Thursday, November 30, 2006

Catholic vs. Protestant Soteriology

[As a Lutheran, I know] that I am forgiven provided I daily repent of my sins. I know that if I die today (so long as I trust in Christ) He is faithful and merciful and I am forgiven. I know that I can walk away from the faith and in doing so put my soul in mortal peril.
As a Catholic, I agree.

[As a] Catholic I understood myself to be in a state of mortal peril daily since I had committed mortal sins in my heart all the time.
Perhaps you did. Perhaps you only think you did. To commit a mortal sin, you must have "full consciousness of the gravity of the sin" and you must have "deliberately willed the sin."

There are impediments to the will and to the intellect which can diminish the guilt of sin, such that the sin may not be mortal but venial. Consequently, I doubt a state of mortal sin is very common among children. I think perhaps you suffered from being overly scrupulous, thinking every thought or opinion was a mortal sin. One must understand that we have disordered desires because we are children of Adam. Unintentional thoughts or opinions that pop into our head are still objectively contrary to holiness, but unless you deliberately will the thought and were fully conscious of the gravity of the sin, that is, you absolutely knew it was a damnable thing and you freely willed it nonetheless, then it was not a mortal sin.

Yet, for argument's sake, let's say that every bad thought you had as a teenager was a mortal sin (which I find unlikely). Weren't you sorry for that thought or opinion as soon as you had it? Why were you sorry? If you were sorry because you knew it to be against God's will, and your sorrow was rooted in your love of God, then your perfect contrition is efficacious for the forgiveness of sin. There was no need to live in fear of eternal damnation, so long as your contrition was genuine and derived principally from your love of God.

Right now I am confident that God both saved me and sustains me in the faith.
Me too. But I also know that "faith" is opposed to disobedience. We cannot, as Martin Luther asserted, commit murder and adultery a thousand times a day without separating ourselves from our Lord. We cannot just have faith in our faith. We must have also what St. Paul calls "obedience of faith."

Whether or not sin is mortal is up to God. Only He knows what impediments to the will and intellect are present within us, even when we fail to know them ourselves. We leave the eternal state of our soul up to the mercy of God. Our role is simply to know Him, love Him, and serve Him.

I don't know that I could sleep at night as a catholic. My focus would be on judgment not mercy.
I had totally different experience growing up Catholic. Perhaps your Catechesis was different than mine. I suggest you have an overly scrupulous view of Catholic moral theology.

I offer you this quote from St. Athanasius to consider. Perhaps this aspect of Catholic Moral Theology was not emphasized to you when you were a kid. It ought to have been. ...

St. Athanasius (ca. AD 358):

We, however, apart from the Spirit, are strange and distant from God. Thus, our being in the Father is not of ourselves, but is in the Spirit who is in us and who abides in us, and whose presence in us we preserve by our confession of the faith.... Therefore, when someone falls from the Spirit through any wickedness—that grace indeed remains irrevocably with those who are willing to repent after such a fall. (Discourses Against the Arians, 3, 24-25, ca. AD 358)
Moreover, it's difficult to live in fear if one keeps in mind the following passages from Scripture.

"Love covers all offenses" (Proverbs 10:12)
"Love covers a multitude of sins." (1 Pet 4:8)

If one is saved they will always be unless they reject Christ. Unbelief is the only sin that will damn some one ultimately.
To quote a well-known Protestant bible scholar, C.H. Spurgeon, "To disbelieve is to disobey." To assert otherwise leads to antinomianism.

For example, we disobey, and therefore, disbelieve when we commit adultery or murder. This is in contrast to Martin Luther's assertion: "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly.... as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin.... No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." (Martin Luther, Letter to Melanchthon, Aug 1, 1521)

Rejecting Christ is the only thing that damns some one according to Him.
True. But you can reject Christ by your words and deeds, in what you do and what you fail to do, such as adultery and murder, and other such grave sins.

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified." (Rom 2:13)

This is not works-based salvation, but the "obedience of faith," which St. Paul emphasized to us in the same epistle (Rom 1:5; 16:26).

Again from Protestant scholar C.H. Spurgeon:

If we transgress against him, we shall soon be in trouble; but a holy walk—the walk described by my text as faith working obedience—is heaven beneath the stars. God comes down to walk with men who obey. If they walk with him, he walks with them. The Lord can only have fellowship with his servants as they obey. Obedience is heaven in us, and it is the preface of our being in heaven. Obedient faith is the way to eternal life—nay, it is eternal life revealing itself.
In Sacred Scripture, the opposite of "believe" is "disobey":

The word believe in biblical times carried with it the concept of obedience and reliance. Kittel says "pisteuo means 'to trust' (also 'to obey') . . ." Vines says, ". . . reliance upon, not mere credence . . ." This is confirmed further by John the Baptist's statement in John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not (apeitheo) the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (KJV) The word apeitheo is understood by all good translators and commentators to mean obedience. The opposite (antonym) of believe is disobey. The verse in the RSV says "He who believes ("is believing", present tense) in the Son. . . he who disobeys ("is disobeying" present tense) the Son . . . " The NASB translates the verse like this: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him". Kittel, a Protestant reference work, clearly defines apeitheo to mean "to be disobedient." The word belief has the element of obedience wrapped in its arms and the opposite of biblical belief is disobedience. One cannot consider themselves to be biblical if they teach salvation by mental assent (which amounts to cheap grace) without the subsequent and corollary present and ongoing obedience. (Steve Ray, "Does John 3:16 Teach Eternal Security Through Faith Alone?")
"There is sin which is mortal...there is sin which is not mortal." (1 Jn 5:16-17). There are many more mortal sins than Luther would have us believe. There are many ways in which we can completely turn our backs upon our Lord in favor of disordered selfishness, whether we do so in word or deed or both.

Yet, I don't live in fear, and neither should any child of God. I know that even on those occasions when I put my selfish disordered desires first, God sends his angels to prompt me to holiness. Every time I commit a sin, God tells me. Each and every time He melts away that disordered selfish desire that croaches at the door. And every time He places within my heart a love for Him which burns with such strength that I'm astonished at how I could have ever desired anything other than complete obedience to the will of the Lord.

Jesus teaches every sinner to repent of their sinful ways and to "Go, and sin no more." Do you believe that sinlessness is possible? If not, why not? Jesus tells us to sin no more. Do you suppose He would tell us to do something that was entirely impossible for us to do, given the gifts He has given us? I believe we can "sin no more," by the grace of God.

Yet, given the above teaching of St. Athanasius, even if one should stumble, what should I be afraid of? Isn't the Lord my shepherd? Does he not leadeth me to green pastures and still waters? So long as in word and deed, Jesus Christ is my shepherd, then I need not fear evil.

Catholicism is not about being perfect or else you go to hell. It's about repenting every moment of every day if need be, but continuing to grow in your love of God.

Yet, what of Luther's soteriology? If one does not even admit that if one commits adultery and murder a thousand times a day that we can be separated from the Lord, then don't you suppose it is easier to commit these grave sins "confident" that it would not affect eternal life? Isn't that exactly what the serpent convinced Eve to believe?

Luther's "Sin boldly" soteriology seems based upon permissiveness so as to relieve fear. Fear of the Lord is something I never want to be free from. I prefer a soteriology that emphasizes forgiveness of sin, yet still teaches what the Lord himself taught, "Go, and sin no more."

unless we can keep the Commandments perfectly our entire life we are doomed.
You don't really believe this, do you? Or is this how you see Catholic Moral Theology? If so, why? Do you agree or disagree with St. Athanasius quote above? I'd say he's a pretty trustworthy source of Catholic teaching.

With respect to Luther, it seems he can be understood in many various ways. Even Lutherans disagree as to what Luther meant. It seems to me his writings often contradict themselves. His "faith alone" soteriology promoted antinomian views, even if that was not Luther's intent. I don't find him to really have had a coherent soteriology, as it seems to me to have flip-flopped so much. In the final analysis, his soteriology differed greatly from the early Church Fathers, which ought to give us doubt as to its orthodoxy.

[Perseverance of the saints] simply means that God will sustain a true Christian to the end of their life in the faith.
Yes. But many Protestants have re-defined "true Christian" at variance with Scripture, St. Augustine's teaching, and the teaching of the first millennium of Christianity.

According to St. Augustine, true Christians were those baptized into Christianity. This included EVERYONE that was baptized, to include infants. Yet, according to St. Augustine, not all those regenerated/justified in baptism, not all those with "true faith" would persevere in their faith and attain eternal life. Only the elect would. And by the way, according to St. Augustine, nobody could know they were among the elect in their lifetime. So, we have, according to ancient Christian teaching, an assembly of baptized believers, all of which were considered true Christians, regenerated, justified, some of which will fall away from the faith and fail to persevere to eternal life. Let's fast forward now to the novelties of the Reformation ...

The typical Protestant definition of Perseverance of the Saints is ...

From Easton's Bible Dictionary (Protestant):

Perseverance of the saints - their certain continuance in a state of grace. Once justified and regenerated, the believer can neither totally nor finally fall away from grace, but will certainly persevere therein and attain everlasting life.
Note the words "Perseverance of the saints" are the same as used by St. Augustine, yet the meaning is totally changed. According to Easton's definition, ALL the justified and regenerated attain everlasting life. In other words, all Christians will attain eternal life.

What they have done is reject the efficacy of baptism as really conferring sanctifying grace such that baptism now is not the same as the washing of regeneration as it had been universally understood by the first millennium of Christianity. Now, the Protestant understanding of the Church is made totally invisible. We don't know who the "real" Christians are and who are not. In this Protestant view, the gift of perseverance is made equivalent to the gift of faith. This is in contrast to Scripture and Tradition.

For example, Jesus testifies that Peter had faith. Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may NOT FAIL. Why? If "real" Christian faith cannot fail, why would Jesus pray that the faith that Peter surely had would not fail? It seems to me that perseverance and faith are different gifts, according to Scripture, just as St. Augustine asserted.

Consequently, one with real Christian faith may not have been given the gift of perseverance, therefore, a REAL Christian's faith, one who is really regenerated/justified by baptismal grace may indeed fail to persevere to eternal life. This is the universal constant consent of the fathers of the early Church. Many forms of Protestantism have departed from this understanding of baptism, of justification, of regeneration, and of perseverance in favor of some new and novel re-definition.
I am more Augustinian that Lutheran.

Glad to hear it! Once you become even more Augustinian and less Lutheran, you'll be Catholic!!!

St. Augustine:

... [there are many] things which most justly keep me in [the Catholic Church]. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should

... Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.

... For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, AD 397)

God bless,


Wednesday, November 29, 2006

What is the SSPX?

Question from a Catholic discerning the priesthood: "what is SSPX? I have a prayer from a SSPX website. Is it ok to pray it?"
The SSPX are not in full communion with the Catholic Church. Their priests are non-incardinated and their superior is excommunicated. Thus, they publicly celebrate the sacraments illicitly, and in some cases invalidly.

See more here ... please forgive me if I've misspelled anything ; ) ...

How are the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in error? -View

For a rather clever satire of the SSPX position (not authored by me), see here:

Society of St. Pius I... the REAL remnant! - View

"Is it ok to pray it?"

Probably. So long as it avoids that which is contrary to Catholic doctrine and approved ecclesiastical discipline. You are also in my prayers.

Excerpts from a reply by a Lefebvre apologist: " is always interesting to read Blogs, especially when the Blogger doesn't know how to spell. This always brings me to the conclusion that they possibly do not know what they are talking about..."
Hmmmm...many knowledgeable people have been known to misspell a word from time to time. ;)
Lefebvre apologist: "... the true Magesterium of the Faith...... the entire Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Acquinas..."

Ironically, you misspelled "magisterium" and "Aquinas." :eeeek:

Lefebvre apologist: "Read the Imitation of Christ or the Following of Christ by St. Thomas A Kempis"

Moreover, Thomas a' Kempis, while a holy monk to be sure, has never been canonized a saint.

A wonderful book on the topic is: More Catholic Than the Pope: An Inside Look At Extreme Traditionalism by Patrick Madrid and Pete Vere.

Question: "How would you respond to Lefebvre apologists who compare the Lefebvre movement to the defense against Arianism?"

I've responded in the past by asking what they think the comparison to Arianism is?

With Arianism, despite persecution Pope Liberius upheld and staunchly supported the teachings of the ecumencial council and that of Athanasius. So, Athanasius, unlike Msgr. Lefebvre, never dissented with the authentic teachings of the pope or papally-approved ecumencial council. Never. Thus their attempt at comparison is weak.

Lefebvre apologists often like to discuss how Liberius "excommunicated" Athanasius. However, they pin their hopes upon dubious history. In fact, their claims against the orthodoxy of Pope Liberius are contrary to the writings of other ancient popes. Observe...

Pope St. Anastasius on “The Orthodoxy of Pope Liberius”:

The heretical African faction [of the Arian heresy] was not able by any deception to introduce its baseness because, as we believe, our God provided that that holy and untarnished faith be not contaminated through any vicious blasphemy of slanderous men — that faith which had been discussed and defended at the meeting of the synod of Nicea by the holy men and bishops now placed in the resting place of the saints.... For this faith those who were then esteemed as holy bishops gladly endured exile, that is . . . Liberius, bishop of the Roman Church.” (Pope St. Anastasius, Dat mihi plurimum, from art. 93 of the thirtieth edition of Denzinger's, cited by Pete Vere, "My Journey out of the Lefebvre Schism - All Tradition Leads to Rome", Envoy Magazine, Vol. 4.6)

Moreover, the Greek perspective of Liberius' orthodoxy according to the Greek Menologium (liturgical text of the Greek church):

[At the 27th September] The blessed Liberius, defender of the truth, was Bishop of Rome during the reign of Constantius. His zeal . . . . made him undertake the defence of the great Athanasius Then Liberius, who fought with his whole strength against the malice of the heretics, was exiled to Beræa in Thrace. But the Romans, who loved and honored him, remained faithful to him, and besought the Emperor to restore him. Liberius returned to Rome, where he died after wisely governing his flock." [cited by P.J. Harrold, "The Alleged Fall of Pope Liberius," American Catholic Quarterly Review, v.8, 1883, pp.529-49]

Lefebvrism has no comparison to the persecution endured by BOTH Pope Liberius and St. Athanasius from the Roman Emporer because of their steadfast faithfulness to an ecumenical council--the Nicene Council. They both held that the judgment of the Ecumenical Council was the final word on the matter. In fact, those that hold fast to Ecumencial Council of Vatican II have more similarity to that position than do Lefebvrists.

Some Catholic scholars assert that Liberius indeed excommunicated Athanasius, but did so under duress. That this was an invalid excommunication is readily understood because once the source of duress was removed, neither Liberius nor Athanasius treated the excommunication as valid. So even if the dubious nature of this excommunication was true, how has this any comparison to Lefebvre's excommunciation?

Lefebvre was forewarned of his excommunication beforehand. Pope John Paul II always held that Lefebvre was validly excommunicated. Furthermore, Pope John Paul II declared the excommunication of Lefebvre and the illicitly ordained bishops of his movement voluntarily, after giving them warning after warning. In essence, Lefebvre's disobedience demanded the just censure voluntarily decreed by the lawful Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II.

This is from Pope John Paul II sent to Msgr Lefebvre just weeks prior to his unlawful ordination of Bishops:

In the letter you sent me you appear to reject all that was agreed on in the previous conversations, since you clearly manifest your intention to "provide the means yourself to continue your work," particularly by proceeding shortly and without apostolic mandate to one or several episcopal ordinations, and this in flagrant contradiction not only with the norms of Canon Law, but also with the Protocol signed on May 5th and the directions relevant to this problem contained in the letter which Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to you on my instructions on May 30th. (Letter to Lefebvre by Pope John Paul II, June 9, 1988)

Lefebvre was clearly forewarned by the Pope that he lacked the necessary pontifical mandate to proceed with his episcopal consecrations. Despite this forewarning by the Pope, on June 15, 1988, Lefebvre held a press conference announcing his intentions to consecrate four bishops on 30 Jun 1988. Having been forewarned by both Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope that the mandate necessary to proceed with the episcopal consecrations was lacking, and in light of this press conference announcing the four candidates, on behalf of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Gantin issued the following monition on June 17, 1988:

Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382.

Despite the above clear warnings, Lefebvre proceeded with the ordinations. By doing so, it is clear that he was in fact ASKING to be excommunicated by ignoring the AUTHORITY of the Pope. How can any objective person draw any comparison to Athanasius' supposed excommunication, which if indeed signed by Liberius, was clearly under duress and nugatory in the minds of Liberius and Athanasius? How can any objective person believe Lefebvre's excommunication was not valid? To do so would be to deny the Pope's power to judge, to excommunicate, to legislate, thereby denying the authority of the Pope.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught (cf. Summa Theologica, IIb, 104, 5) there is only two reasons why one can licitly disobey his superior: 1) His superior is demanding something of the subordinate that is contrary to higher authority, and 2) His superior is demanding something outside the scope of his authority. Neither of these conditions are met in the case of Lefebvre. Thus, Lefebvre's disobedience was illicit and by no means traditional in the Catholic sense.

God bless,


"Lord, in my zeal for the love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love"-- St. Thomas Aquinas

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Was Jesus ever ignorant of his identity and mission?

"At a recent meeting the teacher said that she took comfort in knowing that even Jesus was unsure of his identity and mission. (I don't understand why this is comforting.)... that would imply ignorance, which would imply imperfection in God. She said that Matthew and Luke more expressed Jesus's humanity and John his divinity. What is the truth?"
I believe this notion that Jesus was "unsure" or "didn't know" his identity or mission is a misunderstanding of the ways in which Jesus acquired knowledge. Jesus certainly could increase in acquired, experiential or experimental knowledge, what theologians call scientia acquisita, scientia experimentalis. However, this doesn't mean that he was ever ignorant of his identity or mission.

According to Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,
"the knowledge which Christ acquired through his experimental knowledge was already contained in his [knowledge of vision] and his [infused knowledge], it was new, not in its content, but only in the mode by which Christ attained it.Cf. S. Th. III, 2, 2." (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 168).
Yet, some recent Catholic writers tend to imply the opposite. For example,
Living With Christ - A Program of Spiritual Renewal, by John E. Sassani and Mary Ann Mclaughlin, Office of Spiritual Development, Archdiocese of Boston, 1997

(note: I could find no Nihil Obstat or Imprimatur, but states it was published "with the approval of the Committee on the Liturgy, National Conference of Catholic Bishops").
It is my contention that this and similar texts either assert error, or at least do not make clear that which they REALLY mean to say. Observe...

1) Jesus did not possess theological faith and hope. On page 30, the text Living With Christ describes Jesus as "growing as a man of faith, he was filled with hope."

If by "faith" the text intends theological virtue of faith in God, as the context seems to imply, and not mere human faith by which we accept the testimony of men, then this is contrary to Catholic teaching.

According to Dr. Ludig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 4th edition, 1960:
[Jesus] could not posses the theological virtues of faith and hope. (pg 162).
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the object of theological faith is truth about God and the things that pertain to God. Faith, says St. Paul in Heb 11:1, is "the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not." St. Gregory says (Hom. XXI in Ev.): "When a thing is manifest, it is the object, not of faith, but of perceiving."

According to MSgr. Paul J. Glenn A Tour of the Summa, (originally published in 1960, from the Fifth Printing, republished in 1978 by Tan Books), commenting on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica:
Christ as a man, from the first moment of his conception, beheld fully the very essence of God. There was, therefore, neither need nor possibility of faith in our Lord. For faith is of divine things unseen, and Christ saw all divine things perfectly.

From the beginning of Christ's human existence, he was in full possession and enjoyment of God, and this is the object of hope. Hence, there was neither need nor possibility of the theological virtue of hope in Christ as man. (pg 319)
2) Jesus was not ignorant of his mission, and always possessed the power of the Holy Spirit. On the same page of the Living with Christ, it states: "... beginning to evoke a sense of purpose in Him.... growing in his own relationship with God.... Jesus was becoming aware that he was the servant of God.... Jesus chooses to be God's Messiah...Jesus emerged from the desert filled with the power of the Holy Spirit." On page 35, it states, "Consider how and from whom, Christ is learning what he will need on the way to Calvary, in order to be the person God wants him to be."

This implied to me that Jesus possessed human ignorance of his Divine nature and Divine mission, and that he was not always completely filled with the Holy Spirit. If I've understood the text correctly, it is an incorrect understanding of the attributes of Christ's human nature and the prerogatives of Christ in the domain of human knowledge.

According to Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, there are three ways in which Christ possessed human knowledge:
1) Immediate vision of God (scientia beata)
2) Infused knowledge (scientia infusa)
3) Acquired or experimental knowledge (scientia acquisita, scientia experimentalis)
Christ's soul possessed the immediate vision of God from the first moment of its existence (Ott, pg 162), and Christ's human knowledge was free from positive ignorance and from error. (Ott, pg. 165).

Pope Pius XII affirmed:

"... that knowledge which is called vision, He possesses in such fullness that in breadth and clarity it far exceeds the Beatific Vision of all the saints in Heaven ... ... He enjoyed [such knowledge of vision] from the time when He was received into the womb of the mother of God" (Mystici Corporis (1943), Ott, pg 163).

Dr. Ott states,
According to St. Thomas, [the immediate vision of God] includes...all that knowledge that pertains to the individual who is blessed.... [and when applied to Christ,] to the extent that such knowledge was necessary of useful for His vocation as Redeemer.... St. Thomas concluded that Christ's soul already on earth knew in the Divine Essence, all real things of the past, the present and the future, including, of course, the thoughts of mankind. (pg 165)
Christ's freedom from ignorance was denied by the Arians, the Nestorians, and a monophysitic sect of the 6th century (Agnoetes). However, Patriarch Euologius of Alexandria taught:
"Christ's humanity which was taken up in the hypostasis of the inaccessible and substantial wisdom of Christ cannot be ignorant of anything of the past or of the future."
Pope Gregory the Great approved the teaching (cf. Denzinger 248).

Futhermore, it is the common teaching of the Church that from the beginning of Christ's life, His soul possessed infused knowledge. According to St. Thomas, Christ's infused knowledge extends to all which can be the natural object of human cognition and to all which is communicated through supernatural Revelation from God to man.

The third kind of knowledge is that called acquired or experimental knowledge. This is natural human knowledge which proceeds from sense perception, and which is achieved through the abstracting activity of the intellect. That there was progress in human knowledge is explicitly taught in Sacred Scripture (Lk 2:52). According to St. Thomas Aquinas, a real progress was not possible in His knowledge of vision nor his infused knowledge, as both from the very beginning encompassed all real things of the past, the present, and the future. Thus a progress can be spoken of only in the sense of acquired or experimental knowledge.

In relation to this, the Council of Constantinople II, AD 553, canon 12 asserted:
If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said one was God the Word, and another the Christ...who gradually...was improved by the progress of His works...let him be anathema. (D 224)
Bendict XV, in a decree of his Holy Office, June 5, 1918, taught that "[it can be called certain] that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing, but from the beginning knew all things in the Word, past, present, and future" (D 2184), rejecting as false opinion the theory of the limited knowledge of the soul of Christ (D 2185). In St. Pius X's refutation against the errors of the Modernists, Lamentabili (1907), he condemns the proposition that "Christ did not always have the consciousness of His Messianic dignity." (D 2035).

Consequently, incarnate Christ was never ignorant of his Messianic mission, nor anything which can be comprehended by human cognition, past, present, or future. Furthermore, he always possessed the fullness of the Holy Spirit from conception.

See further references below.

God bless,


Doctrinal References:

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):

Christ's soul and his human knowledge

471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul. [100]

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man",[101] and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.[102] This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".[103]

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person.[104] "The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."[105] Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.[106] The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.[107]

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.[108] What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.[109]

100 Cf. Damasus 1: DS 149.
101 Lk 2:52.
102 Cf. Mk 6 38; 8 27; Jn 11:34; etc.
103 Phil 2:7.
104 Cf. St. Gregory the Great, "Sicut aqua" ad Eulogium, Epist. Lib. 10, 39 PL 77, 1097A ff.; DS 475.
105 St. Maximus the Confessor, Qu. et dub. 66: PG 90, 840A.
106 Cf. Mk 14:36; Mt 11:27; Jn 1:18; 8:55; etc.
107 Cf. Mk 2:8; Jn 2 25; 6:61; etc.
108 Cf. Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34; 14:18-20, 26-30.
109 Cf. Mk 13:32, Acts 1:7.
St. Damasus I, Tome of Damasus, AD 382:
"We anathematize those who say that instead of the rational and intellectual soul of man, the Word of God His own body...but assumed our soul" (Denzinger 65)
"If anyone does not say that the Son of God is true God ...[and] is omniscient...he is a heretic." (Denzinger 70)
Vigilius, Constitutum, AD 553:
"If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ who is both true Son of God and tru Son of man did not know the future or the day of the Last Judgment and that he could know only as much as the divinity, dwelling in him as in another revealed to him, anathema sit." (Neuner-Dupuis, 619/4)
St. Gregory the Great, Letter to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria, AD 600 [referenced by CCC par. 473]:
Concerning the passage of Scripture according to which "neither the Son nor the angels know the day and the hour" [cf. Mk 13:32], your Holiness is entirely correct in judging that it is certainly not to be referred to the Son considered as the Head, but considered as the Body which we are. In a number of passages [...] Augustine understands it in this sense. He also says it can be understood as referring to the Son himself, because almighty God sometimes speaks in human fashion, as for instance when he says to Abraham: "Now I know that you fear God" [cf. Gen 22:12], which does not mean that God came then to know that he was feared but that he then made Abraham recognize that he feared God. Just as we speak of a joyful day not because the day is joyful but because it makes us joyful, so the almighty Son says that he does not know the day which he causes not to be known, not because he himself does not know but because he does not in any way allow it to be known.

Thus, it is also said that only the Father knows, because the Son who is one in being with him (consubstantialis) has, from the nature which he receives from him and which is superior to that of the angels, a knowledge which angels do not have. This can also, therefore, be understood in a more subtle way by saying that the only-begotten Son incarnate, made perfect man for us, knew the day and the hour of judgment in his human nature but did not know it from his human nature. What he therefore knew in his humanity he did not know from it, because it is by the power of his divinity that God-made-man knew the day and the hour of judgment [...]. Thus it is that he denied having the knowledge which he did not have from the human nature by which he was a creature as the angels are, as he also denied it to the angels because they are creatures. The God-man knows therefore the day and the hour of judgment, but precisely because God is man.

[...] how can one who professes that the Wisdom of God himself became incarnate ever maintain that there is anything which the Wisdom of God does not know? [...] Who would then be so foolish as to say that eh Word of the Father made something he did not know? [...] Who then is so foolish as to say that the Son received in his hands what he was ignorant of? (Neuner-Dupuis, 624-626)
St. Pius X, Lamentabili of the Holy Office, 1907, Articles of Modernism Condemned:
"With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors, which are even more serious when they concern sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith. The fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the Fathers and the Church herself is extremely regrettable. In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas...."

"[The Modernist proposition which claims] The natural sense of the evangelical texts cannot be reconciled with that which our theologians teach about the consciousness and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ [is condemned and proscribed.]." (Denzinger 2032)

"[The Modernist proposition which claims] A critic cannot assert that Christ knowledge was unlimited [is condemned and proscribed.]." (Denzinger 2034)

"The Modernist proposition which claims] Christ did not always have the consciousness of His Messianic dignity [is condemned and proscribed.]." (Denzinger 2035)
Benedict XV, Decree of the Holy Office, 1918:
Question: Can the following propositions be taught safely:
  1. It is not certain that the soul of Christ during his life among us had the knowledge which the blessed, that is those who have achieved their goal (comprehensores), have.
  2. The opinion cannot be declared certain, which holds that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing but from the beginning knew in the Word everything, past, present and future, that is to say everything which God knows with the "knowledge of vision."
  3. The recent opinion of some about the limited knowledge of the soul of Christ is not to be less favoured in Catholic schools than the ancient opinion about his universal knowledge.
Answer: No.
(Neuner-Dupuis, 651, 1-3)
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943:
"The knowledge which is called "vision" He possesses with such clarity and comprehensiveness that it surpasses similar celestial knowledge found in all the saints of heaven." (no. 48)

"But the knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all that the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love." (no. 75)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica:
" Christ there was created behooved the soul of Christ to be perfected by a knowledge, which would be its proper perfection. And therefore it was necessary that there should be another knowledge in Christ besides the Divine knowledge...Christ knew all things with the Divine knowledge by an uncreated operation which is the very Essence of God...the light of knowledge is...heightened in the soul of Christ by the light of the Divine knowledge...we hold there is a knowledge in Christ, both as to His Divine and as to His human nature; so that, by reason of the union whereby there is one hypostasis of God and man, the things of God are attributed to man" (ST, III, 9, 1)

"The knowledge of the blessed consists in the knowledge of God. But He knew God fully, even as He was man...Therefore in Christ there was the knowledge of the was necessary that the beatific knowledge, which consists in the vision of God, should belong to Christ pre-eminently, since the cause ought always to be more efficacious than the effect. The Godhead is united to the manhood of Christ in Person...therefore the soul of Christ, which is a part of human nature, through a light participated from the Divine Nature, is perfected with the beatific knowledge whereby it sees God in essence." (ST, III, 9, 2)

"It is written (Colossians 2:3) that in Christ "are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."... it was fitting that the human nature assumed by the Word of God should not be imperfect...hence we must admit in the soul of Christ an infused knowledge, inasmuch as the Word of God imprinted upon the soul of Christ, which is personally united to Him, intelligible species of all things to which the possible intellect is in potentiality; even as in the beginning of the creation of things, the Word of God imprinted intelligible species upon the angelic mind...even as in the angels, according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22,24,30), there is a double knowledge--one the morning knowledge, whereby they know things in the Word; the other the evening knowledge, whereby they know things in their proper natures by infused species; so likewise, besides the Divine and uncreated knowledge in Christ, there is in His soul a beatific knowledge, whereby He knows the Word, and things in the Word; and an infused or imprinted knowledge, whereby He knows things in their proper nature by intelligible species proportioned to the human mind." (ST, III, 9, 3)

"It is written (Hebrews 5:8): "Whereas . . . He was the Son of God, He learned obedience by the things which He suffered," i.e. "experienced," says a gloss. Therefore there was in the soul of Christ an empiric knowledge, which is acquired knowledge...nothing that God planted in our nature was wanting to the human nature assumed by the Word of God. Now it is manifest that God planted in human nature not only a passive, but an active intellect. Hence it is necessary to say that in the soul of Christ there was not merely a passive, but also an active intellect....there was acquired knowledge in Him, which some call empiric....which is properly knowledge in a human fashion ... The human mind has two relations--one to higher things, and in this respect the soul of Christ was full of the infused knowledge. The other relation is to lower things, i.e. to phantasm]s [i.e. a mental representation of a real object], which naturally move the human mind by virtue of the active intellect. Now it was necessary that even in this respect the soul of Christ should be filled with knowledge, not that the first fulness was insufficient for the human mind in itself, but that it behooved it to be also perfected with regard to phantasms." (ST, III, 9, 4)

[Note: with regard to the limits of Christ's finite human soul: to see the whole Essence of God is not to be confused with complete comprehension:] "Not even in the union by personal being does the human nature comprehend the Word of God or the Divine Nature, for although it was wholly united to the human nature in the one Person of the Son, yet the whole power of the Godhead was not circumscribed by the human nature.... the soul of Christ sees the whole Essence of God, yet does not comprehend It; since it does not see It totally, i.e. not as perfectly as It is knowable.... the Son of Man is a comprehensor of the Divine Essence, not indeed by His soul, but in His Divine Nature" (ST, III, 10, 1)

"When it is inquired whether Christ knows all things in the Word, "all things" may be taken in two ways: First, properly, to stand for all that in any way whatsoever is, will be, or was done, said, or thought, by whomsoever and at any time. And in this way it must be said that the soul of Christ knows all things in the Word....Secondly, "all things" may be taken widely, as extending not merely to such things as are in act at some time, but even to such things as are in potentiality, and never have been nor ever will be reduced to act. Now some of these are in the Divine power alone, and not all of these does the soul of Christ know in the Word. For this would be to comprehend all that God could do, which would be to comprehend the Divine power, and, consequently, the Divine Essence.... Some, however, are not only in the power of God, but also in the power of the creature; and all of these the soul of Christ knows in the Word; for it comprehends in the Word the essence of every creature, and, consequently, its power and virtue, and all things that are in the power of the creature.... all things were made by the Word of God, as is said John 1:3, and, amongst other things, all times were made by Him. Now He is not ignorant of anything that was made by Him....He is said, therefore, not to know the day and the hour of the Judgment, for that He does not make it known...the Son knows, not merely in the Divine Nature, but also in the human, because, as Chrysostom argues (Hom. lxxviii in Matth.), if it is given to Christ as man to know how to judge--which is greater--much more is it given to Him to know the less, viz. the time of Judgment. Origen, however (in Matth. Tract. xxx), expounds it of His body, which is the Church, which is ignorant of this time. (ST, III, 10, 2).

Did Paul disobey Peter?

Didn't St. Paul say something like this, "We resist you to the face" to St. Peter? That wasn't certainly being very obedient

I think perhaps you are confusing disobedience with fraternal correction. Paul did not disobey Peter, yet he did correct Peter when he believed him to have acted hypocritically.

Consider also St. Catherine of Siena, who taught with regard to obedience to the pope:
Even if that vicar were a devil incarnate, I must not defy him. (St. Catherine, Letter to Bernabo Visconti)
Of all the doctors of the Catholic Church, St. Catherine was one of the most ardent defenders of obedience to the Holy Father. Yet, she was also very critical of Pope Gregory XI in her letters to him. St. Catherine gently accuses the pope of neglecting his office through the sin of pride and self-love...

To you, most reverend and beloved father in Christ Jesus, your unworthy, poor, miserable daughter Catherine, servant and slave of the servants of Jesus Christ, writes in His precious Blood; with desire to see you a fruitful tree...

...Oh, sweet and true knowledge, which dost carry with thee the knife of hate, and dost stretch out the hand of holy desire, to draw forth and kill with this hate the worm of self-love--a worm that spoils and gnaws the root of our tree so that it cannot bear any fruit of life, but dries up, and its verdure lasts not! For if a man loves himself, perverse pride, head and source of every ill, lives in him, whatever his rank may be, prelate or subject.

... For he sees his subjects commit faults and sins, and pretends not to see them and fails to correct them; or if he does correct them, he does it with such coldness and lukewarmness that he does not accomplish anything, but plasters vice over; and he is always afraid of giving displeasure or of getting into a quarrel. All this is because he loves himself. Sometimes men like this want to get along with purely peaceful means. I say that this is the very worst cruelty which can be shown. If a wound when necessary is not cauterized or cut out with steel, but simply covered with ointment, not only does it fail to heal, but it infects everything, and many a time death follows from it.

Oh me, oh me, sweetest Babbo; mine! This is the reason that all the subjects are corrupted by impurity and iniquity. Oh me, weeping I say it! How dangerous is that worm we spoke of! For not only does it give death to the shepherd, but all the rest fall into sickness and death through it.

...Oh, human wretchedness! Blind is the sick man who does not know his own need, and blind the shepherd-physician, who has regard to nothing but pleasing, and his own advantage--since, not to forfeit it, he refrains from using the knife of justice or the fire of ardent charity!

...The cause of all this is, that he loves himself apart from God: so he does not follow sweet Jesus, the true Shepherd, who has given His life for His sheep. Truly, then, this perverse love is perilous for one's self and for others, and truly to be shunned, since it works too much harm to every generation of people. I hope by the goodness of God, venerable father mine, that you will quench this in yourself...I will, then, that you be so true and good a shepherd that if you had a hundred thousand lives you would be ready to give them all for the honour of God and the salvation of His creatures. ...

... there is a remedy for this, father: that we flee the love spoken of above, for ourselves and every creature apart from God. Let no more note be given to friends or parents or one's temporal needs, but only to virtue and the exaltation of things spiritual. For temporal things are failing you from no other cause than from your neglect of the spiritual.[St. Catherine of Siena, Letter to Pope Gregory XI, ca. AD 1375].

Catholics have the right, even at times the obligation to manifest their opinion in matters related to the good of the Church. This is affirmed in Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. However, also within Lumen Gentium, is the obligation to be obedient to the decisions of the pastors of the Church.

By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered--indeed sometimes obliged--to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. If the occasion should arise, this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose, and always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ. The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church. [Lumen Gentium, 37]

See also: Charity Demands Fraternal Correction

God bless,


Monday, November 20, 2006

Cardinal Dulles to Catholic Colleges: Be Truly Catholic

Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., calling on Catholic colleges and universities to stop being on the defensive about their Catholicity. He said, "The time has come for them to regain their confidence and proudly proclaim the faith that animates them."

"Cardinal Dulles to Catholic Colleges: Be Truly Catholic," by Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Catholic Register (December, 2001):

Cardinal Avery Dulles, S.J., speaking at the Cardinal Newman Society for the Preservation of Catholic Higher Education's annual conference in Washington, D.C., last month [Nov 2001], called on Catholic colleges and universities to stop being on the defensive about their Catholicity. "The time has come for them to regain their confidence and proudly proclaim the faith that animates them," he said. "Shifting the burden of proof to the secular institutions, they should challenge the other universities to defend themselves and to show how it is possible to find and transmit the fullness of truth if they neglect or marginalize humanistic, philosophical and theological studies."

Register correspondent Kathryn Jean Lopez spoke with Cardinal Dulles, the Fordham University theologian who was named a cardinal last spring by Pope John Paul II. ... more.


See also:
How to Choose a Truly Catholic College
Mandatum for Catholic Theology Professors
Criminal: Some Catholic Professors reject canon law
The Scandal of Dissenting and Disobedient Priests

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Society of St. Pius I... the REAL remnant!

The following is a satire from Latin Mass traditionalists, poking fun at the Society of St. Pius X, a schismatic group of non-incardinated Catholic priest of the Lefebvrist movement, [cf. Ecclesia Dei - John Paul II - Motu Proprio (2 July 1988) ]:


Facts everyone NEEDS to know about the "Traditional" Latin Mass

FACT: Even the neotrad “Catholic Encyclopedia” admits the Latin Mass was a radical break with tradition!

The REAL Traditional Roman Mass is the Greek Mass of the first three centuries as described by the Apostolic Constitutions and the Apology of St. Justin Martyr. The “Catholic Encyclopedia” written and published in 1913 by diehard "pre-Vatican II" neotrads, was forced to admit that its oh-so-precious “Latin Mass” was a radical and unprecedented break from tradition unlike any that had ever gone before. Just read these shocking quotes from the article “Liturgy of the Mass”:

“The origin of the Roman Mass, on the other hand, is a most difficult question. We have here two fixed and certain data: the Liturgy in Greek described by St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), which is that of the Church of Rome in the second century, and, at the other end of the development, the Liturgy of the first Roman Sacramentaries in Latin, in about the sixth century. The two are very different.” “He [Justin Martyr] describes how the Holy Eucharist was celebrated in Rome in the middle of the second century…we have hardly any knowledge at all of what developments the Roman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries…By the fifth century, we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change.”

“But between this original Roman Rite (which we can study only in the Apost. Const.) and the Mass as it emerges in the first sacramentaries (sixth to seventh century) there is a great change”

“This brings us back to a most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon.”

“at Rome the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries. During the same time the prayers of the faithful before Offertory disappeared, the kiss of peace was trasferred to after the Consecration, and the Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our “Supplices” prayer.

Finally, the article quotes the liturgical historian Rauschen as saying:

“We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in the Roman Canon.”

What more proof could anyone POSSIBLY need?! The so-called “Traditional Latin Mass” is NOT traditional at all!!! It’s a drastic change in 200 years of liturgical tradition, and one concocted by unknown scholars and unaccountable liturgical “experts.” It is a dangerous modern innovation that is putting millions of souls in jeopardy!!

FACT: Latin is NOT the original language of the Church!

It’s a VERNACULAR language that was foisted on the Roman church by Pope Victor I (A.D. 190-202), who was an AFRICAN priest--NOT a Roman!!!

The earliest liturgies at Rome as described by St. Justin Martyr were in GREEK. But once Victor made the change in language, that OPENED THE DOOR a century later to a barrage of changes in the rite of Mass itself, from which the Roman Rite has NEVER recovered.

This opening up of vernacular languages has led to the Church becoming a veritable Tower of Babel, full of all sorts of barbarian languages that were NOT SPOKEN BY THE APOSTLES. Was this what Christ intended when he prayed that the church be one? A hodge podge of incomprehensible barbarian tongues that were formerly used to worship fake gods like Jupiter? Die-hard Vulgate Pope John VIII even allowed Cyril and Methodius to translate the liturgy for the Slavs into Old Church Slavonic!!

Wouldn’t you want to use a language that was actually spoken by the Apostles, rather than some barbarian language spoken by goatskin wearing savages? EVERY SINGLE BOOK of the New Testament was written in GREEK. Not Latin. Not Syriac. Not Coptic. Not Old Church Slavonic. And especially not English. This fact alone PROVES that these other languages are inventions of SATAN and CONDEMNED BY GOD.

So whatever later so-called “Popes” may have said about the use of Latin, it IS NOT TRADITIONAL!!!

And even further, linguists have shown that Nero--who is identified by some biblical scholars as the archetype of Antichrist in Revelation--spoke Latin. Do you really think God would want you to be using the Antichrist’s language--IN A CHURCH?????

FACT: The traditional Roman Mass was celebrated in catacombs, NOT churches!!!

Above ground churches are a LATE development in the Roman church which date to the legalization of Christianity by Constantine. They were NEVER part of the original Roman rite!

So what was so wrong with the church going above ground? Above ground is where PAGAN temples were built. And in order to appease and “get along with” their new false-god worshiping neighbors, modernist Romans started to build unholy ecumenical shrines that confirmed and incorporated their wrong and idolatrous ideas. Don’t just take my word for it--just ask a Jehovah’s Witness--even they’ll tell you it’s true!!!

The Pantheon for instance, was a PAGAN Roman temple which was reconsecrated as a church by Pope Boniface in A.D. 609!! Pagan building, Catholic building--what’s the difference, right?? Then in the reign of Pope Zacharias (741-752) another church was built on the ruins of a pagan temple and called “Santa Maria sopra Minerva”. Minerva was a Roman goddess--many Catholics DIED HORRIBLE DEATHS rather than offer a tiny pinch of incense to her. And yet their supposedly Christian descendants NAMED a church after her!!! Even the ecumaniacs at Assisi never did anything like this--put a false goddess’ name ON PAR with the Virgin Mary, Mother of God!!!!

In accord with holy tradition therefore, we must reject any and all above-ground church structures, in accordance with the true traditional practice of the Roman church. Unfortunately, funding issues and zoning laws in our locality have so far prevented us from excavating new catacombs in our area, so we are temporarily headquartered behind the water heater in our basement.

FACT: Pope Gregory the “Great” was a liturgical “reformer”

Neotrads love to say their Mass goes back to Pope Gregory I in the 6th century. But how much do they REALLY know about this ultraliberal legislator who helped solidify the final destruction of the TRUE traditional Roman Rite?

Even a pope firmly entrenched in the Vulgar Mass, Benedict XIV said that “no pope has added to, or changed the Canon since St. Gregory.” He thus ADMITS that St. Gregory changed the Canon!!!

Gregory’s biographer John the Deacon tells us that Gregory “collected the Sacramentary of Gelasius in one book, leaving out much, changing little, adding something for the exposition of the Gospels.”

Gregory also moved the Our Father from the end of the Mass to the Canon. He also added the phrase “Diesque nostros” to the Hanc Igitur prayer. This is the prayer that says “Graciously accept, then, we beseech You, O Lord, this service of our worship and that of all Your household”--it asks God to accept ALL forms of worship!!! Incredibly, Gregory did NOT change this part of the prayer despite its obviously heretical approval of false worship!!!

To make matters worse, in a letter published in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, Pope Gregory approved a totally untraditional ecumenical “concoction” for use in Britain:

“Your brotherhood knoweth the custom of the Church of Rome…But it pleaseth me, if you have found anything, be it in the Church of Rome, or France or any other…zealously choose and spread in the Church of the English…the things that you have been able to gather from many Churches.” So instead of demanding that Augustine use the traditional Greek Mass to England, Gregory just had him cobble together an “ecumenical” liturgy from every country and “zealously” spread it. Neotrads complain to no end about Cranmer’s Protestant Mass in England, but Gregory started the trend a thousand years before!!! Cranmer just finished the job!! We also have a reliable source from Italy who informs us that a recently excavated mosaic clearly depicts Pope Gregory kissing Vergil’s Aeneid!!!

But to answer the question on everyone’s mind, was Pope Gregory a Freemason? Despite apparently accurate claims that the organization did not even exist back then, the Freemasons THEMSELVES claim otherwise, and say that they date back to Ancient Egypt. It is therefore POSSIBLE that a fifth century pope may have joined the organization. Significtantly, our top researchers at the Society have NOT been able to DISPROVE Gregory’s membership in the Masons, and, most importantly, NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE. Prudence therefore DEMANDS that we treat all of his liturgical “reforms” as HIGHLY suspect and potentially heretical.

Pope Gregory was the “Great” all right--the great changer of the Canon and the great ecumaniac to boot!!

Fact: the people behind the “Latin Mass” promoted Dialogue with FALSE RELIGIONS!!!

Neotrad "Saint" Jerome, who imposed his Vulgate Bible on the Latin world, took instruction in Hebrew and Talmud from Jewish scholars, and even followed their opinions (e.g. in his Commentary on Joel iv. 11). Says the Jewish Encyclopedia: “Although other Church Fathers quote Jewish traditions none equal Jerome in the number and faithfulness of their quotations”. He was being “faithful” to Judaism’s traditions, while at the same time ruining Catholic traditions by translating the Bible into the evil language of Nero!

Most shockingly of all, Jerome also wrote a book called “Dialogue with the Luciferians”--LUCIFER????? Is there NO ONE these neotrads won't DIALOGUE with????!!!! At what point do we just say--NO... WE DON'T DIALOGUE WITH LUCIFERIANS??!!!

By the way, some snide sarcastic modernist type pointed out that our hero St. Justin Martyr also wrote a “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew”. Yeah, we knew that. So what?

FACT: St. Paul said to “hold fast to the traditions you have been taught”

Ask yourself--are today’s Novus Ordo neocons and Latin Mass neotrads REALLY holding fast to TRUE ROMAN tradition? DID they hold fast to the Greek liturgy that St. Peter and Paul brought to Rome? Or are they just too happily clueless in their little Gallicanized-Roman Rite and its "ecumenical" combination of Latin and Frankish??


ANNOUNCEMENT: Real Traditionalist Priests wanted!!

No priest has of yet had the courage to join our brave and heroic movement. So we are currently looking for Greek-speaking priests who may have said the liturgy of St. Justin Martyr in their youth. Candidates must be able to prove Apostolic Succession directly from Popes Peter, Linus, Cletus or Clement. NOTE: Greek Catholic/ Greek Orthodox Rite priests NEED NOT APPLY!!! We have arbitrarily decided not to like you guys either.


DISCLAIMER: This website is provided for purposes of disinformation only. It does not represent the views of Latin Mass neotrads Claudio and Jamie Salvucci, although it darn well should. All Rites reserved.

[source: ]