex “marriages.” 1/21/01 I wrote you nothing last week. I had a complaint, but thought it too small to waste the time. It concerned the addition of two new feasts to the liturgical calendar. These are evidently postconciliar “Church” feasts since they are not listed in the traditional Missal. They received mention, however, in the following quotation from the original Rheims-Douai New Testament. ANNOTATIONS CHAPTER II Our Lordes apparition or Epiphanie to these Sages being Gentils, their Pilgrimage to him, and in them the first homage of Gentilitie done unto him the twelfth day after his Nativitie : and therefore is Twelfth day highly celebrated in the Catholike Churche for joy of the calling of us Gentils. His baptisme also and first miracle are celebrated on the same day. We are familiar enough with the liturgy to realize that the Mass is interrupted on only special occasions, such as ordinations and professions of canonical vows—not to begin separate devotions such as Benediction. We have done fairly well without innovations, and see no reason to accept them now. Benediction is often interrupted for special devotions. Among the comments: “What do we care about the European Lutherans? We’re just trying to get the Catholics back!” A technique used in writing poetry is to write the last line first. So I recognize it in a sermon, which I thought passably good until the finish—the application. We take no pride in knowing more than the priest about subjects in his field. We have been driven to this expertise by deficiencies of our clergy and hierarchy. Your position is analogous to that of a retarded pupil. Have you always thought your teachers proud? Is it not their business to instruct the ignorant? It is every man’s responsibility to know his own job. Have you not shown you are too proud to learn? No layman can teach you? I can remember when priests taught me. I listened happily.

348 The congregation’s pride or humility is not relevant. Only truth and accuracy count. Should you not feel humility in knowing less of your own job than the laity knows? If we knew nothing of theology, liturgy, and canon law, why would we need the services of a real priest? We could attend the parish idolatry or the insult “mass” and never hear a word you might say. 1/31/01 I have heard many mistakes in Latin by altar boys. The Church takes a lenient view: they are accepted saltem in confuso. Servers are not expected to excel in Latin. Priests are not granted the same leeway. They are obliged to use the correct words correctly. As William Thomas Walsh bears out (Spanish Inquisition), consequences of laxity include sacrilege and idolatry. Over the months you have made a few (trivial, I hope) errors, mostly in Epistles and Gospels. But virtually every time you end a Collect, Postcommunion, or other audible prayer, you say—not Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, as printed—but doubling the consonant D, you say: Perde Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum! I have heard this mistake (I hope) fairly often over the years, though never in the last thirty. [Because I had heard it before, I paid little attention. Father X could have heard it, too, and picked up the habit from older priests. But it distracted me, and its meaning finally impinged on my consciousness.] According to Lewis & Short. Perdo, perdidi, perditum, perdere means to make away with; to destroy, ruin; to squander, dissipate, throw away, waste, lose, etc. It is probably a copied habit. No one is likely to mean such a sentiment purposely. On the other hand, what will you tell the Inquisition? [End of letters] * * * * * * Sunday, February 4 Father X, having been apprised of this mistake which, if intentional, could turn his mass into devil worship, continued to make the same mistake. After mass I entered the sacristy. When he came in I shut the door (private correction) and asked whether he reads my letters. “No,” he said. I then described his bad habit, and determined that he knows the meaning of the Latin verb perdere. Father did not believe me, he said, but would check it. — As though anyone with a conscience could invent such a charge! The Church appends to many of its prayers Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum …(through our Lord Jesus Christ …) in accord with Christ’s words: “Whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do : that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” (John xiv, 13) Father X inserts an extra syllable. The only time I have heard him omit this extra de occurred at the Collect of the mass for Sunday, February 18. The syllable returned, however, for the Postcommunion prayers. With what result? Perde Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum … which translates Destroy our Lord Jesus Christ … This alarming, blasphemous difference Father terms nitpicking. … I mentioned this to several who attend mass here regularly, to confirm my own hearing. I can produce five who heard what I heard February 11 and February 18. (This Father X characterizes gossip.) At the end of mass February 11, I

349 asked one of these if he had heard what I heard, and received an emphatic YES. I asked him to accompany me to see Father X, who again denied that he would say such a thing, and complained to my witness that I heard this but I must be wrong. He then pronounced the phrase correctly, showing that he really could. He demonstrated this again at the Collect prayer Sexagesima Sunday, February 18, even emphasizing the correct rendition of the phrase. From the pulpit he shortly made the entire matter public. He threatened to leave us in the lurch, as have several other priests. Whoever wants to leave manufactures excuses, and tries to split the community. It is par for the course. Father X even drags in health problems, and blames me for stress he continues to bring on himself. Would it be a huge trauma to correct such an error? Instead he digressed into the number of priests of different accents for whom he had served, and their consecrations were good. But I began to serve Mass shortly after Father X was born. My first priests were German or Polish, who had learned Latin in their native countries. I have had no trouble hearing and understanding any, including Spaniards, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Dutchmen, Italians, Croatians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scots, Swedes, or even Alabamans and Englishmen. I can understand even FatherX, though he uses his French ancestry to invent a rolled r. Frenchmen occasionally pronounce an r! But this is the only r Father X ever “rolls.” Has anyone ever heard him throw an extra syllable into miserere nobis or ? Nor do we hear this extra syllable in such other common phrases as Per Christum Dominum nostrum or Per eundem Dominum nostrum. His sole mistake of this kind is in this phrase which he persists—after correction!—in using, thereby strongly suggesting malicious purpose. He stumbles along misreading on average a word every five lines, probably due to poor eyesight. This same Sunday of his publicizing the argument to draw sympathy and support for his error he omitted a vital phrase from the Preface, which is used on most Sundays of the year. I quote an excerpt: Quod enim de tua gloria, revelante te, credimus, hoc de Filio tuo, hoc de Spiritu Sancto, sine differentia discretionis sentimus. (For that which we believe by Thy revelation of Thy glory, the same we believe of Thy Son, the same of the Holy Ghost, without difference or separation.) According to his version we don’t believe hoc de Filio tuo—the same of Thy Son. Arianism? We have all heard of rock masses. They gild the novus ordo lily. Since Father X introduced the French rolled R, we have heard nearly enough rolled R’s to constitute a roll mass. On the first Sunday of Lent he rolled between fifteen and twenty per cent of his R’s. It may take time to overcome lifelong habit, but he must make a point. He’ll surely roll them all by Easter. But he missed the roll at the Collect. He rolled the per in the first Postcommunion, and then used the word of contention, perde, in the formula ending the joined second and third. All this effort to provide a nit for picking —to substantiate an unlikely excuse for his habitual mistake, which he could far more easily correct. But he likes contention (despite the stress on his heart), or why would he raise so many weird subjects in his homilies? What good has he done by informing our children where to find the most convenient pornography? He introduced his

350 subject by citing all the “popes” of the last fifty years. He knows our reason for existence. He knows that his subjects rub most of us the wrong way, and leave us in no fit state to assist at the rest of his mass. He knows that we must controvert his erroneous statements. He banks on our good manners and church behavior. He must have seen one parent shepherd her children out of earshot. Did that distract him? His Sunday bulletin provided rules for fast and abstinence in effect from 1966, and referred us to Canons 1249-1253, of JP2’s 1983 code. He knows these innovations were introduced by usurping incompetents, and can have no effect. Not satisfied with that, he promulgated statistics gleaned from the confessional and consultation with his fellow confessors on the high incidence of violation of Friday abstinence laws (what’s left of them). This is forbidden territory. He can’t advise us, so he says, because ours is not a parish, but he can discuss what we confess! Sunday, November 26 Father X’s homily featured the sacrament of Penance. He emphasized that one of its requirements was jurisdiction, which comes only from the local bishop. But our confessions, he said, were all right. I concluded immediately that Father X had contacted the apostate archbishop of Houston, and from him had secured authorization and jurisdiction to absolve us of our sins (though not to advise us). This is consistent with his admitted attendance at a novus ordo ceremony to receive his ashes. Father X based his Sexagesima Sunday homily on the Epistle of the day, comparing his mighty sufferings on our behalf with those of St. Paul. Then he changed the subject and dragged out into the light of day his egregious and repeated blunder in his mass celebrations, and the stress this had occasioned him. He wants us to choose sides on an indisputably factual matter. He could better have quoted St. Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, 13:11. “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.” The Second Sunday of Lent Father X dispensed with his rolled R—too difficult to maintain. He continued his original error, inserting an extra syllable in the end of both Collect and Postcommunion: perde Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. On the bright side, he erred only half as often as usual—he dispensed with second and third Collects and Postcommunions. On the Third Sunday of Lent Father X again rolled no R, except at the end of the first Collect. He said perde Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum but finished per (no roll!) omnia saecula saeculorum. I confirmed this immediately with the Latin student kneeling next to me. Father finished the other Collects normally with per eundem Dominum, etc. His homily never referred to grace but enlarged on the wonderful feeling experienced when one receives communion. He spoke as one familiar with this thrill. Had he felt the same in his years celebrating idolatry?

351 Laetare Sunday Father X again rolled no R, and again ended the first Collect in his customary error, perde Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum etc. He ended the third Postcommunion in the same erroneous manner. His homily treated the Gospel’s Miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes in terms which implied that the twelve Apostles were almost as put out with their supreme privilege as Father X with his onerous priestly duties. He didn’t think the Apostles received communion when they ate the contents of the twelve baskets of fragments left over from the five loaves and two fishes. Doesn’t he know? Why assume that the Apostles ate them? The Gospel says only that they were gathered up so as not to be wasted. Perhaps they were fed to the fish. He tapped again his vast fund of reminiscence to furnish details of an Evangelical group’s “Galilee meal” (he furnished a partial menu) which he had so ecumenically attended. He commented gratuitously that St. John’s Gospel says nothing of the Last Supper. But Chapters 13 to 17 report the washing of the feet and continue through Christ’s discourse to the Apostles, right up to the time when they left for Gethsemane and its agony. After the he sneeringly berated all for distracting him from his usual classic homily. The homily was distraction enough. Continued deliberate twist of Latin is more than enough. No one comes to Mass to be irritated, especially deliberately. Canon 882. When there is danger of death, any priest, even though not otherwise approved for hearing confessions, may validly and licitly absolve any penitent from whatever sins and censures, including those which are reserved and notorious, even though an approved priest may be present. But the rules laid down in canon 884 [absolutio complicis] and 2252 [obligation of recurring to proper authority if health regained] must be observed. Canon 886. If the confessor has no reason for doubting the proper disposition of the penitent, and the latter demands absolution, it is neither to be refused nor postponed. Canon 888. The confessor shall remember that he is a judge and physician appointed by God to administer divine justice as well as mercy, in order to provide for God’s honor and the welfare of souls. He shall be careful never to ask the name of an accomplice, nor to detain the penitent with inquisitive and useless questions, especially concerning the sixth commandment, and above all he should not imprudently ask young people about things they are ignorant of. [ Augustin’s Commentary: It is not permitted to ask the name or residence of an accomplice, or to inquire into any circumstances that might indirectly lead to the manifestation of his or her name. … the confessional should not be made a pulpit: the practice of preaching in it might deter people from going to confession.] Canon 889. §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable, and hence the confessor shall be most careful not to betray the penitent by any word or sign or in any other way for any reason whatsoever.

352 §2. The obligation of keeping the sacramental seal binds also all interpreters and all other persons who may in any way have acquired knowledge of confession. [Augustin’s Commentary: The seal is violated directly if a sin confessed in the confessional and the name of the penitent is revealed; indirectly, if from the confessor’s way of acting or speaking there is danger that the sin of the penitent be made known or that confession itself becomes hateful. …… Some missionaries were accustomed to put exactly as many particles on the patena as there had been persons absolved and admitted to Holy Communion. This they could not do except by using sacramental knowledge, and the practice was therefore rebuked as an offense.] Canon 890. §1. The confessor is strictly forbidden to make use of the knowledge gained from confession, if this use involves injury (gravamen) to the penitent, even though the seal of confession were not endangered. [Augustin’s Commentary: The sole reason here given why the use of confessional knowledge is absolutely interdicted, is the damage or trouble (gravamen) that may accrue to the penitent. … Therefore incautious remarks or personal references or intimations must be avoided. Defamatory remarks about individuals or communities which are the result of hearing confessions must be avoided. Even in his sermons the priest must beware of describing details which might point to a particular family or individual. All these are gravamina which cause aversion to confession. How serious this obligation is may be illustrated by the following case proposed by moralists. If the confessor knows from confession that his life is at stake, he may indeed make his escape if he can do so without endangering the seal of confession or damaging the penitent; but if he cannot escape without violating seal or causing a gravamen to the penitent, the confessor must face his fate.] Canon 892 §1. Pastors and others entrusted with the care of souls, by virtue of their office are strictly obliged in justice to hear the confessions of the faithful committed to their care as often as the latter reasonably demand to be heard. This obligation, which is personal, may be complied with through a substitute. §2. In urgent cases all confessors, and in case of danger of death, all priests, are obliged in charity to hear confessions. [Not applicable to wildcats.] Canon 2369 §1. A confessor who presumes to violate directly the seal of confession, shall incur excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Apostolic See; he who violates it indirectly only, shall be liable to the penalties of Canon 2368 §1. (shall be suspended from celebration of Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, and, if the gravity of his offense demands, shall be declared disqualified for the hearing of confessions. He shall also be deprived of all benefices and dignities, and of an active and passive vote, and be disqualified for all these, and in more serious cases punished with degradation.) Father X has shown himself in violations of some of these Canons. He has shown obstinacy in the face of necessary correction. His defense is that he has the right to misread his major priestly duty. He behaves either maliciously or aberrantly. May we condone? 353 Are we bound to impute only the worthiest motives and intentions to a man who has spent more than three decades in good standing in the apostasy? Are we to believe that he omits Garrulous Carolus and the local apostate ordinary, or his former apostate ordinary from the Te igitur, the first prayer of the Mass Canon?—because a proven prevaricator says so? We read in St. Matthew’s Gospel18:15-17: “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” Our legitimate complaints have, with one exception (He never repeated the optional Collect and Postcommunion “for the pope” in my hearing.), fallen on deaf ears and closed eyes. Note that we complained against Father X; his complaint was to the effect that he had received letters that disturbed him. He took no action, though it was reported that he would have some member of the congregation, whom Father had not acquainted with the issues, remonstrate with me after mass. I was dissuaded from passing out this information locally with The War Is Now! #53 because it might drive Father X further around the bend, and leave us without a regular mass. We needed more time to reconvert Father to Catholicism. He had, after all, spent many years in the apostate postconciliar sect. When I first joined The Latin Mass Society of Australia a certain priest attended all meetings, but was not a member; the archdiocese might frown on his association. Many assisted at his mass because it was one of the very few available. He drove off many, not a few of whom complained to me: “He’s crazy!” I thought him sane enough to celebrate mass. He never brooked argument from the laity. We were to remember our lowly condition. (Humility is a lay virtue.) Every year he lost a few more marbles. When he went publicly into heresy I stopped assisting at his mass. Father X has pronounced heresy from our pulpit. He refuses to discuss problems, and reacts abnormally to all instruction. I see no reason to accept his words for the reason that he is a priest. Nearly all priests have forsaken Catholic doctrine and violated their oaths to preserve it. Father X is one of this majority. Faced with this he must return to the Faith or go into denial mode—which is bound to drive him further around the bend. But I see no reason to watch the process.

The War Is Now! # 49 (out of sequence) GOLDEN HERESY In 1523 Martin Luther issued a Formula of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg. His prefatory remarks identify him as a conservative. “I have undertaken nothing either by force or command; nor have I changed old things for new, always being hesitant and fearful on account of those souls weak in the faith from whom the old and accustomed is not to be taken away

354 suddenly or among whom a new and untried method of worshiping God is to be introduced; and especially on account of those light and fastidious spirits who, without faith, without reason, like unclean swine, rush wildly about and rejoice only in the novel, and as soon as the novelty has worn off forthwith become disgusted with it.” “… we will busy ourself concerning some pious form of saying Mass (as they say) and of administering Communion. … it is not now, nor has it ever been, in our mind to abolish entirely the whole formal cultus of God, but to cleanse that which is in use, which has been vitiated by the most abominable additions, and to point out a pious use. … additions of the early fathers, who are said to have prayed one or two psalms in a subdued voice before blessing the bread and wine were commendable … they who added Eleison , they also pleased; …reading of the Epistles and Gospels was and is necessary … when chanting began [!], the psalms were changed into the Introit; then … was added the Gloria … Graduals, , Nicene Creed, Sanctus, , and Communio. All these are such as cannot be censured … the Canon excepted. … I am speaking about the Canon, that mangled and abominable thing gathered from much filth and scum. Then the Mass began to be a sacrifice; the and paid-for prayers were added; then Sequences and Proses were inserted in the Sanctus and Gloria … let these things be passed by … until they be entirely abolished. … meanwhile we will test all things; what is good, we will retain. … We accept [Mass] as Sacrament, or Testament, or Blessing as in Latin, or Eucharist as in Greek, or the Table of the Lord, or the Lord’s Supper, or the Lord’s Memorial, or Communion, or by whatever pious name you please, so long as it be not polluted by the name of sacrifice or work; and we will set forth the rite according to which … it should be used.” He proceeded to specific regulation under eight titles. “…We, of Wittenberg, seek to celebrate only on Lord’s Days and on festivals of the Lord, abrogating completely the festivals of all the saints; … Let festivals of the Holy Cross be anathema. …” “… the Oratio (prayer), or Collect … if it is pious …, should be preserved in its accustomed use; but there should be only one. … something seems to be needed, since those parts of the Epistles of Paul in which faith is taught are rarely read, but most frequently those parts dealing with morals and exhortations. … vernacular preaching will supply this lack. If it shall come to pass in the future that Mass shall be celebrated in the vernacular (which may Christ grant!), attention must be given so that Epistles and Gospels, chosen from the best and more weighty parts …, be read in the Mass.” We omit the second, and fourth to seventh rules as only mildly nauseating in comparison, but hope to compensate with number eight in toto. “In the eighth place, there follows that complete abomination, into the service of which all that precedes in the Mass has been forced, whence it is called Offertorium, and on account of which nearly everything sounds and reeks of . In the midst of these things those words of life and salvation have been placed, just like in times past the ark of the Lord was placed in the temple of idols next to Dagon. And there is no Israelite there who is able either to

355 approach or lead back the ark, until it has made its enemies infamous, smiting them on the back with eternal shame, and has compelled them to send it away, which is a parable for the present time. Therefore repudiating all those things which smack of sacrifice and of the Offertory, together with the entire Canon, let us retain those things which are pure and holy, and then we will order our Mass in this fashion.” The fashion, as we would expect, omitted all essentials of a Mass and completely disrupted the order and sequence of what remained. All emphasis was placed on the Word (Scripture, not Λογος) as used in the chief feature, the sermon. This became more established in 1526 with his new Deutsche Messe. “We allow the vestments, altars, and candles to remain in use until they are used up or it pleases us to make a change. … In the true Mass, however, of real Christians, the altar could not remain where it is and the priest would always face the people as doubtless Christ did in the Last Supper. “To begin the Service we sing a hymn or a German Psalm … Then follows the Kyrie Eleison … three times and not nine times … Collect …, Epistle…, German hymn …, Gospel … After the Gospel the whole congregation sings the Creed in German. … After the sermon shall follow a public paraphrase of the Lord’s Prayer and admonition for those who want to partake of the Sacrament … The Office and Consecration follows … It seems to me that it would be in accord with the institution of the Lord’s Supper to administer the Sacrament immediately after the consecration of the Bread, before the Cup is blessed, for both Luke and Paul say: He took the cup after they had supped, etc. During the distribution of the Bread the German Sanctus could be sung, or the hymn Gott sei gelobet, or the hymn of John Hus: Jesus Christus unser Heiland. Then shall the Cup be blessed and administered; while the remainder of the hymns are sung, or the German Agnus Dei. … “Lent, and Holy Week are continued, not to force anyone to fast, but to retain the Passion History and the Gospels appointed for that season. Not in such fashion, however, that we still have the Lenten , Throwing of Palms, Veiling of Pictures, and whatever else of such trickery there is; nor do we continue the singing of four Passions, or preaching on the Passion for eight hours on Good Friday. Holy Week shall be like any other week save that the Passion History be explained every day for an hour, throughout the week or on as many days as may be desirable, and that the Sacrament be given to everyone who desires it. For among Christians the whole service should center in the Word and the Sacrament.” Not “faith cometh by hearing” (Rom. x,17) as St. Paul says, but salvation comes by hearing a preacher not sent (Rom. x,15). We are to be saved by Christ’s largess at a meal, not by (as the Catholic Church has always taught) His Sacrifice on the Cross. What possible reason then had the Crucifixion? This is a fundamental and unbridgeable opposition in dogmatic theology and approach to religion, our relationship with God. Clearly, anyone who can sign an agreement on religion with Luther or his misguided followers cannot be Catholic.

356 But just this agreement was targeted by Montini and Bugnini when they introduced the novus ordo missae, its Offertory replacement, and its Eucharistic Prayer II, which substitutes for the Canon of the Mass and never mentions sacrifice. How could such a disgusting heresy have prevailed? There’s gold in them thar heresies! The Church had a lot of property, much of which it had itself created through the efforts of monastic institutions. If it is in error why should anyone contribute to its support? Is it not more patriotic to drive it out and confiscate its assets for the common good? Is it not a service to the community to free the people from this spiritual tyranny? So the revolting princes were motivated by the noblest greed and patriotism (“the last refuge of a scoundrel”). Eventually they worked out a modus vivendi—cujus regio, ejus religio—whose domain, his religion, thus guaranteeing the religious freedom of his subjects. And now the Catholic Church, as constituted by as fine a galaxy of antipopes cum apostate retinue as conceivable, blesses this diabolical spiritual desert in unnecessary and necessarily sterile “agreement” which accommodates not only modern man but his sixteenth-century despoilers. And why not?! Our current crew has the same end in view: destruction of the Catholic Church! They use even the same methods—vernaculars to replace our Mass with idolatry, which, they aver, is only translation or paraphrase. They free us for anything but what we had for nineteen centuries. And there is gold also in this revolt. How many religious houses, schools, parishes, seminaries have they not sold from under us, as though they were owners, not custodians? These innovators embezzle our patrimony and deny us our rights while they deprive God Himself of his due. They pursue profit so assiduously that there is clear danger that their modernization will be attributed to mere greed and not also diabolical hatred and revolt. Garrulous KKK has in the spirit of Christmas and of the year-off end of the millennium, according to the Houston Chronicle, Dec. 19,1999, carried his nearly universal apologies back another century to Jan Hus, who preached and applied 45 condemned errors of John Wycliffe, and was burned for the civil disruption he caused. “The pope’s reflections picked up on a speech he gave a day earlier to scholars … in Italy for a conference on Hus.” Of what possible use, we may ask, is a conference on a 15th-century demagogue? The forty-five errors, and more especially the thirty errors of Jan Hus, were condemned because they constituted a prescription for anarchy. The Hussites, in pursuit of their religious ideals, quit all agricultural pursuits and lived off their neighbors. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, 589a: “Being complete masters of the situation at home, the Hussites set out for further raids abroad. Their own country was lying waste after so many years of war; the people had become a huge horde of brigands bent on bloodshed and plunder. In the years 1428-1431 the combined Orphans, , and the townsmen of Prague invaded Hungary, laid waste Silesia as far as Breslau, plundered Lusatia, Meissen, Saxony, and advanced to Nuremburg, leaving in their track the remains of flourishing towns and villages, and devastated lands. Negotiations for an armistice came to naught. When the raiders returned in 357 1430 they had with them 3000 wagons of booty, each drawn by from six to fourteen horses; a hundred towns and more than a thousand villages had been destroyed.” We can well appreciate KKK’s reasons for approval of anarchic precedents for his postconciliar “Church,” but we wonder how he proposes to deal with someof Hus’ errors listed in Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum: 7. Peter is not nor ever was the head of the Holy Catholic Church. (D633) 9. The papal dignity has sprung up from Caesar, and the perfection and institution of the pope have emanated from the power of Caesar. (D635) 15. Ecclesiastical obedience is obedience according to the invention of the priest of the Church, without the expressed authority of Scripture. 27. For there is not a spark of evidence that there should be one head ruling the Church in spiritual affairs, which head always lives and is preserved with the Church militant herself. Incidentally, these propositions were condemned by the and in ’s Bulls, Inter Cunctas and In eminentis, Feb. 22, 1418. Inter Cunctas also included 39 questions proposed for the Wycliffites and Hussites. 33 of these questions are also quoted in Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum (D657-689). Question 38 (D688) could well be asked also of all our current wildcats in $$PX, $$PV, $$P, and CMRI: Whether he believes that it be freely permitted to individual priests to preach the word of God, wheresoever, and whensoever, and to whomsoever it may be pleasing, even though they are not sent.

The War Is Now! # 55 Messianic Prophecies Deuteronomy 18:9-22. When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee, beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations. Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming. Thou shalt be perfect, and without spot before the Lord thy God. These nations, whose land thou shalt possess, hearken to soothsayers and diviners: but thou art otherwise instructed by the Lord thy God. The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a PROPHET of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me: him thou shalt hear: As thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb, when the assembly was gathered together, and saidst: Let me not hear any more the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see any more this exceeding great fire, lest I die. And the Lord said to me: They have spoken all things well. I will raise them up a prophet out of the midst of their brethren like to thee: and I will put my words in

358 his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. And he that will not hear his words, which he shall speak in my name, I will be the revenger. But the prophet, who being corrupted with pride, shall speak in my name things that I did not command him to say, or in the name of strange gods, shall be slain. And if in silent thought thou answer: How shall I know the word that the Lord hath not spoken? Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it cometh not to pass: that thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath forged it by the pride of his mind: and therefore thou shalt not fear him. Genesis 49:8-10. Juda, thee shall thy brethren praise: thy hand shall be on the necks of thy enemies; the sons of thy father shall bow down to thee. Juda is a lion’s whelp: to the prey, my son, thou art gone up: resting thou hast couched as a lion, and as a lioness, who shall rouse him? [A lion’s whelp, etc... This blessing of Juda foretelleth the strength of his tribe, the fertility of his inheritance; and principally that the sceptre and legislative power should not be utterly taken away from his race till about the time of the coming of Christ: as in effect it never was: which is a demonstration against the modern Jews, that the Messiah is long since come; for the sceptre has long since been utterly taken away from Juda.] The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations. Daniel 9:22-27. And he instructed me, and spoke to me, and said: O Daniel, I am now come forth to teach thee, and that thou mightest understand. From the beginning of thy prayers the word came forth: and I am come to shew it to thee, because thou art a man of desires: therefore, do thou mark the word, and understand the vision. Seventy weeks are shortened upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, that transgression may be finished, and sin may have an end, and iniquity may be abolished; and everlasting justice may be brought; and vision and prophecy may be fulfilled; and the Saint of saints may be anointed. [Seventy weeks... Viz., of years, (or seventy times seven, that is, 490 years,) are shortened; that is, fixed and determined, so that the time shall be no longer.] Know thou, therefore, and take notice: that from the going forth of the word, to build up Jerusalem again, unto Christ, the prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and the street shall be built again, and the walls, in straitness of times. [From the going forth of the word, etc... That is, from the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes, when by his commandment Nehemias rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem, 2 Esd. 2. From which time, according to the best chronology, there were just sixty- nine weeks of years, that is, 483 years to the baptism of Christ, when he first began to preach and execute the office of Messias.-Ibid. In straitness of times... angustia temporum: 359 which may allude both to the difficulties and opposition they met with in building: and to the shortness of the time in which they finished the wall, viz., fifty-two days.] And after sixty-two weeks Christ shall be slain: and the people that shall deny him shall not be his. And a people, with their leader, that shall come, shall destroy the city, and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation. [A people with their leader... The Romans under Titus.] And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end. [In the half of the week... or, in the middle of the week, etc. Because Christ preached three years and a half: and then by his sacrifice upon the cross abolished all the sacrifices of the law.-Ibid. The abomination of desolation... Some understand this of the profanation of the temple by the crimes of the Jews, and by the bloody faction of the zealots. Others of the bringing in thither the ensigns and standard of the pagan Romans. Others, in fine, distinguish three different times of desolation: viz., that under Antiochus; that when the temple was destroyed by the Romans; and the last near the end of the world under Antichrist. To all which, … this prophecy may have a relation.] Aggeus 2:1-10. In the four and twentieth day of the month, in the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king, they began. And in the seventh month, the word of the Lord came by the hand of Aggeus the prophet, saying: Speak to Zorobabel the son of Salathiel the governor of Juda, and to Jesus the son of Josedec the high priest, and to the rest of the people, saying: Who is left among you, that saw this house in its first glory? and how do you see it now? is it not in comparison to that as nothing in your eyes? Yet now take courage, O Zorobabel, saith the Lord, and take courage, Jesus the son of Josedec the high priest, and take courage, all ye people of the land, saith the Lord of hosts: and perform (for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts) The word that I convenanted with you when you came out of the land of Egypt: and my spirit shall be in the midst of you: fear not. For thus saith the Lord of hosts: Yet one little while, and I will move the heaven and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land. And I will move all nations: AND THE DESIRED OF ALL NATIONS SHALL COME: and I will fill this house with glory: saith the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts. Great shall be the glory of this last house more than of the first, saith the Lord of hosts: and in this place I will give peace, saith the Lord of hosts. This temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Micheas 5:2. And thou Bethlehem Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda, out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. [His going forth, etc... That is, he who as man shall be born in thee, as God was born of his Father from all eternity.] 360 Isaias 9:6-7. For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace. His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this. Isaias 7:14. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel. Genesis 14:18-20. But Melchisedech, the king of Salem, bringing forth bread and wine, for he was the priest of the most high God, Blessed him, and said: Blessed be Abram by the most high God, who created heaven and earth. And blessed be the most high God, by whose protection, the enemies are in thy hands. And he gave him the tithes of all. Psalm 109:1-4. The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. The Lord will send forth the sceptre of thy power out of Sion: rule thou in the midst of thy enemies. With thee is the principality in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day star I begot thee. The Lord hath sworn, and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech. Exodus 3:13-14. Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they shall say to me: What is his name? What shall I say to them? God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you. [I am who am... That is, I am being itself, eternal, self-existent, independent, infinite; without beginning, end, or change; and the source of all other beings.] John 8:57-59. The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old. And hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. [Jesus had cited the phrase from Exodus, and the Jews clearly understood that He claimed divinity. Else why stone Him?] Matthew 26:63-66. But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God. Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed: What further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy. What think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of death. [Caiphas knew how and what to ask, as well as all the cited prophecies above. The Temple plotters knew also that He had said He would rise from the tomb, so they posted guards. ]

361 John 19:4-7. Pilate therefore went forth again and saith to them: Behold, I bring him forth unto you, that you may know that I find no cause in him. (Jesus therefore came forth, bearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment.) And he saith to them: Behold the Man. When the chief priests, therefore, and the servants had seen him, they cried out, saying: Crucify him, Crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Take him you, and crucify him: for I find no cause in him. The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. [They had disbelieved God! Or else?] Matthew 23:1-3. Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not He enlarged on their crimes, shortcomings, and hypocrisy for the entire chapter. But He never imputed them even a suggestion of heresy. Evil as they were, they taught the truth, until they rejected His Resurrection, reported by their own guards. (cf. Matthew 28:11-15) The people that shall deny him shall not be his—no matter how chosen they had been to that point. Those who apply Christ’s words on the authority of the scribes and pharisees to lumber us with obedience to that of the usurpers who fill our papacy and episcopacy must grasp the fact that these latter lost all authority when they signed and promulgated all those heresies at the Second Vatican Council. Heretics are not Catholic. Only Catholics can hold office in the Catholic Church. To acknowledge the Koran Kisser’s “authority” is to deny Christ. For the postconciliar “Church” has most certainly denied Him and is not His.

Insufficiently publicized Italian news articles. The Republic, Page 23, 31 October 1992 “Israel, a religious newspaper” “Pontius Pilate did not condemn Jesus Christ” Our Service TEL AVIV – A religious weekly of Jerusalem, the “Yom Shishi,” absolves Pontius Pilate from any responsibility for the death of Christ and affirms that any sentence against Him would have been decreed by the Jewish Sanhedrin. According to what is written in the newspaper, which is compiled exclusively for religious Orthodox Jews and destined only for their readership, a rare and almost unexpurgated manuscript version of the Talmud, the monumental literary work which dictates the law of the Jewish people, contradicts most current interpretations which contend that Jesus was tried and crucified by Romans, and in agreement with the Gospels, supports the view that if anyone would have wished the death of Jesus it would have been the Supreme Council. Ishai Weiner, the journalist who has compiled the article, upon being challenged by an editor of the text in question, has responded that he doesn’t have any doubts concerning the authenticity of this edition of the Talmud, which goes back to the twelfth century and which is now located in a secret

362 place in the orthodox district of B’nai B’rith, in Tel Aviv. The text, extraordinarily well preserved, is contained in one of twenty volumes compiled by an experienced amanuensis of the Jewish language. The work has been found in a room which was walled up approximately two centuries ago, adjacent to a synagogue in an unspecified location in the ex-Soviet Union. Confirmation of the age of the manuscript has been furnished by a Swedish institute, specializing in chronological dating by means of radioactive sensors. Now, however, many fear that, since the Romans appear to have become less responsible concerning the death of Christ, the old accusation of deicide against the Jews could return to a peak, fomenting regurgitations of antisemitism. But an authoritative Catholic source in Jerusalem, who has preferred to maintain his anonymity, has reminded us that the Church of Rome has officially suppressed the accusation of deicide toward the Jewish people, returning to Judaism the full dignity of the monotheist religion from which then emanated Christianity. Concerning the origins of Christ as an historic character, the unpublished Talmud affirms that Mary was the wife not of a carpenter but of a rabbi, famous for his jealousy, who used to keep his wife segregated. During an absence by the man, according to the text, the sacredness of the nuptial bed was violated by a Roman soldier, who was thus the natural father of the “heretic from Nazareth” or “that man”, as the texts and the Orthodox Jews habitually characterize Jesus. [This is consistent with the account in The Jewish Encyclopedia, and has the same holes in its accuracy.] TIME (TIEMPO) Israel Pontius Pilate Acquitted JERUSALEM – The Jerusalem weekly “Yom Shishi” – published for Orthodox Jewish readers – has given the report yesterday that a rare manuscript version of the Talmud contradicts most current Jewish interpretations, according to which Jesus was tried and crucified by the Romans. In line with the Gospels, it acknowledges that the Sanhedrin desired His death and carried out His execution. It therefore provides Pilate with an unexpected acquittal.

Revelations in an antique Talmud carried to Jerusalem from Russia The Jews Absolve Pontius Pilate “The Romans had nothing to do with the condemnation of Jesus” TEL AVIV. An extract from an unedited Talmud, more than 800 years old, and recently rediscovered in a certain locality in the ex-U.S.S.R., throws new light on the trial and death of Jesus: according to what was recently written in the Israeli weekly “Yom Ha-shishi”, the manifesto of the Orthodox Jewish community, the antique document would show that “that man” was condemned to death by the rabbis of the Sanhedrin and executed by their emissaries (and not by the Romans).

363 Up to now, no outsider – except a journalist of the weekly “Yom Ha- shishi” – has been able to view any of the 20 volumes of parchments brought surreptitiously into Israel and which contain a rare, complete text of the Talmud as written by Maimonides (a rabbi who lived in the 12th century). In a preliminary comment, Judge Haim Cohen – an authority in the study of Jewish history – has noted that “a document, even if antique, can, however, still be a forgery”. The journalist Yishai Weiner of “Yom Ha-shishi”, contends that examinations conducted by a laboratory in Sweden have confirmed that these texts were written “840 years ago”. “Among them”, – Weiner affirms – “there is included a composition of Maimonides of which, up until now, only one copy was available, which originated in Yemen. The two texts are nearly identical.” Weiner does not want to reveal either who discovered the ancient volumes or how they were uncovered after having been walled up in a secret cell two hundred years ago in the rear of a synagogue. He affirms that “the documents weigh more than 20 kilograms, and have been taken away a few at a time in order that it not be too obvious”. Now they are being preserved in an Orthodox Jewish district near Tel Aviv. By his surreptitious reading of passages which could have repercussions of an historical character on relationships between Jews and Christians, Weiner would have learned that “that man” (the Orthodox Jews abstain from pronouncing the name of Jesus) was the bastard son of a rabbi known for his extreme jealousy. His natural father was a Roman soldier, who had taken advantage of a prolonged absence of the rabbi in order to have an affair with his wife. [All the contemporary Temple crowd could say of Jesus was that He was a Samaritan and had a devil, and that He made Himself equal to God. Either this jealous rabbi would have concealed his disgrace or he would have cried it to the skies. So either no one would have known it or the adulterous wife would summarily have been stoned to death—and the jealous rabbi would have cast the first stone. Whom, then, did Jesus from the Cross (in the non-existence of brothers) consign to the filial care of St. John?] The description of the trial of Jesus – as it has been described by the anonymous medieval amanuensis – which, it should be remembered, was mentioned in the Gospels, adds that “that man” was judged by the Sanhedrin and sentenced to death on the basis of the Jewish customs of the time. [Perjured witnesses and refusal to believe God when Caiphas had placed Him under oath!] The ancient Jewish text excuses the Romans of any responsibility in the killing of Jesus, and thus would confirm that for the governor Pontius Pilate the trial was a question internal to the Jews. Aldo Baquis. [In taking Pontius Pilate off the hook this Talmudic account places the guilt on the only other possibility, the Sanhedrin—the Temple rulers. They demand credit for enlightened law enforcement—for shielding the Jews from inveiglement by this Upstart Who forgave sins (a divine prerogative) and had little authority except over life and death.]

* * * * *

364

Fan mail: I have been assailed by many people who have the quaint idea that geocentricity has precedence over heliocentricity. I allow that the geocentric forces may be used to calculate escape velocities and re-entry velocities by space probes, but that is all. Your letters have stated the tremendous velocity these extraterrestrial bodies must use to circle the earth but for some strange reason I have not heard assertion on inertia. We all know that a body moving in a straight line must be compelled by an external force to move off that straight line. Imagine the unspeakable forces that must be applied to galaxies that are light years away to move a straight line to a circular motion. – Bede Roberts The War Is Now! # 56 Literary Converts, Joseph Pearce, Ignatius Press, Edited Excerpts Douglas Hyde, editor of the Daily Worker, bought into a debate within the Church even before his conversion. A new papal encyclical, , discussed a demand for increased Church use of the vernacular. Hyde strongly disagreed: “Looking back to the days when all Europe enjoyed a common faith and possessed a common language, Latin, for its religious and cultural life, I strongly favored the use of its ancient language by the Church.” He wrote to the Catholic Herald: “… I tuned in to one Midnight Mass after the other. Belgium, France, Germany, Eire, yes, even behind the Iron Curtain, Prague. It seemed as though the whole of what was once Christendom was celebrating … potentially the most unifying event in man’s history. And the important thing was it was the same Mass.” In 1956 at Downside met the destruction of Holy Week. Six years later in the Spectator he recorded his reaction to the impoverishment of the Holy Week liturgy: “ For centuries these had been enriched by devotions … dear to the laity — the anticipation of the morning office of , the vigil at the Altar of Repose, the Mass of the Presanctified … Now nothing happens before Thursday evening. All Friday morning is empty. … an hour or so in church on Friday afternoon. All Saturday is quite blank until late at night. The Easter Mass is sung at midnight to a weary congregation who are constrained to ‘renew their baptismal vows’ in the vernacular and later repair to bed. The significance of Easter as a feast of dawn is quite lost.” Waugh’s hero was Pope Pius IX, who had defined the Immaculate Conception in 1854 and ten years later denounced the principal errors of the age, including the view that a pope could or should reconcile himself to ‘progress’, liberalism, or modern ‘civilization’. He re-established the Catholic hierarchy in England, convoked the Vatican Council which declared the infallibility of the pope in questions of faith and morals, and published a constitution deploring contemporary pantheism, materialism, and atheism. In its resolute opposition to many aspects of modern life the Vatican Council had effectively declared war

365 on the secular states of the industrialized world. Waugh viewed the Second Vatican Council as a betrayal of Pius IX’s principles, an abject surrender which cast a shadow of desolation over the last years of his life.. In his article The Same Again, Please in the Spectator 23 November 1962: “… I know of none whose judgment I would prefer to that of the simplest parish priest. Sharp minds may explore the subtlest verbal problems, but in the long routine of the seminary and the life spent with Offices of the Church the truth is most likely to emerge … Still less did we aspire to usurp his place at the altar. ‘The Priesthood of the Laity’ is a cant phrase of the decade and abhorrent to those of us who have met it.” Waugh “wondered how many of us wanted to see any change: This was the Mass for whose restoration the Elizabethan martyrs had gone to the scaffold. St. Augustine, St. Thomas à Becket, St. Thomas More, Challoner, and Newman would have been perfectly at their ease among us; were, in fact, present there with us …” Waugh asserted that “the function of the Church in every age has been conservative — to transmit undiminished and uncontaminated the creed inherited from its predecessors.” His biographer, Christopher Sykes, wrote: “[Waugh] believed that in its long history the Church had developed a liturgy which enabled an ordinary, sensual man (as opposed to a saint …) to approach God and be aware of sanctity and the divine. To abolish all this for the sake of up-to-dateness seemed to him not only silly but dangerous … he could not bear the thought of modernized liturgy. ‘Untune that string’ he felt, and loss of faith would follow … Whether his fears were justified or not only ‘the unerring sentence of time’ can show.” The author, John Pearce, states here: “The unerring sentence has not yet been passed, but … Waugh was not by any means the only person who held these views.” We must remember that Waugh died Easter Sunday, 10 April 1966— the novus ordo missae was imposed three later. Horrible as the translations were, worse was afoot. Douglas Woodruff wrote in 1973 that the Second Vatican Council, and still more its spirit, had overshadowed Waugh’s later years. “When I tried in to bring some comfort to the bewildered and unhappy Catholics, particularly the elderly and the converts, by reminding them that in every century some sudden tempest of one kind or another had arisen to toss the bark of Peter, Evelyn pointed out that in Church history the response to these successive challenges had not been to give way to them, and that as a consequence of the exercise of her authority, most of the challenges had died away so that only scholars know about them.” Edward Watkin wrote for the Tablet 12 October 1969: “In too many Catholic quarters … [Christopher] Dawson and his teaching have been discarded as outdated, without value or even significance for the contemporary Catholic. Some who were foremost in his welcome and in the display of their regard for his work have turned away to a religious and cultural

366 (more truly anticultural and radically irreligious) avant-gardism … For such men Dawson has not, cannot have, a message. He has not been refuted. He cannot be. For his interpretations are anchored securely to historical fact. He is simply disregarded. Sooner or later however, … if the fabric of our society survives the perils to which it is exposed, Dawson’s illuminating interpretations of history, stated moreover with such literary skill, will find in America, as in England, an audience that can appreciate both. Pearce mentions others, among them J. R. R. Tolkien, David Jones, Antonia White, Graham Greene, Cecil Gill, Robert Speaight, Alec Guinness, and “of all the …opponents of liturgical reform, the most vociferous was probably Hugh Ross Williamson.” His pamphlets The Modern Mass: A Reversion to the Reforms of Cranmer (1969) and The Great Betrayal, an attack on the reforms which had paved the way for supplanting the Tridentine Mass, exceeded mere protest and bitterly attacked the hierarchy; they approximated a declaration of war. His daughter, Julia Ross Williamson, wrote: “He was very upset by the Second Vatican Council. He wrote two or three pamphlets about it. He was one of the founder members of the Latin Mass Society. He wouldn’t go to the new Mass and he agreed with Evelyn Waugh who wrote a hilarious letter to The Times on the subject. He never went to a modern Mass. He believed that the changes were echoing everything that was done at the Reformation. He, as a Reformation historian, felt very acutely that the Martyrs had died for nothing, and that everything he had written about the Reformation, as indeed had Waugh with his book on Edmund Campion, had been overturned.” On page 438 while discussing George Mackay Brown, Mr. Pearce dangled a participle, but he had previously performed appropriate penance in reporting Brown’s attitude toward the changes perpetrated by the Second Vatican Council: Vernacular had robbed the Mass of its “majesty and mystery”; “it’s wiped so many things away … so much of its glory has been sort of shed — all of a sudden too. There was something very mysterious about the same language being used all over the world.” Like God had so planned? On page 386 while discussing Malcolm Muggeridge, who unfortunately converted to an apostate “Church,” Mr. Pearce split an infinitive, to wit, to finally escape! My cue!

Rebellion against tyranny is as much an obligation as obedience to benign government. Nor can we exempt Church authority. When in God’s name it punishes the virtuous and rewards the vicious it forfeits God’s name, its own authority, and our co- operation and obedience. “Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt

367 thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity: not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.” – Romans, xiii, 1-5 “St. John Chrysostom takes notice that St. Paul does not say there is no prince but from God, but only that there is no power but from God., meaning no lawful power, and speaking of true and just laws.” – Haydock Bible comment. When they promote and encourage evil-doers and become a terror to good work, when they violate consciences they have helped to form, they are no longer the ordinance of God, but become instead ministers of the power of darkness. It may often be highly criminal in God’s sight not to resist and oppose them to the utmost. St. Paul turns out to be a strong advocate for the just rights of mankind, and is for our enjoying all that liberty with which God has invested us; for no power is ordained of God but what encourages every good and virtuous action. “Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.” No man need be afraid of this power which is ordained of God who does nothing but what is agreeable to the law of God; for this power will not restrain us from exercising any liberty which the Deity has granted us; for the minister of God is to restrain us from nothing but the doing of evil, and to this we have no right. To practise evil is not liberty, but licentiousness. He that resists such authority resists the authority of God; he is an enemy to mankind, odious to God, and justly incurs His sentence of condemnation. To infer hence that the Apostle enjoins unlimited obedience to the worst of tyrants, that he pronounces damnation upon those that resist the arbitrary measures of such pests of society, is just as good sense as if to affirm that, because Scripture enjoins us obedience to the laws of God, therefore we may not oppose the power of darkness; or because we are commanded to submit to the ordinance of God, therefore we may not resist the ministers of Satan. No tyrant can be a ruler; for the Apostle’s definition of a ruler is that he is not a terror to good work but to evil; that he is to praise those who do well. Whenever, then, the ruler encourages them that do evil, and is a terror to those who do well—i.e., as soon as he becomes a tyrant—he forfeits his authority to govern, and becomes the minister of Satan, and, as such, must be opposed. – adapted from a sermon of Samuel West to the House of Representatives, Colony of Bay, May 29, 1776.

Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost (2001) Sermon at St. Jude’s Shrine (excerpts)… When Jesus was leading His three-year public life on this earth, He spent a great amount of time teaching His twelve chosen … Apostles. Over and over again, the Gospels report Jesus talking with the twelve. He took special pains with these future Apostles. He explained to them all the parables that He had spoken to the multitude. Jesus spoke to the twelve in a particularly strong and intimate way at the Last Supper, the night before His prophesied death on 368 Good Friday. St. John lovingly reports these last words of Jesus in five full chapters, 13 –17, of his Gospel. One detail is reserved to St. Luke and St. Paul and it’s the command after the consecration of the bread and wine at the Last Supper, Do this for a commemoration of Me. This command, or charge, of commemoration was handed down by the Apostles also to the priests and bishops whom they would soon be ordaining to serve the large numbers of new Christians. The command is obeyed at every celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Until recent years, at every Mass offered throughout the world, all priests have repeated these words of Christ, Do this for a commemoration of Me, or else in another rendering would be, As often as you shall do these things, you shall do them in remembrance of Me. Thousands of times during his life, every priest repeats at Holy Mass, —Pray, brethren, that this my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty. And you, yourselves, have answered that invitation hundreds of times, in person or through the , May the Lord receive this sacrifice at thy hands. These words, of priest and people, remind us that at Mass we are dealing with a sacrifice, that is, the ritual offering of a victim-gift to God, in propitiation for sin, in thanksgiving for God’s blessings, and most of all, the unbloody renewal of the offering of Christ’s Body and Blood upon the Cross on Good Friday. Moments after we say these words, the priest consecrates bread and wine to become the real and true Body and Blood of Christ. Underneath its mysterious, unpretentious, and reverent appearances, the Holy Mass is, indeed, the Sacrifice of Christ. …. I refer to the numerous, gradual, and drastic changes that have taken place in the Mass, and the other six sacraments, that is, in our Catholic Liturgy. Let us concentrate on the changes in the Mass itself. … These changes were, for many Catholics, shocking, surprising, painful, sometimes awkwardly or irreverently implemented, often being clothed in music that sounded worldly, entertaining, and quite unworthy and, generally speaking, leading to a way of celebrating that tended to be casual, disrespectful, and less holy. These changes were announced as a “return to earlier and purer traditions.” But so, by the way, were the changes of the Protestant Reformation in the fifteen hundreds. Rather, the changes appear to us now as a catastrophic revolution! It has led to a radical and disturbing change in Church art and architecture, and in layout and renovation of . It has been the occasion and surely also major cause of a huge drop in Mass attendance, in Confessions, in marriage fidelity, and in priestly vocations, both new and existing. Curiously, all this pain and upset, this trauma and anguish, is not healing with the passage of time, over 35 years. The Church remains in crisis. The great sign of this arguably is the persistence and growth of Traditional Catholic groups around the world who perseveringly cling to the old Catholic Liturgy, the so-called Tridentine Mass or Missal of St. Pius V, or, simply, the old Latin Mass. … It is sad to see also a growing contempt and hatred, on the part of some Catholics, for this old Mass. There is still more ominous fact. It is the growing conviction in many Catholic hearts and minds that the new mass, or Novus Ordo, whether in Latin or English, is actually defective, ill-designed, and unfaithful to Catholic tradition and the Catholic lex

369 orandi, or law of praying. All this, they claim, tends to make the mass actually invalid—an empty sacrament. What is an invalid sacrament? What does invalid mean? … What if I were to baptize your baby with, not water, but milk, and with these words: “I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier?” “Foul play,” you would answer. “You have to use water, and say the right words, otherwise the baptism would not count.” RIGHT YOU ARE! There would be an invalid baptism—one that must be redone.. Or, what if I would celebrate Holy Mass using coke and doughnuts instead of bread and wine. “Sacrilege!” you would cry! “Downright disgraceful, no Mass at all!” Again, you are right. Or, what if a priest in Confession said: “May God be merciful to your mistakes. Go in peace?” “Hey, Father,” you would say, “please give me the right absolution for my sins.” Once more, your response is right. These are three examples of invalid sacraments. Every faithful Catholic seminary meticulously trains its future priests to do the sacraments with utmost care and avoid any invalidating change in the matter and the form, that is, the essential things and words of any Sacrament. No serious Church reformer would tolerate doughnuts and coke to say a Mass. … But what if the reforming commission members decided to take the word sacrifice out of the Mass prayers? Would that make it less clear that the Mass is truly the sacrifice of Christ, and more suggestive that the Mass is only a meal or memorial to Christ? YES OF COURSE! What if by the priest to show adoration for Christ’s living Body and Blood were deleted from the Mass? Would that tend to reduce our confidence in the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine? YES OF COURSE, it would weaken our faith! What if the reformers added to the essential form of the Mass the words “take and eat … take and drink …,” so that a priest who said Mass alone might be acting invalidly because he had no communicants to “take and eat?” Does this appear to violate Catholic tradition? YES, it certainly does. Does it make the Mass sound more like a meal than a sacrifice? YES, IT DOES! What if the words mysterium fidei, “mystery of faith” are detached from their place immediately after for this is the chalice of My Blood of the new and eternal covenant at the very moment of the transubstantiation mystery? What if these two words are caused to be said some moments later without any meaningful context? Would that remove support of our faith in transubstantiation? YES, I think it truly would. What if the reformers in the Mass rubrics reluctantly include, under pressure, this description of the priest as “acting in the person of Christ,” but they put these words beside his presiding function, not beside his consecrating function? Would this diminish an opportunity to teach that the priest is a sacerdotal sacrificer, and not just a president or an MC? YES, I am sure it would. What if the new rubrics generally refer to the priest as a presbyter or minister, and rarely as sacrificer (sacerdos)? Would this tend to weaken Catholic awareness that the ordained priest is truly sacerdotal and not just presbyteral? YES, this would be so.

370 What if the ancient, venerable, and doctrinally rich Roman Canon of the Mass would always be henceforth replaced by a new, shorter one using language more conformable to Protestant thinking? Might this tend to weaken Catholic teaching and belief? Yes, it very likely would! What if the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is spoken of with reference to His Person, and not to His Body and Blood? Would this encourage believing only in Christ’s spiritual real presence, and not His bodily real presence? YES, IT SURELY WOULD! What if the rubrics speak of the Mass and the “Lord’s Supper” as the same single reality, and, similarly, of Eucharistic Sacrifice and “Memorial of the Lord” as one and the same? Will such expressions encourage people to think that the Mass is only a meal, not a sacrifice, and that the Eucharist is only a memorial of Calvary, not the true renewal of the Sacrifice? Yes, truly, this Protestant way of thinking would be encouraged. What if representative Protestant theologians and ministers were invited by the reformers to share the task of reforming, so as the more surely to make the product “user-friendly” to Protestant Christians? Would this likely result in watering down the distinctive Catholic beliefs? YES, IT WOULD! What if the Consecration words of Christ, “My Blood … shed for you and for the MANY,” were changed to “My Blood … shed for you and for ALL?” … And what if this change violates an unbroken biblical and liturgical tradition in the Catholic Church? Will the phrase “shed for all” tend to make salvation seem automatic and not something to be striven for with “fear and trembling,” as St. Paul says. YES, it will so tend. … I could go on with more questions, but enough! Note that the answer to all of the foregoing questions about possible dangers to our faith was YES! There would be harm to Catholic belief if this or that thing were done. There would be deterioration of our religion if those speculative imaginary conditions, those “what ifs,” were actually applied. Well, listen to me carefully, THEY ALL WERE APPLIED! THEY ALL ACTUALLY HAPPENED! THEY ALL HAVE BEEN BUILT INTO THE NEW ROMAN CATHOLIC LITURGY! This is not a bad dream that I am imagining. This is the present reality of Catholic worship. This is the actual state of the new Roman Missal. And of course you are already asking yourselves the fearful question: “Do all those changes make the new mass invalid? Do all those less-than-Catholic alterations and adjustments together rob the mass of its Christ-given vitality? Are all those priests out there, despite their good intentions, not consecrating bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood? This time the YES answer at least seems possible, and some persons say it is very likely so, and some have already begun saying definitely: “Yes, the new mass is certainly invalid.” Did the reformers know that they were invalidating and destroying the Mass? Perhaps not all. Perhaps some were well-intentioned, but misguided. They certainly should have known. They’re professional liturgists; it’s their business to know these things. And it is alleged that some knew and were intending to destroy the Mass and the Catholic Church in this way. Has, then, the Catholic Church drifted, or been led and beguiled into apostasy? YES, that seems to be the case. St. Paul predicts that it will happen in the

371 Second Letter to the Thessalonians, Chapter 2. Other prophets in more modern times have also foretold this tragedy. Is it important for traditional Catholics to cling steadfastly to the true, solid, valid Latin Mass as the Remnant Church? YES, and all the more important as time slips by. Objection from a self-acknowledged Prophet You again attack those you suppose have no legitimacy, lacking authority from Rome. From whom do you receive your authority? You seem to assume authority even greater than most traditionalist priests, since you claim infallibility, whereas they admit to theoretical assumptions based upon well- researched logical conclusions. Until you receive an imprimatur from a bishop who has met all pre-Vatican II requirements for validity and liceity (papal mandatum included), and is duly appointed to a diocese with required jurisdiction, how can you, according to your own mechanisms, write and print anything that treats of faith and morals? How can you decide Church teaching without having even a doctorate, let alone a licentiate? Fools are many, wise men few. Passions easily cloud the mind from clear reasoning. Please take a moment to look at your own arguments. Why, you even gave credence to Nostradamus, condemned by the Church as an astrologer! I have submitted all my writings to the clergy of the Church for their approval. Reply—Thanks for your gracious note. Have you some specific complaint? Or do you merely object to my general treatment of my main interest in life? I welcome constructive criticism and genuine argument. But I have no defense against contumely or boorish manners. I could say a lot about self-appointed prophets. Not being in the prophecy business I could offer neither help nor advice. So I keep quiet and inflict my private opinion on no one. But you are free to draw what conclusions you wish. Are you serious in charging that I have given credence to Nostradamus? Would you consider it a recommendation if I should say that even you must be right sometimes, perhaps? St. Jerome commented that the Apocalypse contains as many mysteries as words. But you, not the man who translated it, are the expert. Please do not assume superiority over the idea that you have managed to secure clerical approval of your writings. Considering the priestly record over the past forty years, that is a fact to be concealed. I would neither seek nor desire an imprimatur or nihil obstat from any “bishop” I can contact, whether novus ordo or wildcat. Possibly I over-react here; I have seen no official approval on anything you have written. Of course, you would never apply a double standard. When you find time to particularize some error I have published and have not recanted or satisfactorily explained, write again and I shall answer. (end of letter) I have often cheerfully admitted that I have no authority. But the Church made me responsible for the Catholic education of my children. Since few now teach religion, I must inform my children what the Church taught me. It seems not too charitable to withhold this information from others who request it. The

372 prophetical nose is out of joint because, as one of such a small minority, I could be one of his wise men. Whence priests and bishops derive their authority and jurisdiction is set in Divine Law as specified in Holy Scripture as inspired or stated by God Himself. These laws are infallible. No one may dodge them by “theoretical assumptions based upon well-researched logical conclusions.” The clergy must obey them, and the laity must obey them by requiring the clergy to obey them.

Clerical pedophilia Houston Chronicle, Friday, March 22, 2002 reported the belated response of Garrulous Karolus to the discovery of outrageous numbers of pedophiles among his clergy. “Breaking his silence, Pope John Paul II denounced the ‘grave scandal’ of priests implicated in sex-abuse cases rocking the Roman Catholic Church, saying they had betrayed their vows and succumbed to evil.” [What silence? This man has talked entirely too much since infancy. He takes these child-molesters to task for the same crimes that he and all his postconciliar “Church” clergy have committed: betrayal of their ordination vows and oaths and endorsement of evil in the great Renewal that has devastated the Church..] “As priests,” he is quoted, “we are personally and profoundly afflicted by the sins of some of our brothers who have betrayed the grace of ordination.” [In areas under Vatican control no valid Latin rite ordinations have occurred since Easter 1969, when new rites of “mass” and “ordination” were imposed.] “Grave scandal is caused, with the result that a dark shadow of suspicion is cast over all the other fine priests who perform their ministry with honesty and integrity and often with heroic self-sacrifice.” [and with heroic fear of the truth, public expression of which would lose them their livings.] Garrulous Karolus apologizes to all victims of the missionary effort, the Church’s fourth mark, which he has killed. Let him now apologize to all his clergy whom he and his immediate predecessors have separated from their ordinary means of grace and salvation. They certainly receive no grace from idolatry which has replaced our Mass and sacraments. What behavior can this monster expect from men whom he has turned into monsters like himself? Let him apologize to the flock which he has subjected to this pack of wolves. Let him apologize to the flock whose beliefs he has subjected to the supervision of that Vatican II peritus, Joseph Ratzinger. This wolf, whose office was created to preserve our faith, has now discovered that the Jews could have been correct in rejecting their Messiah and Savior. It follows that anyone else who rejects Jesus Christ and the Church He established can be correct in this rejection. What is Ratzi’s interpretation of Mark xvi:16?—“but he that believes not shall be condemned.” No one is condemned without fault. Moreover, the Temple authorities knew Whom they rejected. They had taunted Him (Mark xv:29-32: ; Matthew xxvii:39-43: ; Luke xxiii:35: ) But had He accommodated them, would they have accepted Him? Coming down from the Cross would have been child’s play in comparison with dying, being buried, sealed in, guarded, and emerging triumphant on the third day. When the guards they had set over

373 the tomb reported the Resurrection, the Temple authorities bought their silence and pretended that Christ never rose. (Matthew xxviii:11-15) But Ratzi justifies their conscious, deliberate falsification of undeniable fact, which we must believe to be saved! Acceptance cannot equal rejection. Belief and refusal to accept known fact exceed mutual exclusivity. If the Jews are or can be correct, then the Catholic Church is or can be wrong. So Ratzi and the man for whom he works believe not and are condemned—as are we if we accept their authority.

Divorce must stop, says Garrulous Karolus He recently told the Italian legal fraternity to handle fewer divorces. Judges should talk people out of them. Attorneys are to keep them out of court. Divorce is an ever-increasing cause for concern. But the diocesan annulment mills grind on. Here, in theory, the great adviser might expect his pleas heard. After all, his matrimonial theology may be blamed for its share of statistics. He has identified normal marital desires, at least on the part of husbands, as lust. God told us to increase and multiply, and fill and subdue the earth, and left us only sinful means to accomplish this? Divorce, then, is a means to avoid one species of lust—a near-universal occasion of sin. We might almost conclude that divorce courts cut deeply into the postconciliar “Church’s” lucrative annulment business.

Friday Abstinence (#58) We may judge of the importance of abstinence by God’s response to His first recorded command to abstain: Genesis 2:16-17. And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. Adam’s disobedience rendered all men liable to the necessity of appeasing God’s justice. Nature dictated the necessity of penance—essentially self-denial. Scripture strongly prescribes fast and abstinence. Judges 20:26. Wherefore all the children of Israel came to the house of God, and sat and wept before the Lord: and they fasted that day till the evening, and offered to him holocausts, and victims of peace offerings, Judith 6:20. And all the ancients were invited, and they refreshed themselves together after their fast was over. Joel 1:13-14. Gird yourselves, and lament, O ye priests, howl, ye ministers of the altars: go in, lie in sackcloth, ye ministers of my God: because sacrifice and libation is cut off from the house of your God. Sanctify ye a fast, call an assembly, gather together the ancients, all the inhabitants of the land into the house of your God: and cry ye to the Lord: 2:12-15. Now, therefore, saith the Lord. Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and mourning. And rend your hearts, and not your garments and turn to the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, patient

374 and rich in mercy, and ready to repent of the evil. Who knoweth but he will return, and forgive, and leave a blessing behind him, sacrifice and libation to the Lord your God? Blow the trumpet in Sion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly, II Kings 12:16. And David besought the Lord for the child: and David kept a fast, and going in by himself lay upon the ground. II Maccabees 13:12. So when they had all done this together, and had craved mercy of the Lord with weeping and fasting, lying prostrate on the ground for three days continually, Judas exhorted them to make themselves ready. Daniel 10:3. I ate no desirable bread, and neither flesh, nor wine, entered into my mouth, neither was I anointed with ointment: till the days of three weeks were accomplished. Zacharias 8:19. Thus saith the Lord of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of Juda, joy, and gladness, and great : only love ye truth and peace. [Comment: The fast of the fourth month, etc... They fasted, on the ninth day of the fourth month, because on that day Nabuchodonosor took Jerusalem, Jer. 52.6. On the tenth day of the fifth month, because on that day the temple was burnt, Jer. 52.12. On the third day of the seventh month, for the murder of Godolias, Jer. 41.2. And on the tenth day of the tenth month, because on that day the Chaldeans began to besiege Jerusalem, 4 Kings 25.1. All these fasts, if they will be obedient for the future, shall be changed, as is here promised, into joyful solemnities.] Exodus 34:28. And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights: he neither ate bread nor drank water, and he wrote upon the tables the ten words of the covenant. III Kings 19:8. And he arose, and ate and drank, and walked in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights, unto the mount of God, Horeb. [In the strength of that food, etc... This bread, with which Elias was fed in the wilderness, was a figure of the bread of life which we receive in the blessed sacrament; by the strength of which we are to be supported in our journey through the wilderness of this world till we come to the true mountain of God, and his vision in a happy eternity.] Esdras 8:21. And I proclaimed there a fast by the river Ahava, that we might afflict ourselves before the Lord our God, and might ask of him a right way for us and for our children, and for all our substance. Jonas 3:1-10. And the word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time saying: Arise, and go to Ninive, the great city: and preach in it the preaching that I bid thee. And Jonas arose, and went to Ninive, according to the word of the Lord: now Ninive was a great city of three days’ journey. And Jonas began to enter into the city one day’s journey: and he cried and said: Yet forty days and Ninive shall be destroyed. And the men of Ninive believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least. And the word came to the king of Ninive: and he rose up out of his throne, and cast

375 away his robe from him, and was clothed in sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Ninive, from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen, nor sheep taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water. And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not. Esther 14:2. And when she had laid away her royal apparel, she put on garments suitable for weeping and mourning: instead of divers precious ointments, she covered her head with ashes and dung, and she humbled her body with fasts: and all the places in which before she was accustomed to rejoice, she filled with her torn hair. Christ Himself fasted and abstained forty days in the desert before preaching His message. His fast was both expiatory and exemplary. Luke 18:11-12. The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican. I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess. [Fasting, therefore, pleases God, as this parable clearly implies.] Acts 13:2-3. And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they fasting and praying and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. Acts 14:22. And when they had ordained to them priests in every church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, in whom they believed. I Corinthians 9:25. Every one that striveth for the mastery refraineth himself from all things. And they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown: but we an incorruptible one. II Corinthians 6:4-5. But in all things let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulation, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in prisons, in seditions, in labours, in watchings, in , “The Church enjoins the ways and means whereby her subjects must satisfy the obligation of doing penance inculcated by natural law. Many of the Fathers allude to the exercise of ecclesiastical authority in reference to the obligation of abstinence. The disciplinary canons of various councils bear witness to the actual exercise of authority in the same direction. Texts of theology and catechisms of Christian doctrine indicate that the obligation of abstaining forms an element in one of the Commandments of the Church. Satisfaction for sin is an item of primary import in the moral order. Abstinence contributes no small share towards the realization of this end. As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin.” – The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Vol. I, 68b 376

Catholics the world over kept these laws of fast and abstinence. We were even identified by our obedience —we were not called fish-eaters and mackerel- snappers without cause. Private prayer and penance pleases God. But He said: “Where two or three are gathered in My Name, there am I in the midst of them.” So public prayer and penance pleases Him more. And when the whole Church assists at His Holy Sacrifice, or participates in it to the extent possible by joining our small self- denial to His Good Friday sufferings, He is pleased, and withholds His punishments as at Ninive. But Paul VI destroyed our prescribed self-denial. He recommended that we each perform some individual substitute, if we happen to remember it. As when he imposed an idolatrous substitute for Mass, he had only our welfare at heart. Even a real pope would have been incompetent in both these innovations. When we realize, however, that Montini (Paul VI) could not have been pope, we must ignore his “dispensation.” We remain bound by the Church’s laws on fast and abstinence.

In view of the chaotic world situation, this is the least we can do.

The New Abstinence (#58) The postconciliar “Church” restricts very little food from entering our mouths, but places muzzles on any who persist in missionary activity, in pursuit of which silence is golden, and we can use the money. Of all people, Cardinal leaps to our defense. He wants to give us the right dope. This Fordham theologian complained in the Jesuit America (October 2002 issue) that Reflections on Covenant and Mission, a report on Catholic-Jewish dialogue, is a trifle biased in approach. He specifies that the Catholic section focuses totally on Judaism (which appears to be the problem), but the Jewish section ignores Christianity. The former pro- poses an extremely broad definition of evangelization, difficult to reconcile with teachings of recent popes. It seems to say that Christians can evangelize without pronouncing the name of Jesus. [Whereas the recent ecumaniac “popes” have wiped out evangelization.] “Our” side says No! to the question whether the Church has a mission to the Jews. Though JP2’s encyclical Redemptoris Missio “does not target Jews in any special way for conversion, he makes no exception for them,” writes Dulles. “He simply assumes, as all Christians must, that if Christ is the redeemer of the world, every tongue should confess him. If Jesus offers a share in his divine life through the sacraments, all men and women, not excluding Jews, should be invited to the banquet.” Dulles also faulted the document’s line: “Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God.” This “seems to imply that Jews are not obliged to take cognizance of the new covenant.”

377 “No New Testament author could be interpreted as holding that there are two independent covenants, one for Jews and another for Christians, running on parallel tracks to the end of history.” “… those who withdraw from evangelization weaken their own faith.” [Dulles might check with Ratzinger!] “Once we grant that there are some persons for whom it is not important to acknowledge Christ, to be baptized and to receive the sacraments, we raise questions about our own religious life.” America published in the same issue a response from three “Catholic” participants in the dialogue: “The multiple layers of meaning of evangelization indeed leave it vulnerable to inconsistent usage.” They then cited a 1991 Vatican document that distinguished between “evangelizing mission” in the broad sense and “proclamation” in the sense of inviting others to Christianity. “To refrain from targeting Jews for conversion is not a rejection of the Church’s evangelical mission but a recognition that this dimension of evangelization is inappropriate in the unique case of Judaism, the tradition to which we are all ‘intrinsically’ related, as John Paul II” [Who else?] “has” [consistently] “expressed it.” All required is abstinence from truth!

Another “argument” for the novus ordo missae blown. (#56) When we argue the obvious point that the novus ordo missae lacks a Consecration the ordinary modern “Catholic” denies that a pope would do such a thing. This, of course, is true, but when we argue that since this has been done by men who claim to be popes, the very fact proves that they cannot be popes, our modernist denies that this has been done, and cites the criminals themselves that they have not committed this crime. But their primary argument has failed utterly in the last few months. The postconciliar “Church” is dead in the water. Can it really be the Bark of Peter? July 20, 2001 Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (explicitly approved by JP2) allowed Chaldean Catholics to attend “masses" of the heretical Assyrians and to receive “communion” thereat. The Assyrians have no consecration formula in their “mass,” nor even a suggestion of Christ’s words. The Vatican text states: “The principal issue for the Catholic Church agreeing to this request” (Who asked?) “is related to the question of validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the of Addai and Mari one of the three anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. … is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative.” In this rite the following is the closest approach to a consecration: “O Lord, may thy holy Spirit come and rest upon this offering of thy servants, and bless and sanctify it: in order that it be for us, O Lord, unto the propitiation of trespasses and the remission of sins and unto the great hope of resurrection

378 from the dead and unto a new life in the kingdom of heaven with all who are pleasing in thy sight.” Obviously these are not Christ’s words in instituting the Mass and the Holy Eucharist. No one else can institute a sacrament. According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, 414-415, this is the most frequently used anaphora, and Christ’s words of institution have never appeared therein. We have here a blatant parallel to the novus ordo missae. It, too, has no consecration, and therefore occasions idolatry. The postconciliar “Church” has gone far afield to prove that it promotes idolatry, and cannot be God’s Church.

The War Is Now! # 57 Sermon, St. Jude’s Shrine, Quinquagesima Sunday, February 10, 2002As Jesus, speaking to His Apostles, predicts His coming sufferings and death, the Apostles, as yet blind to the deeper things of the Spirit, are unable to understand. Later, as they approach Jericho, a blind man cries out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me.” Jesus, seeing his faith, restores his sight. There may have been a lesson in this for His Apostles, as well as for us—those who acknowledge Jesus as “Son of David” will not be blind to the things of God, and will be able to claim God as their Father. What does it mean to call Jesus “Son of David?” Just as God had made a covenant with the patriarchs Noah and Abraham, and at Sinai through Moses, renewing it in each generation, so did He make a covenant with King David, promising him through the prophet Nathan: “… I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons … and I will establish His throne forever” (1Paral. 17:11b, 12b). The genealogies in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke show how this descent is traced. In both cases the genealogy of St. Joseph is shown, but since St. Joseph is the legal father of Jesus, Jesus is legally of Davidic descent … But Mary is also descended from David, as St. Paul … says that God’s Son was born to Him “according to the flesh of the offspring of David” (Rom. 1:3). It is also implied in the words of the Angel Gabriel to Mary, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of David His Father, and He shall be king over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there will be no end” (Lk. 1:32,33). Jesus is therefore the heir to the throne of David, the King of Israel, true Messiah and Lord. It is the right and duty of the Holy Catholic Church to guard and defend the doctrines of the faith, which have been defined by the Church and handed down from one generation to the next. In our time, however, the Church is suffering under a vicious and relentless attack by her enemies, being accused of anti- Semitism, and being pressured to deny that Jesus is the true heir to the throne of David, the one Messiah and Mediator between God and humanity. If the Church is to remain faithful to her mandate to teach all nations, she must uphold the truth, even if this means persecution and martyrdom. True to form, the conciliar church under the leadership of John Paul II, in a vain attempt to placate those who wish to destroy the Catholic Church, has yielded to this pressure and confirmed itself in apostasy from the true faith. 379 It teaches now that the Old Covenant is still in effect, and stands with the New Covenant as an alternate way of salvation. The Jews may rightfully wait for another Messiah, who will not be Jesus Christ. Contrary to this, the words of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 31:31), quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews, attest to the coming of a new covenant and the passing away of the old: “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; for they did not abide by my covenant …” (Heb. 8:8,9). “Now in saying ‘a new covenant,’ he has made obsolete the former one …” (Heb. 8:13). Adherents of the novus ordo church appear to be going down without a fight, if we can judge from the remarks of the conservative Catholic writer and commentator, Michael Novak, in an article in the National Review. Says Novak: “As John Paul II has made clear, however, the Jewish Testament remains valid; God can no more become unfaithful to His covenant with the Jews than He can to His covenant with Christians.” This is the new doctrine, never before taught by the Catholic Church, and not found in the Gospels or other New Testament writings. Far from being unfaithful to His covenant with the Jews, God fulfilled His Old Testament promises by sending His Divine Son, Jesus Christ. All who wish to be saved must hear Him and obey Him. The very purpose of the Old Covenant was to prepare the way for Him. “Behold we are going up to Jerusalem,” says Jesus in today’s Gospel, “and all things that have been written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished” (Lk 18:31) The Old Covenant cannot stand on its own as a separate covenant because its purpose has been fulfilled. The Jewish religion as it exists today has no foundation or validity. Novak also says, “Christians must understand and accept Jewish faith, in order to accept Christian faith.” This is absolute nonsense. Christian and Jews understand the Old Testament writings differently. Christians see them as referring to Jesus Christ and finding their fulfillment in Him. Jews see them as referring to themselves, and still await a Messiah. Authentic faith is a gift of God, and is given to those who believe the word of His Divine Son. Jews may have their beliefs, but they do not have the theological virtue of faith, which is given at baptism. Their religion is diverging still further from that of their ancestors, because they are beginning to see what they call the “Holocaust” as an integral part of their religious patrimony. While millions of Catholics will go along with the new doctrine and end up in a state of apostasy, it remains for those who still believe and love the Catholic Church to protest vehemently, and to rush to the defense of the true faith, and of Jesus Christ, our beloved Lord and Savior. “Little children,” says St. John in his first Epistle, “it is the last hour: and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us: but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. But

380 you have the unction from the Holy One and know all things. * I have not written to you as to them that know not the truth, but as to them that know it: and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. As for you, let that which you have heard from the beginning abide in you. If that abide in you, which you have heard from the beginning, you also shall abide in the Son and in the Father.” (Jn 2:18-24) *[Biblical Commentary: The unction from the Holy One... That is, grace and wisdom from the Holy Ghost. Know all things... The true children of God’s church, remaining in unity, under the guidance of their lawful pastors, partake of the grace of the Holy Ghost, promised to the church and her pastors; and have in the church all necessary knowledge and instruction; so as to have no need to seek it elsewhere, since it can only be found in that society of which they are members.]

Sermon, June 30, 2002 (excerpts) … Is it possible that God could abandon His Church? … No, because God has made a covenant with His people through Jesus Christ His Son. Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant, which He obtained at the price of His life’s Blood. And the Church is the community of those who are made members of the Covenant through the holy rite of Baptism. … the baptized have a special relationship with God, that of adopted sonship, which is enjoyed by no other people. They alone are fed by Bread from heaven, the sacred Body and Blood of Christ, which is the pledge of eternal life. Because we are members of this holy Covenant through Baptism, it is to us that God has made a solemn promise that He will be our God and we shall be His people. “There is neither Jew nor Greek,” says St. Paul, “there is neither slave nor freeman; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:28-9) Although the existence of God can be known by the exercise of human reason alone, the God of the Covenant can be known only by those who believe in the One Whom He has sent, Jesus Christ. Although Christ was born to be King, the world refuses to recognize His authority. Those who hate Him have staged a massive campaign to destroy Him. His divinity is denied; He is not acknowledged as the true Messiah; His Resurrection and His other miracles are explained away; His holy Name is blasphemed; He is portrayed as a fool, or a weak and sinful human being. And God’s Covenant, sealed in the Blood of Christ, is despised. The reaction … against the idea of removing the name of God from the Pledge of Allegiance is a sign of hope … but the God of the Covenant is not some neutral “Deity” who will allow us to do exactly as we please. Those who have

381 rejected the Covenant, or who remain indifferent to it, are still obliged to keep the Commandments. But for them there is a serious problem: without grace it is impossible to keep the Commandments. The Law itself does not confer grace. “For the Law was given through Moses,” says St. John, “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17). This is why the people God chose at Sinai proved to be so disobedient, except for the few who had faith in God’s promise to send a Redeemer (Gen. 3:15). And this is why God is disobeyed and His Commandments almost universally scorned today. Because Jesus Christ is denied there is no grace, and without grace, human nature cannot overcome the effects of the Fall. The terrible consequences of breaking the Covenant are spelled out in the Book of Leviticus, where seven Covenant woes or curses are pronounced against the unfaithful, which would become seven times more intense each time the Covenant was re-broken. (Lev. 26:14-39) “But if you do not heed Me and do not keep all these commandments,” God says, “if you reject my precepts and spurn my decrees … I … will punish you with terrible woes …” (Lev. 26:14- 16). Jesus would invoke these seven woes against the Pharisees. [Remind yourself when you read shortly: “vigorous counter-offensive, in which He resorts seven times to the invective ‘hypocritical scribes and pharisees’” that Jesus followed Hebrew Scripture.] … A world without grace is a world out of control, with leaders who plan death and destruction, corrupt business practices that ruin the economy, media phonies who specialize in managed news and mind control, and even Church leaders who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Without Christ we should expect nothing more. Those who are faithful to the Covenant and believe in the One Whom God has sent need not fear God’s judgment or punishment, but for the rest the trumpet has sounded, and the judgment of God hangs over the world like a sword about to strike.

* * * * * *

Mothers’ Watch, PO Box 1029, Frederick, MD 21702-0029 in its Summer/Fall issue reports on a new bishop-inflicted attack on children— Growing in Love, a program introduced into grade schools. “The Bishops have … transformed religion programs into sex programs … Before many children are taught to read, they are indoctrinated to embrace a ‘joy of sex’ mentality where sexual activity will be judged on the basis of personal needs, not according to the Commandments of God or the teaching of the Church. … Homosexuality, bisexuality, and other perversions are subtly and systematically normalized. Homosexuality becomes a God-given gender, a gift rather than a cross to bear. … sex and religion are mixed until sex becomes religion and religion becomes sex. Catechizing has become sexualizing. This is what Bishops across the country want for your children. They want to draw in parents too, as ‘partners’ (silent) in the destruction of the faith and the sexualization of the minds of children. Parents who disagree are treated with contempt. …” This issue details disgusting particulars as presented to children 382 from kindergarten to grade 3 levels. “The NACHE magazine, The Catholic Home Educator (July, 2001), blamed the ‘crisis among the Faithful’ on the Baltimore Catechism. … NACHE attempts to bring the homeschool curriculum under the Bishops’ control,” to save children from contamination by the Baltimore Catechism! [Mothers’ Watch here provides yet more proof that the hierarchy is not Catholic. The diocesan bishops have far exceeded their competence in supplanting true worship and doctrine. Still unsatisfied with their suicidal course, they provide themselves yet another millstone necktie.]

Hebrew People, Holy Scriptures in Christian Bible Atila Sinke Guimaraes reviewed the original Italian version of The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, an official 2001 publication of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, whose president, Joseph Ratzinger, wrote its preface. Ratzinger also heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of which the PBC is a subsidiary. I shall not quote the review, but only the quotations upon which the review was based. The bracketed comments are mine. Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 82: All the books which the Church received as sacred and canonical were written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost. It is impossible, therefore, that any error can co- exist with divine inspiration. For not only is divine inspiration per se incompatible with error, but also it excludes and rejects error absolutely and necessarily because it is impossible that God Himself, the Supreme Truth, can utter that which is not truth. Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 84: Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments to write the sacred books, we cannot say that it was these inspired men who eventually have fallen into error, without saying that the Primary Author also erred. For, by supernatural power, He moved and impelled them to write. He Himself assisted them during the writing in such a way that everything which He ordered them to write, they rightly understood, faithfully willed to write down, and finally, aptly expressed in words with infallible truth. Otherwise it could not be said that God was the Author of the entire Scripture. Pius XII, Speech to the International Congress of Historical Sciences, Sept. 7, 1955: The term ‘historicism’ indicates a philosophical system that acknowledges change & evolution in the whole spiritual reality, in the understanding of the truth, in religion, and in morality. As a consequence, it rejects everything that is permanent, eternally valid, and absolute. Such a system is certainly irreconcilable with the Catholic conception of the world. [This view obviously needed updating] Vatican II, , 12b: Those who search out the intention of the sacred writers must, among other things, have regard for ‘literary forms.’ For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry, or some other type of speech. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the

383 sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances as he used contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic style of perceiving, speaking, and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the customs men normally followed in their everyday dealings with one another. Joseph Ratzinger, Fe en la creacion y teoria evolutiva in Es esto Dios (Barcelona, Herder, 1973), p.234: The form in which the creationist idea was rendered concrete in effect was swept away by the evolutionist theory. With this the faithful have to allow themselves to be taught by science, since the way they had imagined creation would correspond to the pre-scientific conception of the world, which today is no longer sustainable.

The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, Introduction, page 15: Modern times have led Christians to become better aware of the fraternal bonds that closely unite us to The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible. During World War II, tragic events … subjected The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible to an extremely grave trial that threatened their very existence in a large part of Europe. In these circumstances, some Christians did not give proof of the spiritual resistance that one would expect from disciples of Christ by not taking the corresponding initiatives. Other Christians, on the contrary, offered a generous help to the Hebrews in danger. … After that terrible tragedy, the need to examine carefully the question of relations with The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible imposes itself. An enormous undertaking of study and reflection has already been carried out in this sense. The PBC deemed it opportune to offer its contribution to this effort in its field of competence. [Modernists seldom miss an opportunity to fog an issue. These historical irrelevancies lie far outside a biblical expert’s field of competence.] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 54- 5: The change caused by the extermination of the Jews … has stimulated all the Churches to re-think completely their relations with Judaism and, as a consequence, to reconsider their interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. Some have asked themselves whether Christians should repent for their appropriation of the Hebrew Bible and an interpretation that no Jew could accept. [Of course not! That is why they are Jews!] Should Christians, then, read the Bible with the Hebrews in order to respect its Jewish origin? The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 54: The Christian interpretation of the Old Testament is, therefore, an interpretation that differs according to the diverse types of texts … It deals with a theological interpretation, but at the same time a fully historical one. Far from excluding the critical-historical exegesis, it requires it. When the Christian reader perceives that the internal dynamism of the Old Testament finds its realization in Jesus, he would be assuming a retrospective perspective, whose point of departure is not

384 in the texts as such, but in the events of the New Testament proclaimed in the apostolic preaching. For this reason one should not say that the Hebrew does not see what was announced in the texts, but rather that the Christian, in the light of Christ and the Church, discovers in the texts an increased meaning that was hidden in them. [Now we have hidden revelation—on the authority of the Church from which it has been hidden these two millennia!] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 55:Christians can and should admit that the Hebrew reading of the Bible is a possible reading, which finds itself in continuity with the Hebrew sacred Scriptures of the time … And it is similar to the Christian reading, which developed parallel to theirs … From the concrete plane of exegesis, Christians can still learn much from the Hebrew exegesis practiced for more than two thousand years. [—two thousand years spent trying to justify denial of God’s truth.] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 157: It must be admitted that very probably the way the Pharisees are presented in the Gospels is influenced in part by the past polemic between the Christians and the Hebrews. [Based largely on Hebrew treatment of Christ and His followers.] At the time of Jesus, there were certainly Pharisees who taught an ethics worthy of approval. [Relevance?] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 164: Jesus is opposed by the scribes and Pharisees on many occasions and responds to them, finally, with a vigorous counter-offensive (Mt 23: 2-7; 13-36), in which He resorts seven times to the invective [fine pejorative phrasing!] ‘hypocritical scribes and Pharisees.’ This presentation certainly reflects, in part, the situation of the community of Matthew. [Did Christ Himself not say these words? Was He lying?] The editorial context is that of two groups who live in close contact with each other: the group of Hebrew Christians, who are convinced that they belong to the authentic Judaism, and the group of Hebrews who do not believe in Jesus Christ and were [and still are] considered by the Christians to be unfaithful to their Hebrew vocation [perhaps] because of their docility to the blind and hypocritical leaders. The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 165: Moreover, the anti-Pharisaic virulence of Mt 23 should be seen in the context of the apocalyptic discourse of Mt 24-25. Apocalyptic language is used in times of persecution to reinforce the capacity of resistance of the persecuted minority and to strengthen its hope in a liberating divine intervention. Seen from this perspective, the force of the polemic is less surprising. [Considering the attitude of the scribes and Pharisees, and the measures they eventually took, what is surprising about factual reporting?] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 168: The Gospel of Matthew reflects a situation of tension and finally of opposition between the two communities. Jesus foretold that his disciples would be flogged in the synagogues and persecuted from city to city (23:34). Thus Matthew is concerned about defending the Christians. Since the situation changed radically later, [as when Constantine made it illegal for Jews to kill

385 family members who embraced Christianity] the polemic of Matthew should no longer disrupt the relations between Christians and Hebrews. The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 182: Once again ‘the Jews’ are hostile to Jesus. Their opposition was unleashed on the occasion of the cure of a paralytic worked on Saturday (Jn 5:16); it grew after a statement in which Jesus called himself ‘equal to God,’ with the consequence that they sought to procure his death (Jn 5:18). Later … they accuse him of ‘blasphemy’ and try to carry out the corresponding punishment: stoning (Jn 10:31-35). It was rightly observed that a large part of the fourth Gospel anticipates the trial of Jesus, where he is given the possibility to make his own defense and to accuse his accusers. The latter are frequently called ‘the Jews’ without any other precision, which has the result of linking this name with a negative judgment … This way of speaking only reflects a situation of clear separation [which clearly existed] between the Christian and Hebrew communities. The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, pp. 182-3: The most serious accusation made by Jesus against ‘the Jews’ is that they have the devil for their father. (Jn 8:44) It is necessary to note that this accusation is not made against the Jews as Jews, but against those insofar as they are not true Jews, since they foster murderous intentions (Jn 8:37) inspired by the demon. [It is necessary, rather, to quote the entire passage (Jn 8:32-59): And you shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free. They answered him: We are the seed of Abraham: and we have never been slaves to any man. How sayest thou: You shall be free? Jesus answered them: Amen, amen, I say unto you that whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. Now the servant abideth not in the house forever: but the son abideth forever. If therefore the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. They answered and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not. You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded and came. For I came not of myself: but he sent me. Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not. Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me: He that is of God heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God. The Jews therefore answered and said to him: Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil? Jesus answered: I have not a devil: but I honour my Father. And you have 386 dishonoured me. But I seek not my own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. Amen, amen, I say to you: If any man keep my word, he shall not see death forever. The Jews therefore said: Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets: and thou sayest: If any man keep my word, he shall not taste death forever. Art thou greater than our father Abraham who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Whom dost thou make thyself? Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God. And you have not known him: but I know him. And if I shall say that I know him not, I shall be like to you, a liar. But I do know him and do keep his word. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it and was glad. The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old. And hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, p. ?: At the end of the trial before Pilate, the high priests worked up the people who were present into a state of excitement and made them decide in favor of Barabbas (Mk 15:11) and, therefore, against Jesus (Mk 15:15). The final decision of Pilate, powerless to calm the multitude, was that of ‘seconding it,’ which for Jesus signified crucifixion (Mk 15:15). Now, that occasional multitude cannot be confused with the Hebrew people of that time, and still less with The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible of all times. Instead of this it must be said that this multitude would represent the sinner world (Mk 14:41), of which we all make up part. [On the contrary, as the reviewer points out, Pontius Pilate refused responsibility for this Deicide, and all the Jews on hand publicly and vociferously assumed the guilt. (Mt. 27:24-5): “His blood be upon us, and upon our children.” This crime certainly outranks Original Sin, and the Tower of Babel; the punishment for both sins of pride was also inflicted upon all future generations. In accordance with history’s record of massive disasters suffered by the Jews, the Church has always held this position. And why may not the “holocaust” have been due to the same curse which they called down upon themselves?] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 171: The blame for having ‘condemned’ Jesus, according to Mark, falls to the Sanhedrin (10:33; 14:64) … The reason for the condemnation of the Sanhedrin is this: When Jesus, in his response, affirmed and substantiated to the high priest who was questioning him that he was ‘the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ he ‘blasphemed’ (14:61-64). Thus Mark points to the most dramatic point of rupture between Hebrew authorities and the person of Christ, a point that continues to be the most serious discord between Judaism and Christianity. For Christians, the response of Jesus is not a blasphemy, but the pure truth, which was manifested as such after his Resurrection. To the eyes of all Hebrews, the Christians are wrong in affirming the divine sonship of Christ in a sense that gravely offends God. However painful it might be, this fundamental discord should not degenerate into reciprocal hostility, nor make [either party] forget the existence of a rich common patrimony, here understood as faith in the one 387 God.’ [Their difference, a mere trifle, boils down to a simple query: Who and What is God?] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 171: To sustain that, according to Mark, the responsibility for Jesus’ death should be attributed to the Hebrew people is the fruit of an erroneous interpretation of this Gospel. This type of interpretation, which had disastrous consequences throughout History, does not correspond in fact to the perspective of the Gospel … which often sets the behavior of the people against that of the authority hostile to Jesus. [Let it never be forgotten that nearly all the first converts to Christianity were Jews, who were heavily persecuted by the Temple crowd, who knew for certain that Christ had risen. (Mt. 28:11-15) “… some of the guards came into the city and told the chief priests all things that had been done. And they being assembled together with the ancients, taking counsel, gave a great sum of money to the soldiers, Saying: Say you, His disciples came by night and stole him away when we were asleep. And if the governor shall hear of this, we will persuade him and secure you. So they taking the money, did as they were taught: and this word was spread abroad among the Jews even unto this day.”] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 168: The same should be said about the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. This destruction is an event of the past, which today should only arouse profound compassion. Christians should absolutely avoid extending the responsibility to successive generations of the Hebrew people, and should take care to remember that after the divine sanction, God always opens new positive perspectives. [Let it never be forgotten that contemporary Jews are identified as such only by their continued rejection of Jesus Christ.] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 192: The formulations of Paul have the appearance of being globalizing and attributing the blame for the death of Jesus to all the Hebrews without distinction; anti-Judaism understands it in this sense. But, placed in its context, they speak exclusively to those who are opposed to preaching to the pagans and, therefore, to the salvation of the latter. This opposition becoming less, the accusation also ceases. [We need no longer accept God’s inspired word. Now we have Ratzinger and his Pontifical Biblical Commission.] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 202: The rupture between the Hebrew people and the Church of Jesus Christ can seem complete in certain epochs and certain places in the past. In the light of Scriptures, this should never have happened, because the complete rupture between the Church and the Synagogue is a contradiction with Sacred Scripture. [The ground has been prepared; we must now accept the big lie.] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 206: Many texts have served as a pretext for anti-Judaism and were effectively used in this sense. In order to avoid distortion of this type, it must be observed that the polemical texts of the New Testament, even those that use generalizing terms, are always linked to a concrete historical context and they never intend to refer to the Hebrews of all times and places by the fact of being Jews. The tendency

388 to speak in generalizing terms, to accentuate the negative sides of the adversaries … does not take into consideration their motivation and their eventual good faith [ pro perfidis Judaeis—Let us pray for the faithless Jews—from the liturgy for Good Friday]; it is a characteristic of the polemical language of all antiquity. [But modernists would never commit such slanted inaccuracies, would they, Ratzi?] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 203: JP2 in the Mainz synagogue: “The Jewish religion is not ‘extrinsic to,’ but in a certain way ‘intrinsic to’ our religion. Therefore, we have relations with it that we do not have with any other religion. You are our predilect brothers and, in a certain way, one could say our oldest brothers.” [Abel had an older brother.] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 204: For Christians, the principal condition of progress in this sense is to avoid any unilateral reading of the Biblical texts, of the Old as well as New Testament, and of striving, on the contrary, to correspond to the dynamism that animates the whole, which is precisely a dynamism of love. [Imagine the scope for private interpretation!] The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, pp. 204-5: The partial reading of the texts frequently raises difficulty in relations with the Hebrews … Instead of launching accusations … they must be understood in their historical and literary context. [By whose standards?] From Ratzinger’s Preface: This synthesis, fundamental to the Christian Faith, should become problematic, however, at the moment when the historical conscience developed a(?) criteria of interpretation which would make the Fathers seem to lack a historical basis, and, therefore, become objectively unsustainable. (page 9) [Conscience is an individual attribute. We sometimes speak of a collective conscience, which designates a number of individual consciences in agreement. But what is a historic conscience? The Church Fathers agreed, even in synthesis, because they learned their faith from the Apostles, literally by word of mouth. The Fathers were intelligent, clear, and explicit. They knew what they saw, who were their enemies, and who killed them. But we have the great benefit of men able to evaluate their biases and correct their judgments. Above all we are blessed with the insights of Kung, Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Congar, Ratzinger, and Teilhard de Chardin.] According to Harnack [a Protestant advocate of higher criticism]… it was perfectly logical to depart from an exegesis in which the texts of the past can have … only that sense that the respective authors wanted to give them in their own historical moment. To the modern historical conscience, however, it seems more than improbable that the authors of the centuries prior to Christ who express themselves in the books of the Old Testament had the intention of alluding in advance to Christ and to the faith of the New Testament. In this sense, with the victory of the historical-critical exegesis, the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament departing from the New Testament would

389 frequently seem to be off course. (pp. 9-10) [What happened to divine inspiration, the cornerstone of our acceptance of the Bible?] In its work the Biblical Commission could not ignore the context of our times, in which the drama of the shoah places every question under another light … After all that happened, can Christians still tranquilly sustain the pretension of being the legitimate heirs of the Bible of Israel? Can they remain with the Christian interpretation of this Bible, or, on the contrary, shouldn’t they respectfully and humbly renounce such a pretension, which in the light of what has taken place seems ‘presumptuous?’ [Emotional special pleading for our acceptance of absurdity. We are all tagged with responsibility for the “holocaust.” We can’t accuse contemporary Jews of crucifying Christ and murdering His followers, but we must accuse contemporary Germans of what their grandfathers are supposed to have done. What effect can recent events have on our revealed religion? Revelation was complete at St. John’s death. Our best records of its content and meaning are found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, on whom we rely to determine our original beliefs and practices. Does this fool not understand that without the Fathers he himself has no basis for authority? When he contradicts them—as he does regularly—he proves that he is not Catholic, and has, therefore, no status in the Catholic Church.] What should follow the events that took place is a renewed respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament … It should be added that Christians can benefit greatly from the Jewish exegesis practiced for 2000 years [in a futile attempt to justify the criminal actions of their ancestors]… I think that these analyses will be useful not only for the progress of the Jewish-Christian dialogue, [What dialogue? There is nothing to discuss. Either the Jews are totally correct or the Catholic Church is totally correct.] but also for the interior formation of the Christian conscience [lumbered as it is with guilt for the “holocaust.”]. (page 12) Having dealt at great length with Ratzinger’s nonsense, the reviewer quotes some pithy official Church documents which reduce Ratzinger and his position to overdone hash. Council of Trent, Sess IV, Denzinger 786: … to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published. , 34 (St. Pius X: We believe, then, that we have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come the internal and textual critics. And since it is characteristic of the primary cause to communicate its virtue to causes which are secondary, it is quite clear that the criticism with which we are concerned is not any kind of criticism, but that which is rightly called agnostic, immanentist,

390 and evolutionist criticism. Hence anyone who adopts it and employs it makes profession thereby of the errors contained in it, and places himself in opposition to Catholic teaching. Humani Generis, 22 (Pius XII): For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. … In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the Analogy of Faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth. De Ecclesia, Vatican Council, April 24, 1870, Denzinger 1787: These books of the Old and New Testament, whole with all their parts, just as they were enumerated in the decree of the same Council [of Trent], are contained in the older Vulgate Latin edition, and are to be accepted as sacred and canonical. But the Church holds these books as sacred and canonical, not because, having been put together by human industry alone, they were then approved by its authority; nor because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God as their author and, as such, they have been handed down to the Church itself. [The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, published by the Pontifical Biblical Commission under the aegis of the Congregation which is supposed to guard our Faith from error, convicts the entire Roman misgovernment of having defected from the Faith. If these usurpers were ever Catholic they have apostatized, thereby forfeiting all offices in the Church. To say that this apostasy was committed behind the back of— not in collusion with—JP2, Garrulous Karolus the Koran Kisser (quoted in support) would be absurd on its face. We can read it and he can’t?]

* * * * * * *

Over the years we have seen proof after proof deliberately misunderstood or ignored. The usurpers and their supporters cannot refute the obvious point that heretics are not Catholics, and can hold no office in the Catholic Church to which they obviously do not belong. When we cite their heresies by the yard we are told that we cannot depose, or condemn, or even question a pope. But we have never tried to depose, condemn, or question a pope. We have shown instead that four recent usurpers, being heretics, cannot be or have been popes. Surely the first requirement to hold the office of pope is that the candidate be Catholic.

391 The first argument in my book, Is The Pope Catholic?, shows the purpose of the papacy. A pope’s job is to preserve and hand on exactly what was handed down to him. He has no possible mandate or authority either to augment or to reduce the Deposit of Faith, complete at the death of the last Apostle. He has no competence to replace anything in the areas of revelation, faith, or morals. As soon as he attempts to change or innovate in these areas he “corrects” Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, true God and Author of all truth. The innovator believes not and will be condemned, as Christ Himself said (Mark 16:16). We have emphasized that our highest moral duty and obligation is to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. What we are obliged to do, we have an absolute right to do. But the usurpers in Rome have nearly wiped out the Mass, and replaced it with idolatry. They have made it impossible for most people to find Mass. Their substitute has none of the essential parts of the Mass. They replaced the Offertory with a Preparation of the Gifts from the Jewish Passover service, thus replacing Christ’s own intention with the insufficient sacrifice which He had Himself replaced. They replaced Christ’s consecratory Action with a Narrative of Institution, of no possible effect. So the priest receives in communion not Christ’s Body and Blood but an ordinary piece of bread. Just as Mass is our first obligation, so is idolatry our greatest crime. Even to put the matter in doubt should scare us out of our minds. But no one pays any attention, because “we must obey the pope.” This attitude has now led us right into the enemy camp. Our usurpers have turned us into searchers for the truth we have ever infallibly possessed. We have become subsidiary Jews—and not even good Jews. The Jews may be correct, or why should we look to them for guidance in our interpretation of Holy Scripture? But then again we may be correct, because the Jews only may be correct. So are we apostates or merely heretics? Either way we are not Catholic! Either way we are doomed! This is where our phony pope has led us. And many who can see this and are suitably shocked continue to address this monster as “Holy Father” and plead with him to set things right. He has had twenty-four years to set things right. He is even quoted as part of the argument of this dreadful book, The Hebrew People and Their Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible. What will it take to awaken such people? Are we not fortunate to have the Septuagint—rendered into Greek nearly three centuries before the Jewish rejection of Jesus Christ, our God and Savior? The Pontifical Biblical Commission now relies on Massoretic texts dating from the seventh century A.D. after six centuries in custody of those who deny every word of the New Testament. Why? Are we not indeed fortunate that Cardinal Ratzinger and his Vafia, with the unmistakable approval of an antipope who kissed the Koran in public, have spelled out their apostasy in such a manner that the entire clergy and hierarchy must now face a public choice between the Catholic Church and its impossible replacement? The fence is now too sharp to straddle. The game is over. Absurdity has been achieved.

392 Can the laity now refuse to recognize reality? Who can now conscientiously continue to support open apostasy? Who can contribute to support pastors so obviously turned slaughterers of souls? Rather let us try to recover the property of the Church from those who presently occupy it under pretense that they legitimately lead the Catholic Church.

393