Saturday, June 26, 2010

Antipope Pius X: All are children of God, even infidels

Antipope Pius X clearly teaching that God is the Father of Jews, infidels, pagans, heretics, and schismatics.

Notre Charge Apostolique, Given by Antipope Pius X to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910: "The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself."

The whole human family? As we have seen, there are TWO families. Those under the Fatherhood of God and those under the fatherhood of the devil.

Pope Leo XII (12), Ubi Primum, # 22, May 5, 1824:He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches.  In reference to these words St. Augustine says: ‘Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.’”

The words of Pius X are so clearly heretical that there is no way at all to try to explain them away. And who would have the nerve to try? And of course, he learned that doctrine from his evil mentor antipope Leo XIII.

Is God the Father of all men?

Heretics are those who deny that which has been revealed and taught by God.  I cannot think of any more blatant a heresy, nor one more responsible for the evils of our day,  therefore, than to claim that God is the Father of unbelievers, except perhaps to say that heretics worship the true God.  Make no mistake, contrary to what some would have us believe, heretics and infidels are NOT children of God.

St. John 8:42-44: "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."

God is not the Father of all men, as is clear from the words of Jesus Christ.  Do we say that some men have both God and the devil for a father?  God forbid!  Is this a "protestant styled" interpretation of the Scriptures?  We have dogmatic definitions of Holy Mother Church to tell us the truth:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, ex cathedra: "By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

Thus it is dogmatically defined that the impious are translated from NOT being sons of God, but sons of Adam, to being adopted sons of God by baptism.

There is only one Scripture passage that I have seen anyone attempt to bring forward to support the alternative position (and why would anyone dare, after reading the above words of Truth Incarnate in St. John, chapter 8, or the definition of the Church?) is St. Paul to the Ephesians, but they would have to take it out of context.  It is a tell-tale sign of a heretic, to quote Scripture out of context to try to justify a heretical (and obviously false) position.

Ephesians 4:1-16:  "Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peaceOne body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling.  One Lord, one faith, one baptismOne God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.  But to every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the giving of Christ.  Wherefore he saith:  Ascending on high, he led captivity captive; he gave gifts to men.  Now that he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?  He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.  And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ ..."

It is perfectly obvious that St. Paul is writing to Catholics about Catholics, when he says, "One God and Father of all", right after "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" and then speaks of the edifying of the body of Christ.  In his Letter to the Ephesians, St. Paul is in no way discussing anything about non-Catholics and therefore his words must be understood in context, not out of context, and consistent with  the subsequent dogmatic definition:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 3, #8-9, ex cathedra: "Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. Since, then, without faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end."

Thank you Pope Pius.  Faith is required for membership in the family of God.  Pope Leo XII (12), in his ordinary Magisterium has said this also, quoting St. Augustine:

Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum, 1824: "He who hears you, hears me; and he who despises you, despises me; and the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches. In reference to these words St. Augustine says: "Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father.""

Thank you Pope Leo.  Why else, then, would St. John the Evangelist say: "But as many as received him, he gave them power to be MADE the sons of God, to them that believe in his name."? (St. John 1:12)

The Solemn Magisterium of Holy Church said the same thing even before the Council of Trent:

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence Session 11, 1439, ex cathedra: "With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred..."

Thank you Pope Eugene.  And this is perfectly consonant with the Old Testament as well:

Malachias 2:10-11: "Have we [Israelites] not all one father? hath not one God created us? why then doth every one of us despise his brother, violating the covenant of our fathers? Juda hath transgressed, and abomination hath been committed in Israel, and in Jerusalem: for Juda hath profaned the holiness of the Lord, which he loved, and hath married the DAUGHTER OF A STRANGE GOD."

Even here, we see that God is only Father to His chosen people (children of Israel in the above case), and that those not amongst His chosen people are indeed in the spiritual family not of God, but of the devil, since all the gods of the false religions are devils (Psalm 95:5, 2nd Corinthians 6:15, 1st Corinthians 10:21, Baruch 4:7, Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 105:37).

St. Matthew 18:17: "And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican."

1st Corinthians 10:20: "But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils."

Father by Nature?

Some might, then, argue that God is the Father of all men by nature, even if not spiritually, but this does not follow at all.  First of all, God is the Creator and author of our nature, yes, and as the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches:

"Nam cum Deus hominem creaverit ad imaginem suam, nec illam ceteris animantibus impertiverit, ex hoc singulari munere, quo hominem ornavit, jure omnium hominum, nec fideliummodo, sed etiam infidelium, Pater in divinis scripturis appellatur."

That is to say: "Given that God has created man to His image, and has not bestowed it upon the other living creatures, on account of this unique privilege, with which He has adorned man, a right of all men, not only of the faithful, but also of infidels, in the divine Scriptures He is called Father."

It is indeed true that the faithful and the unbelieving are made in the image and likeness of God, and no amount of unbelief can remove that from them. But do not be deceived by modern corrupt translations, which allege this passage to teach that God is called the Father of unbelievers in Scripture.  We have already seen seen above that such an allegation is absolutely false and indeed contrary to the Scriptures, and also contrary to the dogmatic canon of Trent quoted at the beginning of this article.  It is only by adoption that can we be His sons, since we are not of God's nature.  A look at an English Catechism from 1873 confirms this clear distinction between "Father" and "Creator" as separate titles.  Though we may have lost our sonship and inheritance by the taint of original sin, and though some lose it after Baptism by subsequent unbelief and sin, neither of these causes are sufficient to remove from God the appellation of Father in a general sense, though certainly these causes remove our worthiness to have Him as our Father.

Here is an excerpt from my communication with a Latin translator I hired to help me understand the sense of this text from the Roman Catechism:

I asked "Is "jure omnium hominum" referring to "ex hoc singulari munere, quo hominem ornavit" or "Pater in divinis scripturis appellatur", or is it possible to read it either the one way or the other? Which way is more tenable?"

The reply I received was "Jure omnium hominum is referred to the gift that God gave equally to all men".

That gift is the image of God.  And aside from creating rational beings in his image, and again adopting us as His children through faith, there is one more cause, for which God the Father is called "Father":

St. Alexander of Alexandria, Father of the Church, Epistle on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius: "[I]t is necessary to say that the Father is always the Father. But He is the Father, since the Son is always with Him, on account of whom He is called the Father. Wherefore, since the Son is always with Him, the Father is always perfect...

"Wherefore, the only-begotten Son of the Father, indeed, possesses an indefectible Sonship; but the adoption of rational sons belongs not to them by nature, but is prepared for them by the probity of their life, and by the free gift of God.

"And His proper and peculiar, natural and excellent Sonship, St. Paul has declared, who thus speaks of God: Who spared not His own Son, but for us, who were not His natural sons, delivered Him up.

Thank you St. Alexander.

It is only by sharing in the life of Christ, through Baptism, that we can be called sons of God.  It is entirely unlawful and heretical to say that God is the Father of any in the New Testament era but Catholics or that Catholics are in the same spiritual family as heretics or infidels (or that these worship the true God).

St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, Book II, Chapter 3: "And yet we are also said to be born of God—that is to say, in so far as we, who already were men, have received power to be made the sons of God—to be made such, moreover, by grace, and not by nature. For if we were sons by nature, we never could have been anything else."

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, First Part of the Second Part, Question 82. Original sin, as to its essence, Article 4. Whether original sin is equally in all: "I answer that, There are two things in original sin: one is the privation of original justice; the other is the relation of this privation to the sin of our first parent, from whom it is transmitted to man through his corrupt origin."

Thank you St. Thomas.  We are generated from a corrupt origin, a corrupt father, Adam.

Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 22, IV: "When the prince of the world is bound, all that he held in captivity is released. Our nature cleansed from its old contagion regains its honourable estate, death is destroyed by death, nativity is restored by nativity: since at one and the same time redemption does away with slavery, regeneration changes our origin, and faith justifies the sinner."
Thank you St. Leo, in the regeneration, we discard our corrupt origin.

Romans 8:13-17: "For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live. For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.  For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father).  For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him"

We are regenerated in Christ, through Baptism, unto the family of God, both bodily and spiritually.

Some heretics who denied this truth, calling God the Father of all men:
(and who seem to have been able to get away with it as far as the "Catholic" world is concerned)
Antipope Pius XII


Antipope Leo XIII, Adiutricem "The mystery of Christ's immense love for us is revealed with dazzling brilliance in the fact that the dying Savior bequeathed His Mother to His disciple John in the memorable testament: "Behold thy son." Now in John, as the Church has constantly taught, Christ designated the whole human race(!), and in the first rank are they who are joined with Him by faith. It is in this sense that St. Anselm of Canterbury says: "What dignity, O Virgin, could be more highly prized than to be the Mother of those to whom Christ deigned to be Father and Brother!"

Leo XIII would have us believe that the whole human race is now already under the mothership of Mary and Fathership of God.


St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Seven Words Spoken by Jesus Christ on the Cross, Third Word: "Woman, behold thy son ... Behold thy mother." [John 19: 26, 27] “…since through the merits of her so great grief, and through her love [according to the opinion of St. Augustine], as she was the natural mother of our head Jesus Christ, so she then became the spiritual mother of us who are His faithful members, in co-operating with Him by her love in causing us to be born, and to be the children of the Church…let us…examine more deeply the reason why Jesus called Mary woman, and not mother. By this expression He desired to show that she was the great woman foretold in the Book of Genesis…Naturally was Mary the enemy of the serpent, because Lucifer was haughty, ungrateful, and disobedient, while she was humble, grateful, and obedient. It is said, She shall crush thy head, because Mary, by means of her Son, beat down the pride of Lucifer, who lay in wait for the heel of Jesus Christ, which means His holy humanity, which was the part of Him which was nearest to the earth; while the Savior by His death had the glory of conquering him, and of depriving him of that empire which, through sin, he had obtained over the human race.

"God said to the serpent, I will put enmities between thy seed and the woman. This shows that after the fall of man, through sin, notwithstanding all that would be done by the redemption of Jesus Christ, there would be two families and two posterities in the world, the seed of Satan signifying the family of sinners, his children corrupted by him, and the seed of Mary, signifying the holy family, which includes all the just, with their head Jesus Christ. Hence Mary was destined to be the mother both of the head and of the members, namely, the faithful…these members are all spiritual children of Mary, as they have the same spirit of her Son according to nature, Who was Jesus Christ. Therefore, St. John was not called John, but the disciple beloved by the Lord, that we might understand that Mary is the mother of every good Christian who is beloved by Jesus Christ, and in whom Jesus Christ lives by His Spirit. This was expressed by Origen, when he said, "Jesus said to Mary, Behold thy son, as if he had said, This is Jesus, Whom thou hast borne, for He who is perfected lives no more himself, but Christ lives in him."

Thank you St. Alphonsus.  Obviously the blessed Mother of God does not have illegitimate children with the devil, as our modern heretics imply by defending the ill done by this Masonic doctrine when it is spoken by the aforementioned antipopes.

Popes Boniface VIII and Gregory VII vs. Antipope Leo XIII

Concerning the relation that ought to exist between the Church and the State, Pope Boniface VIII and Antipope Leo XIII both held and taught manifestly contrary positions.  Examining the dogmatic and infallible Papal Bull Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface, will be sufficient to show that Leo XIII was definitely heretical, even if subtly and deceptively, in his teachings on Church and State relations.

In the interest of a clear and fair comparison and contrast of the teachings of the two men, read the extracts from the Papal Bull below, and then compare them with the teachings of Antipope Leo XIII, which are referenced in the article entitled "The Church and State Relationship as Compared With That of Husband and Wife".

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302, ex cathedra: "We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

"However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

"For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The Dictatus Papae was included in Pope's register in the year 1075. Some argue that it was written by Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073-1085) himself, others argues that it had a much later different origin. In 1087 Cardinal Deusdedit published a collection of the laws of the Church which he drew from any sources. The Dictatus agrees so clearly and closely with this collection that some have argued the Dictatus must have been based on it; and so must be of a later date of compilation than 1087. There is little doubt that the principals below do express the pope's principals.

The Dictates of the Pope
  1. That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
  2. That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.
  3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
  4. That, in a council his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
  5. That the pope may depose the absent.
  6. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
  7. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
  8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
  9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
  10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
  11. That this is the only name in the world.
  12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
  13. That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
  14. That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
  15. That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
  16. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
  17. That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
  18. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
  19. That he himself may be judged by no one.
  20. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
  21. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
  22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
  23. That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
  24. That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
  25. That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
  26. That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
  27. That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Euthanasia: Why should they have to suffer?

The word euthanasia is from the Greek ευθανασία, meaning "good death": ευ-, eu- (well or good) + θάνατος, thanatos (death) refers to the practice of ending a life in a manner which relieves pain and suffering.

But euthanasia is far from a good death.  Christ came to earth for one purpose alone, and that was to suffer for the sake of man's salvation.  By doing this He gave us a model to imitate.  How foolish it is to seek to avoid suffering if the only recourse that may be had is death!  It's like saying "Dear Jesus, I know you suffered for me, but now that I am faced with suffering, I want no part of it.  Oh, by the way, please still let me into heaven because I don't want to suffer in hell either!"

There could hardly be something more contrary to the Gospel message than euthanasia, which is indeed a misnomer.  It is not a good death at all, but a sacrilegious and blasphemous death.  It is a mortal sin to commit suicide or ask to be killed - in fact it encompasses many mortal sins: disobedience, despair, greed (the selfishness that thinks "why should I have to suffer"), ingratitude to God for the sacrifice He made for us, not to mention despising it so far as to be loathe to imitate it.  Anyone who commits suicide of his own volition is devoid of love, either for God or from God.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20: "Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body."

1 Corinthians 3:16-17: "Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are."

Again, any action that calls down destruction from God is a mortal sin, and will condemn a soul to hell.  In fact, it is the sin against the Holy Ghost to commit suicide, that is, to die in the state of final impenitence.  When a man has died unrepentant of his mortal sins, even just one, he has rejected the offer of sanctity made to him by the Holy Ghost, hence Christ says that such a one is guilty of a sin for which there is no pardon, either in this world or the next.

No, a GOOD death is one where we lovingly offer our pain to God with thanksgiving, begging Him to accept it in expiation for our many sins, by which we have so many times risked losing the site of His Most Holy Face forever, knowing that it is God alone to whom the good pleasure belongs of appointing to us the number of our days:

Psalms 38:5: " I spoke with my tongue: O Lord, make me know my end. And what is the number of my days: that I may know what is wanting to me."

It is not for us to decide when we shall depart this world, lest we blasphemously seek to elevate ourselves to the office of God.


There is an even greater audacity of some impudent persons and institutions which has reached a level that cries to heaven for vengeance.  I am talking about a trend that has long been developing among hospices, whereby they take in the elderly under the guise of caring for them in their "golden years", when in fact they intend nothing other than to destroy them.  These treacherous and vile men and women prey upon the old and infirm and spare no deceit in getting what they want - a rising death toll among the aged (and economically "burdensome"), which can only be the result of the influence of the Free Masons in power.

Below is an article I read that I feel contains information that all should be aware of:

Hospice Nurse Observes Illegal Euthanasia in Hospice

by Christina Brundage, RN - March 13, 2003 report

[Note: the following is an account of what I observed in a hospice case where I was a "friend" at the bedside and not the nurse caring for the patient.]

I will call this patient "Joe." Joe has been ill with progressive [terminal illness] for approximately 4 years. I used to take care of him on occasion. He became too rigid for me to help him walk and his wife, Ellen, has been hiring male CNAs to help since then.

Two weeks ago Ellen asked me to check Joe - he had a "sore" on his coccyx which she was told by the nurse or nurse practitioner was "sheet burn". I found Joe to have an inflamed area on his buttocks and a necrotic area, approximately 2" by 1", with blood oozing around the edges. A large area, about 6-8", around the necrotic area was mottled, reddened, with yellow exudate. Ellen had been told to use Silvadene on the area.

I talked to a nurse and told her what I observed and suggested a visit ASAP and a culture. The next day Ellen related that the nurse practitioner visited, said "it didn't look as bad" as I had said and told her to continue the Silvadene. She arranged for a visit to a wound care center the following week and ordered some antibiotics.

Early this week, Ellen called me and said the necrotic area was larger, the bleeding more, and the wound had a foul odor. She was concerned about a fever which she treated with Aleve with some success. We discussed various options - taking him to the this hospital or that one, etc. The following day Ellen called the nurse practitioner who suggested Joe be admitted to the Hospice unit the next day (3/12).

I visited Joe today in Room ___ of the Hospice Unit. Ellen was upset because she said the staff had told her she was "forbidden" to feed him or bring him any food or water because of the danger of aspiration. (The morning of admission he had had a scrambled egg and a full glass of Carnation Instant breakfast without difficulty and was walking with help). She was also upset because they were not giving him his antibiotics or anything for the fever. She was told that the decubitus was probably in the bone and was too far gone to treat.

At that point, the charge nurse, ________, R.N., came into the room. I asked her why he was "forbidden" water or food and she said it was their policy, also not treating symptoms or problems such as infection, bed sores, etc. She said she was just following routine practice to deny food, water and antibiotics (even though the patient was able to eat, drink and needed antibiotics). She said he was not in pain. I asked why he wasn't given Tylenol for his fever as he was very hot and flushed - she got a digital thermometer and tried several times to take his temperature in the ear. She said the battery wasn't working right. Finally it worked and she said his temperature was 98.7 even though I could feel his skin to be quite warm and hot. As an experienced nurse, I knew that his temperature had to be higher, but did not argue.

She said Joe was getting 20 mg. of liquid Morphine q 8 hrs! When I told her I was an RN with a Hospice background and that I never gave anyone not in pain 20 mg. Morphine, she said that was what was ordered but he wasn't getting it all the time. She then said 3-4 times clearly, standing next to the patient's head (he had his eyes open and appeared to be hearing), that he would die in about 3 days and that they didn't need to treat the infection because he was going to die soon.

Ellen was crying and upset because she realized they were practicing euthanasia. I reported the incident right away to Hospice Patients Alliance and plan to take further action.    Christina Brundage, RN

The next day: The same charge nurse came in and when Ellen asked if he couldn't have some water, the charge nurse said "You don't seem to be comfortable about his dying." She used the word dying three times right in front of him. She said she would have someone else come and talk to her because "you're not getting it." She repeated this phrase twice. We told her Joe is speaking and she said "He isn't saying anything purposeful." Yet, he had just asked me, "where is Ellen?" his wife. The hospice "routine" of depriving him of food and water, and antibiotics and giving him unneeded morphine continues. It is obvious what they are doing to him. Soon, he will be unable to speak or do anything. They will have snuffed out his life way before his natural time of dying!

Two days later: Joe is now comatose with rapid breathing, extremities cold, minimal urine output. Ellen said she was told he had pneumonia, though as an experienced registered nurse and hospice case manager, I saw no indication of congestion while observing his breathing during the entire time I was present. While I was talking with Ellen out in the hall, we overheard a nurse on the phone and Joe's last name was mentioned. Ellen asked the nurse what she was discussing. The nurse said she was getting an order for morphine for Joe. Ellen said, "But he's not in pain." The nurse agreed, thought for a minute, and said, "But that bedsore must be very painful." She said the order from the doctor was for 2-6 mg. "prn" (as needed) and that it would be given intravenously. Ellen again questioned the need for it, and the nurse said that it would only be given if he was in pain. Joe died that night.

Note from Ron Panzer: what is interesting about this case report is the casual attitude of the hospice nurse ... how routine it is for her to "forbid" any food or water from a patient who was eating and drinking the very morning that he entered hospice and who now, suddenly was "forbidden" to eat or drink. Next, the failure to treat the infection in the beginning, the refusal to treat the infection when asked to treat it, and the consequent overwhelming (formerly treatable) infection created in the patient. Next of concern: the high dosage of morphine given to the patient when the patient did not have severe pain. For those who may not know, an adult with a broken bone may get 5 to 10 mg. of morphine for pain. 20 mg is commonly given for patients with severe pain, and dosages much higher may safely be given when the patient has quite severe pain, however, it is a high dosage for a patient who is not in pain and who has never had narcotics like morphine before.

Next to notice: the cold, callous manner the hospice nurse spoke to the wife (in the patient's presence, as if the patient were not even there hearing) that he would be dead in three days. The routine, cool and absolutely certain way the hospice nurse presents the "news" to the wife that her husband will die in three days provides evidence that this hospice nurse has "done it before" many times. It comes as no surprise to her that the patient would die in three days, because through overdosing the patient, removal of food and fluid and failure to treat infection, she is certain of the outcome.

The original hospice mission and practice would be to provide food and water as long as the patient could swallow and absorb the food and water, so long as it would not cause harm to the patient. There is no regulation or law that says it is legal to withhold water and food from a hospice patient who is capable of eating and drinking as well as absorbing it! There is no law that says it is legal to withhold antibiotics from a patient who has a treatable infection (given early enough one could have at least tried to treat the infection]. And it is not within the standards of care to administer morphine when there is no clinical need for it! This is a very typical scenario in many hospices, but it is not hospice care which meets the standards of care in the industry!

 Exodus 32:34:
"And I in the day of revenge will visit this sin also of theirs."

Monday, June 21, 2010

Anecdotal evidence against Leo XIII

Please also read:
Leo XIII was NEVER pope
Leo XIII taught heresy while fraudulently posing as pope
Leo XIII Bestowed the Supreme Order of Christ on a Heretic

The following information, serves to clearly condemn Leo XIII.  Not even the heretical Dimond brothers could argue against this.

2 St. John 1:10-11: "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.  For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works."

Compare this with a true Pope, Pius IX and his manner of dealing with Jews:
Wikipedia, on Pope Pius IX: "After returning from exile in 1850, during which the Roman Republic issued sharp anti-Church measures, the Pope issued a series of anti-liberal measures, including re-instituting the Ghetto.

"In 1858, in a highly publicized case, a six-year-old Jewish boy, Edgardo Mortara, was taken from his parents by the police of the Papal States. He had reportedly been baptized by a Christian servant girl of the family while he was ill, because she feared that otherwise he would go to Hell if he died. At that time, the law did not permit Christians to be raised by Jews, even their own parents. Pius raised the boy in the papal household and the boy later was ordained a priest."

Combined with his three heresies, namely the separation of Church and State , God is the Father of all men and that there are sacraments among unbelievers, that he made a statement that the Church is not opposed to "real and lawful liberty" right before teaching that the Church does not condemn rulers who tolerate public expressions of false worship, then the above account of Leo XIII blessing Jews and proclaiming them to be his children is not surprising at all.

Certainly Jews are not children to the pope according to the flesh, but how could they be so according to the spirit unless they were also children of God?

For more about the above heresies of Leo XIII, please read "Leo XIII was NEVER pope".

Saint Francis de Sales on Slander

St. Francis de Sales on Slander:
 "Public, notorious sinners may be spoken of freely, provided always even then that a spirit of charity and compassion prevail, and that you do not speak of them with arrogance or presumption, or as though you took pleasure in the fall of others. To do this is the sure sign of a mean ungenerous mind. And, of course, you MUST speak freely in condemnation of the professed enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics,--it is true charity to point out the wolf wheresoever he creeps in among the flock."

Some heretics and schismatics:
Most Holy Family Monastery
Richard Ibranyi
Mike Bizzaro

Full text of St. Francis' discourse:

From rash judgments proceed mistrust, contempt for others, pride, and self-sufficiency, and numberless other pernicious results, among which stands forth prominently the sin of slander, which is a veritable pest of society. Oh, wherefore can I not take a live coal from God's Altar, and touch the lips of men, so that their iniquity may be taken away and their sin purged, even as the Seraphim purged the lips of Isaiah.He who could purge the world of slander would cleanse it from a great part of its sinfulness!

He who unjustly takes away his neighbour's good name is guilty of sin, and is bound to make reparation, according to the nature of his evil speaking; since no man can enter into Heaven cumbered with stolen goods, and of all worldly possessions the most precious is a good name. Slander is a kind of murder; for we all have three lives--a spiritual life, which depends upon the Grace of God; a bodily life, depending on the soul; and a civil life, consisting in a good reputation. Sin deprives us of the first, death of the second, and slander of the third. But the slanderer commits three several murders with his idle tongue: he destroys his own soul and that of him who hearkens, as well as causing civil death to the object of his slander; for, as Saint Bernard says, the Devil has possession both of the slanderer and of those who listen to him, of the tongue of the one, the ear of the other. And David says of slanderers, "They have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adders' poison is under their lips."Aristotle says that, like the forked, two-edged tongue of the serpent, so is that of the slanderer, who at one dart pricks and poisons the ear of those who hear him, and the reputation of him who is slandered.

My child, I entreat you never speak evil of any, either directly or indirectly; beware of ever unjustly imputing sins or faults to your neighbour, of needlessly disclosing his real faults, of exaggerating such as are overt, of attributing wrong motives to good actions, of denying the good that you know to exist in another, of maliciously concealing it, or depreciating it in conversation. In all and each of these ways you grievously offend God, although the worst is false accusation, or denying the truth to your neighbour's damage, since therein you combine his harm with falsehood.

Those who slander others with an affectation of good will, or with dishonest pretences of friendliness, are the most spiteful and evil of all. They will profess that they love their victim, and that in many ways he is an excellent man, but all the same, truth must be told, and he was very wrong in such a matter; or that such and such a woman is very virtuous generally, but and so on. Do you not see through the artifice? He who draws a bow draws the arrow as close as he can to himself, but it is only to let it fly more forcibly; and so such slanderers appear to be withholding their evil-speaking, but it is only to let it fly with surer aim and go deeper into the listeners' minds. Witty slander is the most mischievous of all; for just as some poisons are but feeble when taken alone, which become powerful when mixed with wine, so many a slander, which would go in at one ear and out at the other of itself, finds a resting-place in the listener's brain when it is accompanied with amusing, witty comments. "The poison of asps is under their lips." The asp's bite is scarcely perceptible, and its poison at first only causes an irritation which is scarcely disagreeable, so that the heart and nervous system dilate and receive that poison, against which later on there is no remedy.

Do not pronounce a man to be a drunkard although you may have seen him drunk, or an adulterer, because you know he has sinned; a single act does not stamp him for ever. The sun once stood still while Joshua and the children of Israel avenged themselves upon their enemies; and another time it was darkened at mid-day when the Lord was crucified; but no one would therefore say that it was stationary or dark. Noah was drunk once, and Lot, moreover, was guilty of incest, yet neither man could be spoken of as habitually given to such sins; neither would you call Saint Paul a man of blood or a blasphemer, because he had blasphemed and shed blood before he became a Christian. Before a man deserves to be thus stigmatised, he must have formed a habit of the sin he is accused of, and it is unfair to call a man passionate or a thief, because you have once known him steal or fly into a passion. Even when a man may have persisted long in sin, you may say what is untrue in calling him vicious. Simon the leper called Magdalene a sinner, because she had once lived a life of sin; but he lied, for she was a sinner no longer, but rather a very saintly penitent, and so our Lord Himself undertook her defence. The Pharisee looked upon the publican as a great sinner,--probably as unjust, extortionate, adulterous; but how mistaken he was, inasmuch as the condemned publican was even then justified! If God's Mercy is so great, that one single moment is sufficient for it to justify and save a man, what assurance have we that he who yesterday was a sinner is the same to-day? Yesterday may not be the judge of today, nor to-day of yesterday: all will be really judged at the Last Great Day. In short, we can never affirm a man to be evil without running the risk of lying. If it be absolutely necessary to speak, we may say that he was guilty of such an act, that he led an evil life at such and such a time, or that he is doing certain wrong at the present day; but we have no right to draw deductions for to-day from yesterday, nor of yesterday from today; still less to speak with respect to the future.

But while extremely sensitive as to the slightest approach to slander, you must also guard against an extreme into which some people fall, who, in their desire to speak evil of no one, actually uphold and speak well of vice. If you have to do with one who is unquestionably a slanderer, do not excuse him under the expressions of frank and free-spoken; do not call one who is notoriously vain, liberal and elegant; do not call dangerous levities mere simplicity; do not screen disobedience under the name of zeal, or arrogance of frankness, or evil intimacy of friendship. No, my child, we must never, in our wish to shun slander, foster or flatter vice in others; but we must call evil evil, and sin sin, and so doing we shall serve God's Glory, always bearing in mind the following rules. 

If you would be justified in condemning a neighbour's sin, you must be sure that it is needful either for his good or that of others to do so. For instance, if light, unseemly conduct is spoken of before young people in a way calculated to injure their purity, and you pass it over, or excuse it, they may be led to think lightly of evil, and to imitate it; and therefore you are bound to condemn all such things freely and at once, unless it is obvious that by reserving your charitable work of reprehension to a future time, you can do it more profitably.

Furthermore, on such occasions it is well to be sure that you are the most proper person among those present to express your opinion, and that your silence would seem in any way to condone the sin. If you are one of the least important persons present, it is probably not your place to censure; but supposing it to be your duty, be most carefully just in what you say,--let there not be a word too much or too little. For instance, you censure the intimacy of certain people, as dangerous and indiscreet. Well, but you must hold the scales with the most exact justice, and not exaggerate in the smallest item. If there be only a slight appearance of evil, say no more than that; if it be a question of some trifling imprudence, do not make it out to be more; if there be really neither imprudence nor positive appearance of evil, but only such as affords a pretext for malicious slander, either say simply so much, or, better still, say nothing at all. When you speak of your neighbour, look upon your tongue as a sharp razor in the surgeon's hand, about to cut nerves and tendons; it should be used so carefully, as to insure that no particle more or less than the truth be said. And finally, when you are called upon to blame sin, always strive as far as possible to spare the sinner.

Public, notorious sinners may be spoken of freely, provided always even then that a spirit of charity and compassion prevail, and that you do not speak of them with arrogance or presumption, or as though you took pleasure in the fall of others. To do this is the sure sign of a mean ungenerous mind. And, of course, you must speak freely in condemnation of the professed enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics,--it is true charity to point out the wolf wheresoever he creeps in among the flock. Most people permit themselves absolute latitude in criticizing and censuring rulers, and in calumniating nationalities, according to their own opinions and likings. But do you avoid this fault; it is displeasing to God, and is liable to lead you into disputes and quarrels. When you hear evil of any one, cast any doubt you fairly can upon the accusation; or if that is impossible, make any available excuse for the culprit; and where even that may not be, be yet pitiful and compassionate, and remind those with whom you are speaking that such as stand upright do so solely through God's Grace. Do your best kindly to check the scandal-bearer, and if you know anything favourable to the person criticised, take pains to mention it.

Contra Bizzaro, Material Heresy

Mike Bizzaro of Immaculata-One believes that every dogma of the Catholic Church must be know by all, or salvation of the soul is impossible and he explicitly denies the existence of material heresy.

He quotes many Scriptures, such as these to support his opinion:

1 Corinthians 14:38: "But if any man know not, he shall not be known"

2 Saint John 1:9: "Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son."

And others.  But he is pigeonholing these verse to try and support his bogus conclusions.  For example, the verse from Paul to the Corinthians, in context, is talking about those with the gift of prophesy and the gift of speaking in tongues.  He is not talking about doctrine, nor did he say that "If any man know not every point of doctrine, he shall be damned"!

The second verse I have presented, which Mike uses to try and establish his new "dogma" speaks very clearly about those who REVOLT against the doctrine of Christ.

That is not to say that all heretics must necessarily be revolting willingly to be separated from the way of salvation.  This is evidently clear from the Council of Florence dogmatically promulgating the Athanasian Creed as well as from constant Tradition.  To learn more on the important distinction to be made, please read this:

Heresy was always false, but not necessarily always heresy
But Mike does not acknowledge with St. Augustine that Catholics who err materially on points not contained in the Creed, so long as this is not done out of malice or with the will to oppose the Church, are not counted guilty of the sin of heresy (though such people are nevertheless to be reproved - and if they deny the need to change their opinions, then they ARE heretics).

To make matters worse, he does not even stop there, but he claims that those who have not come to know ALL dogmas, even if they hold no false opinion whatsoever, are heretics and cannot be saved.

Here is a screenshot of his website, proving that he believes this:

I included the top portion where it says to ask for a Catholic source so that it can be seen that this man is incredibly and blatant disingenuous.  We have already proposed to him our arguments through private correspondence, as has been previously posted in this article:

And his only response was "Nice try Jew". No rebuttal, no refutation. No reasoning at all of any kind. He basically said: "Na na na na naaa naaa, I can't heeear yooou!" Rather than answering our arguments, he said that people should just block email from us. Never mind that he can't answer.

And now he has recently made an addition to his website that actually proves our point!

Mike has evidently failed to understand that Pope Benedict made a clear distinction between "The Mysteries of Faith" in general and "those matters which must be known by necessity of means".  It is obvious that Pope Benedict was saying that not all ignorance of the Mysteries of Faith is mortally sinful, but only ignorance of those matters which must be known by necessity of means.  That's right, these people were ignorant of the Mysteries of Faith - and not just any Mysteries of Faith - EVEN THOSE SPECIFIC ONES that you cannot be saved without!  How much more clear can it be?

And as has been mentioned before, there are dogmas that Mike does not profess on his website; they are conspicuously missing. Mike does not teach the dogma that the Baptism of John is inferior to that of Christ (Trent, Session 7, Canons on Baptism, Canon 1), nor the dogma that Christ and the apostles had possessions truly their own (Pope John XII, Quum inter nonnullos).

By not teaching these dogmas he is failing at his own made up religion!

For the remainder of the Catholic sources and sound reasoning that show Mike to be inventing his own dogma based on an out of context distortion of the Athanasian Creed, please read this article:

Heresy was always false, but not necessarily always heresy

This article is a supplement to the article "A Dogma was always true, but not necessarily always a dogma"

Anybody who is acquainted with sound Catholic theology knows that Solemn Magisterial pronouncements, that is ex cathedra dogmatic definitions by the Holy Roman Pontiff, are the only teachings of the Church that are guaranteed to be without any error at all, being protect by God the Holy Ghost.

This means that if a statement or proposition is made by a regional Council, a Church Father or other Saint, even a Doctor of the Church,  the statement can be contradicted and MUST be if ever the pope, speaking ex cathedra, makes a statement that is to the contrary.  Why?  Because those other authorities are fallible, whereas the only one capable of speaking infallibly in the Church is the pope, and only when he specifically invokes it by promulgating his decree or teaching ex cathedra.

Any proposition to the contrary of such a definition is heresy, is the denial of a Divinely revealed dogma.  But in the course of Catholic history, there have a number of occasions where Fathers, Doctors and Saints have proposed or taught doctrines that were contrary to later definitions of the Solemn Magisterium.  When they did so, they were not heretics, since at that time, the Church had not yet made any decision on the matter, as Pope Leo X makes clear for us:

Pope Leo X, Grave Nimis, 1483 (Denz. 735): "[but these also we reprehend] who have dared to assert that those holding the contrary opinion, namely, that the glorious Virgin Mary was conceived with original sin are guilty of the crime of heresy and of mortal sin, since up to this time there has been no decision made by the Roman Church and the Apostolic See."

Obviously, after Ineffabilis Deus of Pope Pius IX, it was unlawful and heresy henceforth to assert or hold that the Most Holy Virgin Mary was conceived with original sin - but not before it.

There are, however, certain beliefs that have been understood to be heresy, from the very beginning of Christianity.  Such beliefs are those that are contrary to the basic Christian Creed, "the rudiments of faith", also called the "Rule of Faith".  This rule of Faith is the "Catholic Faith, whole and undefiled" as it was later defined in the Council of Florence when the Athanasian Creed was dogmatized.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, III, Q. 71: The preparations that accompany Baptism, Article 1. Whether catechism should precede Baptism: "On the contrary, Rabanus says (De Instit. Cleric. i): "Before Baptism man should be prepared by catechism, in order that the catechumen may receive the rudiments of faith."

We can even go farther back and show from the writings of Tertullian (while he was still in the Catholic Church) that this rule of Faith is what is held as necessary and that contrary opinions were even then known to be heresy:

Tertullian, The Prescription Against the Heretics, Chapter XIII, somewhere around AD 200: “…there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen "in diverse manners" by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics."

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Can non-Catholics pray to God?

Council of Trent, Session 5: "[O]ur Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God"

As long as a person is professing a false religion, he is incapable of directing his prayers to or pleasing the true God, but to a made up god that only bears a resemblance to Him. But are all such people necessarily always bad willed? Certainly it is foolish to judge a person as good willed if he has already been presented with sound arguments that show his sect or beliefs to be false.

But not all people have necessarily been presented with such truths. Any person who is sincere in his desire to know and to serve the true God and is willing to admit that he has been wrong, even for the whole of his lifetime, should he be presented with the truth in a manner that his fragile human nature can grasp and accept, will undoubtedly be graced by God to receive such proofs, that he may be drawn into the true worship of the true God. God, in His mercy, will grant the desires of such people, as long as they are humble enough to readily admit their blindness and move forward when the truth is made manifest to them.

Such is what happened with the centurion Cornelius in Holy Scripture:

God will not allow a truly good willed soul to remain sincerely worshiping a false god in a false religion, but will bring him the truth.

Acts of the Apostles 10: "And there was a certain man in Caesarea, named Cornelius, a centurion of that which is called the Italian band; A religious man, and fearing God with all his house, giving much alms to the people, and always praying to God. This man saw in a vision manifestly, about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in unto him, and saying to him: Cornelius. And he, beholding him, being seized with fear, said: What is it, Lord? And he said to him: Thy prayers and thy alms are ascended for a memorial in the sight of God. And now send men to Joppe, and call hither one Simon, who is surnamed Peter. He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side. He will tell thee what thou must do...

"And Cornelius waited for them, having called together his kinsmen and special friends. And it came to pass, that when Peter was come in, Cornelius came to meet him...

"And Peter opening his mouth, said: In very deed I perceive, that God is not a respecter of persons. But in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him. God sent the word to the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all.) You know the word which hath been published through all Judea: for it began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree. Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, Not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he arose again from the dead; And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead. To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him.

"While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Cornelius was worshiping in a false religion, undeniably. But he was good willed enough that God was pleased to bring him into the true faith.

1 Corinthians 12:3: "And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost."

His prayers and alms before this point did not merit this grace, but rather impetrated this favour from the bountiful mercy of God. It is important to note the distinction between the concept of merit and that of impetration, and it is summed up succinctly by St. Thomas:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, Prima Secunda Partis, Q. 114, Article 9, Reply to Objection 1: "We impetrate in prayer things that we do not merit, since God hears sinners who beseech the pardon of their sins, which they do not merit, as appears from Augustine on John 11:31, "Now we know that God doth not hear sinners," otherwise it would have been useless for the publican to say: "O God, be merciful to me a sinner," Luke 18:13. So too may we impetrate of God in prayer the grace of perseverance either for ourselves or for others, although it does not fall under merit."

Naturally, it would be essential that a person who is outside of the Catholic Church, if he wished to impetrate anything at all from God, would have to ask for his own conversion to the truth, with a humble heart, if he would expect to get anything of value from God. He may be obstinately and stubbornly convinced that his sect is true, but yet remain good willed - as long as he has not yet been exposed to the sound arguments and proofs that show his sect to be false, whereupon his obstinacy (if he were good willed) would be then melted away.

This is one reason why it is important for Christians to have soundness of doctrine, steadfastness of faith and courage in proclaiming Jesus, without any admixture of error.  As St. Peter says: "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." (1st. St. Peter 3:15)

Cornelius being a Gentile, he neither worshiped the true God, nor even knew who He is, yet knew enough to give alms and to pray. Let us assume for the sake of discussion that he had been approached by followers of another false religion who offered arguments to him that there was no God at all, or perhaps that Jupiter is god. Such arguments cannot be sound, since they are arguments for a falsehood. Cornelius, if he had flatly refused to accept their arguments would appear by any observer to be obstinate or stubborn in his false beliefs - and until St. Peter visited him with sound arguments and truth, he never had any reason to abandon any part of those beliefs.

Does this mean that Cornelius was able to please God?

If God is pleased with someone, then that someone is His friend (is God pleased by his enemies? God forbid!). If he dies while pleasing Him, he will assuredly go to Heaven. So it cannot be said that Cornelius was yet pleasing to God or that he was friends with God, since he did not yet fulfill the necessary confession of Christ and receive baptism, even though he may have been invincibly ignorant.

St. John 14:6: "Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.'

St. John 3:5: "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

So how is it then, that the angel said to him: "Thy prayers and thy alms are ascended for a memorial in the sight of God."?

It is not because Cornelius' prayers and alms were either pleasing to God in themselves or meritorious, but rather that God, in giving him the prevenient grace to earnestly desire the truth, also gave the grace to perform such actions as would benefit him spiritually ONCE HE CONVERTED, forming in him a good habit. Since Cornelius responded to this grace and made petitions to God, he was able to impetrate his own conversion from darkness, where he could never please God, into the light of the Gospel, and the Faith of Jesus Christ.  God accepted Cornelius, then, because Cornelius accepted God's grace.

It is not altogether forbidden for good willed non-Catholics to pray or offer sacrifices to God, even if they do not yet know Him, so long as they are doing so for the purpose of obtaining the truth and contrition for their sins, and ready to accept correction for any false notions they may have about Him when the truth is made manifest.

Remember that in receiving what he prayed for, Cornelius did not effect a change in God's will or action, but God simply put into effect what He had eternally foreknown in view of Cornelius' humility. It is by God's mercy that He not only gave Cornelius this grace, but that He deigned to answer his prayers, by sending St. Peter and freely offering the gift of faith by his words and sanctifying grace through baptism.

Romans 10:17: "Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ."

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 1: "[...] Peter, the prince of the apostles, recommending penitence to sinners who were about to be initiated by baptism, said; Do penance, and be baptized every one you."

The prayers and penance performed by a good willed person before he has entered the true faith, while they do not merit eternal rewards, nevertheless may pertain to the prevenient grace of God and help to establish and strengthen the dispositions necessary for a soul to enter into justification.

This is consistent with the Council of Trent's definitions on justification:

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 5, ex cathedra: "[...] the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace"

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8, ex cathedra: "And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification - whether faith or works - merit the grace itself of justification."

God gives those who do not worship Him, but who truly desire to know Him in truth, the grace to ask for what they ought to ask for. Although they are of themselves incapable of addressing their petitions to Him whom they know not, in the gratuity of His mercy he grants their supplication unto them if they are sincere. So while a man must choose to cooperate with the free gift of God's grace, it is the grace itself that disposes him to make such a choice.

St. John 15:5: "[W]ithout Me you can do nothing"

What Must You Do To Get to Heaven?

Friday, June 18, 2010

Apostasy's "humble" beginnings and subsequent evolution

Leo XIII was NEVER pope

Think about this for a moment:  In 1893, "Cardinal" Gibbons went to the World Parliament of religions,  opened the meeting and lead the group in the Our Father.  He knowingly, willingly prayed with non-Catholics and people who were not even baptized.  This was premeditated and an act of schism - he united himself to and placed himself on friendly terms with those out of communion with the Roman Pontiff.  For some reason, however, the hierarchy was not up in arms, as they should have been.  Even Antipope Leo XIII did not do anything right away, but only two years later said essentially: "Just don't let it happen again," and there was no denunciation of Gibbons, no censure, no disciplinary action at all that I have ever heard of.  All that happened was an 'encyclical' letter of Leo XIII, entitled "Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae" (Our Beloved Son), addressed to Gibbons, in which he censures the errors that Gibbons espoused, without directly rebuking or reproving him at all.

Think about this:  What would the reaction have been by Catholics in the 16th century if a bishop had waltzed into the meeting houses of Lutherans, all nonchalant, and prayed with them?  UPROAR.  So already we see that the level of zeal for purity, dignity and integrity of Faith had been grossly diluted.

But the manifestation of the Great Apostasy had its beginnings with Antipope Leo XIII.

Antipope Leo XIII, Arcanum: "This being so, all rulers and administrators of the State who are desirous of following the dictates of reason and wisdom, and anxious for the good of their people, ought to make up their minds to keep the holy laws of marriage intact, and to make use of the PROFFERED aid of the Church for securing the safety of morals and the happiness of families, rather than suspect her of hostile intention and falsely and wickedly accuse her of violating the civil law."

This is interesting indeed.  What is the definition of proffered?


S: (n) suggestion, proposition, proffer (a proposal offered for acceptance or rejection)


S: (v) offer, proffer (present for acceptance or rejection)

But the Church does not propose her moral teachings as mere suggestions, nor as  things that may be rejected.  The Church, by Her Divine institution, COMMANDS assent and obedience to what she teaches.

It would seem from the use of the word "proffer", however, that Leo XIII believes that the Church and the State are on equal footing, that the State has the right to "reject the suggestions" of the Church.

Here are the exact words of Leo XIII: "Yet, no one doubts that Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church, willed her sacred power to be distinct from the civil power, and EACH POWER to be FREE and UNSHACKLED in its own sphere: with this condition, however - a condition good for both, and of advantage to all men - that union and concord should be maintained between them; and that on those questions which are, though in different ways, of common right and authority, the power to which secular matters have been entrusted should happily and becomingly depend on the other power which has in its charge the interests of heaven."

He says that there are questions in which Church and State both have equal right and authority.  Is that so?  Name one such question Antipope Leo XIII!  You can't because the Church's right and authority surpasses the rights and authority of princes, kings, and rulers, who are nothing other than human creatures, and the State is nothing other than the a political entity which governs their subjects.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

There is no common right or authority between the Church and the State, but the State is to be WHOLLY subject to the Roman Pontiff, who indeed has a DIVINE RIGHT to overturn the decisions and legislation of States.

Matthew 18:17-18: "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.  Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."

The definition of "soever" has been given before in this blog, in the article entitled: "A pope cannot be a heretic; a heretic cannot be pope".  It is as follows:

at all; in any case; of any kind; in any way (used with generalizing force after who, what, when, where, how, any, all, etc.)

Christ was not merely saying that the Church has the power to forgive sins, but a sovereign, overruling power, which is an extension of His own Divine authority, a power to COMMAND KINGS AND NATIONS AND STATES.

But Leo XIII, as subtly as he did, undermined and denied this truth.  He couldn't just come right out and say something like: "this is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus"  By the way, do you know who said that?  It was Antipope Benedict XVI.

It might seem to some to be frightening to denounce Antipope Leo XIII as a heretic who lost office, maybe you think he was so subtle that he can get away with it, or maybe "he didn't really mean it"...  Don't expect the Apostasy to just happen overnight, such as those who adhere to Antipope Pius XII absurdly imagine.  But the heresies of the Apostasy have been evolving from seemingly innocuous beginnings, with a seemingly orthodox pope.

Let us draw a heretical family tree, showing the teachings of these antipopes and how they have evolved over time to form the blasphemous synthesis that is now oozing out of the Vatican.  Each section will begin with a dogmatic quote or two, which shows the Catholic dogma, and will then degenerate into the heresies of the antipopes.  Note that it is not always the case that the immediate successor of a particular antipope picks up the ball and runs with the subtle heresy of his heretical predecessor, but often times it has been many years, even decades, before the heresy is rehashed by another antipope (perhaps when the field is ripe and ready for it? - 2 Timothy 4:3).  With no further ado, here is the list:

Relations between Church and State

Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pope Pius IX, #39: "The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862." - CONDEMNED

Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pope Pius IX, #55: "The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852." - CONDEMNED

Antipope Leo XIII, Arcanum: "This being so, all rulers and administrators of the State who are desirous of following the dictates of reason and wisdom, and anxious for the good of their people, ought to make up their minds to keep the holy laws of marriage intact, and to make use of the PROFFERED aid of the Church for securing the safety of morals and the happiness of families, rather than suspect her of hostile intention and falsely and wickedly accuse her of violating the civil law."

Antipope Leo XIII, Arcanum: "Here are the exact words of Leo XIII: "Yet, no one doubts that Jesus Christ, the Founder of the Church, willed her sacred power to be distinct from the civil power, and EACH POWER to be FREE and UNSHACKLED in its own sphere: with this condition, however - a condition good for both, and of advantage to all men - that union and concord should be maintained between them; and that on those questions which are, though in different ways, of common right and authority, the power to which secular matters have been entrusted should happily and becomingly depend on the other power which has in its charge the interests of heaven.""

Antipope Paul VI, Second Vatican Council, Dignitatis Humanae #2, 1965: This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

In other words, according to the heresies of Leo XIII and Paul VI, the State has the right  to not only reject what the Church has commanded (proffered!) that prohibits (suggests!) separation of Church and State, but the State (being a human power) does not have the right to force Muslims, Jews, Satanists or any religious group not to practice their public false worship.

Okay antipopes, so if the State does not have the right to prohibit crimes against the Divine Law, then how does it have the right to prohibit crimes against the Natural Law?  How does the State have the right to FORCE people not to commit murder?  Theft?  Clearly there is a lack of common sense in the teachings of the antipopes, in that they lead to heretical absurdities.