Sunday, June 19, 2011

Heretical Prayers of Antipope Leo XIII

This article will expose Leo XIII even more clearly (if it were possible) as a heretic, through prayers that he is on public record for having composed and sanctioned, but first, let us have a brief refresher in Catholic dogma:


1. Christ's death was sufficient to save every human being who ever lived or ever will live, no matter how many should be born into this world of sin. However, no man is counted among the redeemed until the merits of Christ's death have been applied to him by Baptism.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 5, Decree Concerning Original Sin, ex cathedra: "If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam... is taken away... by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sesion 6, Chapter 3, ex cathedra: "But, though He died for all, yet do not all receive the benefit of His death, but those only unto whom the merit of His passion is communicated... if they were not born again in Christ... seeing that, in that new birth, there is bestowed upon them, through the merit of His passion... redemption, and remission of sins."


2. God is not Father to anyone but Catholics, as all the baptized who sever themselves from the Church sever themselves from the family of God. This will be proved from Scripture, the Liturgy, Ordinary Papal teaching and Dogmatic Definitions:


Scripture

St. John 1:12: "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 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."


Ordinary Papal Teaching

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.""


Dogmatic Definitions

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..."

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."


Liturgy

In the Tridentine Missal, the Hanc Igitur reads as follows:

"Wherefore, we beseech Thee, O Lord, graciously to receive this oblation which we Thy servants, and with us Thy whole family, offer up to Thee: dispose our days in Thy peace; command that we be saved from eternal damnation and numbered among the flock of Thine elect. Through Christ our Lord. Amen."

Now let us not forget that even good willed catechumens were not admitted to the oblation, but were dismissed before the Canon of the Mass [and thus before the Hanc Igitur], let alone could they be said to offer up the same oblation to God. How much less can it be said, then, of heretics and schismatics? From these dogmatic Catholic sources, it can plainly be seen by anyone at all with even a shred of faith and reason that heretics, schismatics and infidels (the unbaptized) are NOT a part of God's family.

By extension, we recognize, then, that they cannot be the children of the Blessed Virgin Mary either, lest we should say that the Blessed Virgin has motherhood over the children of the devil. But this is contrary to reason, for the Virgin is the daughter of the Eternal Father, the mother of the Eternal Son and the spouse of the Eternal Spirit. For her to be said to also have a part in the family of the devil is an abomination! The blessed Virgin Mary prays and intercedes for the conversion of the devil's children, that they might disown their present family and join hers, but she does not have illegitimate children with the devil!

The Glories of Mary, by St. Alphonsus: "Remember that she accepts as her children all those who choose to be so."

Now the only way to choose to be so is to choose to be a child of her Father and a brother of her Son by Baptism and profession of the Catholic Faith.


Now, with no further ado, the heretical prayers of Leo XIII from The Raccolta:



See how heresy insinuates itself under the guise of good!  See how the devil mixes profound truths (no salvation outside the Catholic Church) with soul damning heresy ("God the father of INFIDELS")!

Remember, a heretic cannot be pope, and as has been abundantly demonstrated over and over again, Leo XIII was a publicly manifest heretic spewing lies against true Catholic dogma, even calling Jews "his children", even teaching heresy before his alleged election.  He was the first head of the modern anti-Church, the post-Catholic church, and I believe those who wish to have a chance at salvation must reject him, his heresies and his sect as utterly unCatholic, abjuring them, confessing God and His true popes and detesting His enemies.



15 comments:

  1. Heretics, infidels and schismatics are also children of God, at least potentially. There is no heresy with saying that they are children of God, provided one defines it correctly. All souls comes from God and are hence his children in this way. But it is also true that only the saved will be his true children eternally, since those others, tragically, will belong to their father the devil.

    To depose him as an antipope for "heresies" weak like this is the height of arrogance and pride. This can easily be interpreted orthodoxly, but you do not. When dealing with one's neighbor, one must first try to excuse him, before condemning him. But there is nothing really to condemn here or find fault with in reality, since we know the pope meant it in a good way (and not heretical way), since one can call those others (unbelievers etc.) God's children also in one sense. So this heresy is no heresy, and you are just looking for faults it seems since you are already of mind that he was an antipope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "At least potentially"

      Then you can also say that sand is potentially glass, wood is potentially a house, rock is potentially a castle, and mortal sinners are potentially saved. But to say these things without mentioning the "potentially" is to state factual untruths. And he never said "potentially.

      "There is no heresy with saying that they are children of God, provided one defines it correctly."

      And he did not; your comment is pointless wrangling.

      "All souls comes from God and are hence his children in this way."

      God creates souls. He does not beget them, and he does not adopt them, without the laver of regeneration or the desire thereof, as the Church has stated in more than one place. You have made up your own definition of fatherhood in opposition to what the Church has already taught and defined.

      "But it is also true that only the saved will be his true children eternally, since those others, tragically, will belong to their father the devil."

      Here you prove your inconsistency and lack of logic. For if they belong to their father the devil, God is not their father. Who has two fathers? When has the Church ever specified anyone to have two fathers? You are spouting nonsense.

      "To depose him as an antipope for "heresies" weak like this is the height of arrogance and pride."

      I notice you put heresies in quotations. You are denying that this is a dogma of the Faith then:

      Pius IX, Vatican Council, ex cathedra: "Without Faith it is impossible to please God and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters"

      Given the above dogmatic definition, and the unanimous testimony of all the Saints and Fathers on this point, and your obstinate resistance against it, by all external appearances, you have shown yourself to be a heretic against this dogma for the sake of defending Leo XIII, who also taught against it.

      "This can easily be interpreted orthodoxly, but you do not. When dealing with one's neighbor, one must first try to excuse him, before condemning him. But there is nothing really to condemn here or find fault with in reality, since we know the pope meant it in a good way (and not heretical way), since one can call those others (unbelievers etc.) God's children also in one sense. So this heresy is no heresy, and you are just looking for faults it seems since you are already of mind that he was an antipope."

      Poor man. I used to believe the same as most "sedevacantists", namely that Pius XII was the last true pope. But this position is simply untenable if one is to apply the principles Divinely laid down in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. I TRIED to find excuses for the heretical poison dropped by Leo XIII and his successors into the lake of truth, but in so doing I made myself a heretic and a schismatic.

      Psalm 140:4: "Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins."

      Stop it Jerome, really.

      Delete
  2. God is not the Father for the unsaved in the sense you hold it, but that does not mean it is automatically damning and heretical to make the statement that God is the Father also of unbelievers.

    There are many definitions to the term Father, and to obstinately reject all others--only clinging to one's own--maliciously condemning others for words that can be used orthodoxly, is evil and prideful.

    And yes, mortal sinners are potentially saved!

    Pope Leo XIII did define it (the word "Father") correctly, since he do not hold or teach they can be saved as non-Catholics even if he calls them God's children in the sense that we are all from God.

    To not depose Leo XIII as an antipope for using the term "Father" is not heretical, as you imply, nor is it heretical to defend him or his orthodoxy.

    You have recently started to accept the universal and ordinary magisterium on baptism of desire. For the same reason, why do you reject the ordinary and universal magisterium concerning the acceptance of Pope Leo XIII? I accept the fact that no one found fault with his statements (and all other true popes you condemn). Yet in your arrogance you think that you have found out these obscure secret heresies that no one else ever have found fault with!

    The term Father is not heretical when understood correctly, and you are playing with words. And just as one can defend baptism of desire and blood in an orthodox way despite all the canons and teaching seemingly teaching something else, so also can one interpret Pope Leo XIII's statement in an orthodox way, despite many teachings that opposes the view that God is the Father of all men.

    It is all about interpretation. You choose to condemn Leo XIII, that is your problem.

    Pope Leo XIII never taught unbelievers can reach true Fellowship in Heaven with the God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost without conversion, and neither do I. So I in no way deny the Pope Pius IX quote you quoted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David, you should follow your own advice against the person who attacked Pope Pius IX on your blog for calling non-Catholics “Christians” or “separated brethren”: “The way that Pius IX used the term does not mean he thinks or even expressed that they are true Christians [and the same is true with Pope Leo XIII, since he neither believes non-believers are true Christians even if he said God was is Father]. The context of his letter clearly expresses the opposite, that heretics and schismatics do not in fact profess the true Faith, nor can they be saved out of the Church [ibid]. But in your opinion, using the term Christian for heretics and schismatics [or according to you David, by merely saying: God is the Father of all men], even if is clear from his message that he believes they are such in name only, and not in reality, is enough to make him not a Christian. But such rash contempt of terms despite their context would have you condemn Saint Paul for quoting the pagan poets, who referred to Zeus: "For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring." - Acts 17:28. Or for "apostatizing from Christianity" to make converts: "And I became to the Jews, a Jew, that I might gain the Jews:" - 1 Cor. 9:20. Obviously, ignoring context because you don't like how a word was used leads to wrong conclusions and sins against charity.”

    Why then do you ignore the context of Pope Leo XIII when he never actually holds or teaches that non-believers can be saved even if he expresses that they are children of God the Father? According to you, it seems that merely to express this opinion, even in an orthodox way, is automatically damning and heretical with no way of being an error or material heresy!

    If you are just going to hide behind numerous quotes being against non-believers having God as their Father, we will get no where, for you already know it is all about interpretation, as your recently changed views on baptism of desire and blood shows. And as the argument goes, just because one says God is the Father of men, does not also deny that God is not the Father of all men according to the sense of the quotes you use--just as canons on the necessity of water baptism (according to your posts) does not deny the doctrine of baptism of desire. You wrote: "Right belief in the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire does not violate this canon, nor call down this anathema, as such belief acknowledges the necessity of water for the sacrament."

    ReplyDelete
  4. "God is not the Father for the unsaved in the sense you hold it, but that does not mean it is automatically damning and heretical to make the statement that God is the Father also of unbelievers."

    You seem to want to qualify the statement “God the Father of unbelievers” as though it is in any way permissible. But it is not. Pope Leo XII (12) elevated the quote of St. Augustine to the level of the papal magisterium in Ubi Primum. The quote is (verbatim) "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."

    This quote says nothing about salvation. It says everything about the lack of sonship of those out of the Church, and their inability to claim him as their Father, while in that state! That is the actual context, which you think you can explain away for some reason. What did St. Basil say about preferring to die any manner of death rather than to allow one iota of sacred dogmas to be betrayed?

    Do you argue that this is not a dogmatic teaching? I would have to disagree with such an argument, because of definitions at the Councils of Florence, Trent and the Vatican, all quoted in the article about “God the Father of All” which touch on God's Fatherhood and the adoption of human beings.

    http://willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.ca/2010/06/is-god-father-of-all-men.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. "There are many definitions to the term Father, and to obstinately reject all others--only clinging to one's own--maliciously condemning others for words that can be used orthodoxly, is evil and prideful."

    I am concerned with dogmatic definitions, and papal teachings, which in no uncertain words state that it is false to state those outside the Church are under the Fatherhood of God, while they remain in that state.

    "And yes, mortal sinners are potentially saved!"

    So you have decided to engage with that part of my analogy. Great! If by “mortal sinners” you mean those who have died with their will cemented against God, in a state of final impenitence, you are certainly wrong, because those mortal sinners are infallibly damned, as the Catholic religion teaches, and while they live in the state of mortal sin they are spiritually dead. But those who will cease to be mortal sinners before they die can be saved. Likewise, those who are out of the Church, while in that state, are not children of God, and God is not their Father. They have to become Catholic for God to be their Father.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Pope Leo XIII did define it (the word "Father") correctly, since he do not hold or teach they can be saved as non-Catholics even if he calls them God's children in the sense that we are all from God."

    No. Your argument is full of holes, as should be expected for someone who is arguing on the side of heresy. Behold:

    “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”

    These are the words of Leo XIII. If you are saying God is Father because of creation, then it does not follow that Mary is the mother of the whole human race. She has not created anyone. We are not "from Mary". She is the mother of the faithful, as St. Alphonsus teaches, on account of the adoption.

    “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”

    So you are the one who is bending over backwards to make Leo XIII say something he didn't, by attributing to his words a context that is not there, and in fact ignoring the context he gave them himself, which context puts the whole human race *in* the *family* of God and Mary.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "To not depose Leo XIII as an antipope for using the term "Father" is not heretical, as you imply, nor is it heretical to defend him or his orthodoxy."

    You have misstated the issue. He is not heretical merely for using the term “Father”, he is heretical because the context shows he means to place the whole human race in the family of God, as can be seen by the quote above. Had he explicitly stated he only meant Father as creator, and rejected the notion that all human beings are in the family of God, he might have been saying what you are claiming he was saying, but he did no such thing and you know it.

    And you said I am "deposing" the "pope". To depose is an ecclesiastical act. I am not deposing anyone, but simply pointing out his manifest heresy, which demonstrates his non-papacy. There is no deposition involved, nor is it necessary. If I didn't point out the heresy and withdraw obedience, I would be an accomplice to heresy and disobedient to Catholic tradition which exhorts rejection of heresiarchs.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "You have recently started to accept the universal and ordinary magisterium on baptism of desire. For the same reason, why do you reject the ordinary and universal magisterium concerning the acceptance of Pope Leo XIII?"

    This is a silly question. Profession or provocation of heresy renders one unfit to be Pope or Cardinal, per the Bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, and the same Bull even declares that unanimous consent of all the Cardinals to the supposed election would still not give it validity.

    "I accept the fact that no one found fault with his statements (and all other true popes you condemn). Yet in your arrogance you think that you have found out these obscure secret heresies that no one else ever have found fault with!"

    God save me from my pride! But if pride is my reason for holding this position, then why is it that the only arguments brought to bear against it are all so manifestly contrary to the teachings of the Church, and so devoid of stability? You have not said one thing in regard to my position on this that has pricked my conscience, for the reason that everything you say is easily refuted by having recourse to Catholic theology and the magisterium. Your arguments are full of holes and appear as nothing more than wrangling, especially given your attempts to explain away Leo XIII's words while ignoring the context he himself gave them.

    And the Bull, as mentioned, even foresaw the possibility that "no one would find fault" with the heretic "pope", at least not among the captains of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The term Father is not heretical when understood correctly, and you are playing with words. And just as one can defend baptism of desire and blood in an orthodox way despite all the canons and teaching seemingly teaching something else, so also can one interpret Pope Leo XIII's statement in an orthodox way, despite many teachings that opposes the view that God is the Father of all men.

    "It is all about interpretation. You choose to condemn Leo XIII, that is your problem."

    There are right and wrong interpretations; To interpret it in an orthodox way, you have to change his words. So far your interpretation involves and requires contradicting a number of papal teachings, Scriptures and dogmatic definitions, and ignoring the context the man gave his own words.

    "Pope Leo XIII never taught unbelievers can reach true Fellowship in Heaven with the God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost without conversion, and neither do I. So I in no way deny the Pope Pius IX quote you quoted."

    He, and his successors in the counterfeit "papacy", taught that God is the Father of all, in words that imply a filial relationship. Yet the Catholic Church has many times taught that God is not the Father of those outside the Church. It doesn't matter that the earlier counterfeits did not offer those outside the Church salvation, because they laid the groundwork for the ones who would come after them to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "David, you should follow your own advice against the person who attacked Pope Pius IX on your blog for calling non-Catholics “Christians” or “separated brethren”: “The way that Pius IX used the term does not mean he thinks or even expressed that they are true Christians [and the same is true with Pope Leo XIII, since he neither believes non-believers are true Christians even if he said God was is Father]."

    I am aware of no papal teaching, nor dogmatic definition that states the word Christian may not be used to describe those outside the Church, who *claim* to be such and go by that name, especially when the context given (by Pope Pius IX in Iam Vos Omnes) is clear and undeniable: that they are false Christians. If there were such a definition, then it would be a quite different story with Pius IX. But there *are* explicit definitions and teachings stating in absolute and explicit terms that God is not the Father of those outside the Church, and those outside the Church are not his sons and daughters, nor can they attain to the fellowship thereof in that state.

    Only once they have have ceased wandering and returned to Catholicity is God their Father.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The context of his letter clearly expresses the opposite, that heretics and schismatics do not in fact profess the true Faith, nor can they be saved out of the Church [ibid]. But in your opinion, using the term Christian for heretics and schismatics [or according to you David, by merely saying: God is the Father of all men], even if is clear from his message that he believes they are such in name only, and not in reality, is enough to make him not a Christian. But such rash contempt of terms despite their context would have you condemn Saint Paul for quoting the pagan poets, who referred to Zeus: "For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring." - Acts 17:28. Or for "apostatizing from Christianity" to make converts: "And I became to the Jews, a Jew, that I might gain the Jews:" - 1 Cor. 9:20. Obviously, ignoring context because you don't like how a word was used leads to wrong conclusions and sins against charity.”"

    "Why then do you ignore the context of Pope Leo XIII when he never actually holds or teaches that non-believers can be saved even if he expresses that they are children of God the Father?"

    Quoting my defense of Pope Pius IX, I see. But no, it is you, again, who is ignoring the fact that antipope Leo XIII's words place those outside the Church into the family of God. It is heretical for that reason alone. He did not have to say they could be saved, and he could even say they are damned, but his words nevertheless place them in the family of God, and as such are both heretical, and provoking of heresy. And the heresy grew into what we have today, which is a doctrine heretical on more than just this one point.

    Pius IX expressed that when they return they will be in God's family. Leo XIII took that notion and added to it the idea that they are still in God's family. That is the heresy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "According to you, it seems that merely to express this opinion, even in an orthodox way, is automatically damning and heretical with no way of being an error or material heresy!"

    It is heterodox to the Catholic Faith to say that non-Catholics are in the family of God! And one cannot express something in an orthodox way *and* be in material heresy for expressing it!

    "If you are just going to hide behind numerous quotes being against non-believers having God as their Father, we will get no where,"

    Amazing! No, Jerome, it is you who are hiding FROM the quotes from the authority of the Church. I remember in out private email exchange you made one excuse after another for why it is okay to call God the Father of those outside the Church, and each point you made, I had already seen refuted by a saint, pope, or the Lord Christ Himself. When I presented you the quotes, you did not explicitly address any of them, but continued on doggedly stating that the word Father can mean a lot of different things, as though the context of family were not somehow intrinsically bound up with it.

    And yes, I do hide behind the teachings of the Church, as a child would hide behind the dress of his mother. You got a problem with that? Tell it to the Church, for She is my Mother, and Her words are my milk.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "for you already know it is all about interpretation, as your recently changed views on baptism of desire and blood shows."

    The Church has taught baptism of desire and baptism of blood. I simply was not listening before, and was in sin. The Church has also taught that God is not the Father of those outside Her. You are not listening, but following a heretic instead, and defending him.

    "And as the argument goes, just because one says God is the Father of men, does not also deny that God is not the Father of all men according to the sense of the quotes you use--just as canons on the necessity of water baptism (according to your posts) does not deny the doctrine of baptism of desire. You wrote: "Right belief in the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire does not violate this canon, nor call down this anathema, as such belief acknowledges the necessity of water for the sacrament.""

    The Church herself, in the ordinary and universal magisterium teaches baptism of desire. Nowhere have I seen the Church teach that God may be called the Father of those outside the Church, and the one place I once thought it existed (the Roman Catechism) states something altogether different, as I learned by hiring a Latin translator. So no, it is not my interpretation that has caused me to accept Baptism of Desire, rather it is my obedience to the Church's magisterium, both solemn AND ordinary. It was my interpretation that caused me to reject Baptism of Desire, ignoring the ordinary Magisterium, and as a result, turning the Church into the Church of Mr. Magoo, inept to stamp out heresy. Likewise, it is not my interpretation that causes me to profess that God cannot be called the Father of those outside the Church, it is, again, my obedience to the whole of the magisterium, which teaches in no uncertain terms with one accord that God is not the Father of any but Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The fact that Leo XIII taught opposite this, and in a novel way that put those outside the Church in the family of God and Mary, is why I do not believe he in fact exerted authority in the Catholic Church, and why I hold his “reign” to be the beginning of the formal apostasy of the hierarchy from Catholicism.

    ReplyDelete