Saint Thomas Aquinas

Sunday, October 22, 2017

The Seven Arrows Through the Heart of Modernism: Documents You Need To Read!

Every day now we are seeing high raking officials in the Church claiming that doctrine and dogma need to be changed or updated to conform with modern man. Just yesterday it was announced that "the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome is hosting a series of talks from October until May aimed at considering the “transformations, needs and hopes” of the family 50 years after Humanae Vitae." Further one of the speakers claimed, "there is a need for a change in the moral paradigm, adding that the magisterium is dynamic, not static and set for a certain time, and that the Church’s teaching “evolves.” He did not think that contraception was the major reason for the crisis in the family today."


This idea that man is in a state of change and that there are no absolute "static" or unchanging teachings of the Church has been condemned many times over by several popes in several encyclicals and other documents. Despite the naysayers that the Gospel does not mandate absolute moral teachings for all men, we know that God does not lie. The Ten Commandments have never been nor will ever be The Ten Suggestions. Here is a list of documents that I suggest all Catholics sit down in prayer and read. They all directly address what is going on right now in the Church with the Amoris debacle, the Capital Punishment debacle and the upcoming war on Humanae Vitae. These men of the world are trying to redefine what the development of doctrine consists. By their definition there can be no such thing as change, you can say anything and call it a "development." Just in case you are wondering, a development is where the core teaching is the exact same, you just understand the teaching more fully. A change is exactly that, the core teaching is no longer what it was. This idea that man is in a state of change and the Church must adapt its teaching to the current state of the changing man is based on modern philosophical principles that are not compatible with the Catholic faith. The popes have called this heresy modernism. These documents are in my eyes the seven arrows that fatally pierce through the heart of modernism. There is no time like the present to read these documents. You will be thankful you took the time to do so.

Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris (August 4, 1879)

Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane (July 3, 1907)

Pope Pius X, Pascendi Domenici Gregis (September 8, 1907)

Pope Pius X, Oath Against Modernism (September 1, 1910)

Pope Pius X, Doctoris Angelici (June 29, 1914)

Pope Pius XI, Studiorum Ducem (June 29, 1923)

Pope Pius XII, Humanis Generis (August 12, 1950)





The "Buts" Of Sacrosanctum Concilium

The "Buts" Of Sacrosanctum Concilium 

Sacrosanctum Concilium is another example of the poorly written documents of the Second Vatican the Council. First off it cannot be used as a standalone document to teach us the foundation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass . This is the error I see reoccurring repeatedly by today’s bishops and theologians, as if this document is the beginning and the end of our theology on the Mass. The document was written in the spirit of "aggiornamento" that is to update, but as we will see, few of the primary recommendations of the document, especially those concerning the Latin language were not followed because of so many exceptions made in each of its “practical norms.” I will outline the document and briefly show that the design of the document failed to establish any concrete norms concerning language, and much of the norms established in other areas ended up being detriments to the celebration of the liturgy.

In the introduction the document states its purpose. “that practical norms should be established.” The document refers to the Eastern Rites where applicable, but the document tends to focus on the Roman Rite.

Chapter one goes over the nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, especially in reference to Christ being present, “ under the Eucharistic species.” It also explains how man becomes sanctified through the Liturgy. One of the most famous lines from the document rightfully says, “the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows.” The document also was sure to point out that one must receive Christ worthily, “it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions.” These are all important concrete norms for approaching the Mass and thus sets a good foundation. As we know there are many now challenging the notion of receiving Christ worthily.

Chapter two focuses on “active participation.” This in my eyes is where the failures of the document become apparent, being that it never really explains what this participation entails. It does say, “pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy both internally and externally.” As we know however, the external participation since the Council have extremely overshadowed the internal participation, prayer. An emphasis on the laity doing the readings, being extraordinary Eucharistic ministers for example, have been promoted to the detriment of teaching the importance of praying the Mass, which is of first importance concerning active participation. Try meditation on anything at the average parish Novus Ordo Mass.

Next we have the reform of the liturgy. What I find fascinating is that the document talks about reforming but never seems to say anything about creating a new Mass. It later talks about overhauling the rites of the Sacraments, but never the Mass itself. One can make an argument that the creation of the new Mass goes against what the document states explicitly, “…care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” As we know the new Mass was not to be an organic development, it was a complete overhaul. We know that the old Mass was not the foundation for the new, so how can one say it was organically developed? Its name actually tells us it was new. In other words, there were reforms in 1962, it is essentially the same Mas with changes, but the same cannot be said for the Novus Ordo. So is it not then logical to say that Bugnini's Concilium in creating the new Mass went directly against the prescribed norm here?

Some other norms are then established, but as we will see, most of these norms were never to be realized, and the ones that were adhered to ended up being detriments to liturgical practice in the Church. The first of these being the loss of the symbolic rubrics in the Mass which explained the nature of the Mass so richly. Instead we lost these mysteries of prayer and symbolism in the Mass through what were perceived as useless repetitions. Anyone who has studied the ancient form of the Mass should have understood that there were no “useless repetitions” in the old Mass. This was explained in extreme detail by the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa. Thus we saw that the new Mass was stripped of many of the prayers that for so long enriched the Roman Liturgy. Various symbols and rubrics were removed. The reading of Scripture was then emphasized as well as preaching on the Scriptures. As we know there were added Scripture readings to the new Mass following the document. For example, we know have Old Testament readings. There are also many options for readings as well. Its funny how there was so much emphasis on having options, but if one goes to a Mass in France for example, good luck figuring out whats going on because who knows what readings they using! For all of the emphasis on Scripture, it seems little progress has been made in understanding it.

The next section we see the “this, but” format become the leitmotif of the remaining “norms” made in reference to the Latin language. The norms are frequently followed with a “but” accompanied by a completely different norm which always seems to replace the originally stated “norm.” For example, we have stated in 36. 1. the following plain statement, “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” Everyone knows this is not followed as a general norm of the Church. Instead we get the “but” of the document, “But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants…” As we know the “but” is now the rule.

The document continues and speaks of some liturgical adaptations, which as we know have gone far beyond anyone’s imagination in some cases. The bishop is also mentioned as being at the center of liturgical celebration. We then see another complex issue developed concerning the liturgical commissions, “to promote studies and necessary experiments whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See.” As we know, the liturgical commission that created the new Mass was not a competent commission. Also, the regional commissions ended up plaguing the pope to go along with their “experiments.” As a result there were many “experiments” made that should have never been entertained that became “norms”, Communion in the hand being one of them.

The next section of the document rightfully expounds upon the nature of the Mass and Christ as the center. It refers to Him as “the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood.” However, in paragraph 50 we see a place for the liturgical experts to take advantage when they indeed overhauled the Mass. “…the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance.” Indeed, the rite was “simplified” but it can be argued that the substance was not adequately preserved being that important parts of the Mass were completely removed. For example, the important references made to the essence of sacrifice and salvation through the Mass were completely discarded such as the Offerimus Tibi Domini, “We offer unto Thee, Lord, the saving chalice, beseeching Thy clemency: that it may go up with an odour of sweetness in sight of Thy Divine Majesty, for our and the whole world's salvation.” Likewise, the Veni Sanctificator was eliminated, “Come, O almighty and eternal God, the Sanctifier, and bless this Sacrifice, prepared for the glory of Thy Holy Name.” Unfortunately, nothing was put in their place to preserve these important theological foundations of the Mass. Thus simplicity trumped the preservation to substance.

Article 55 is a paragraph that seems to have been skipped over, “The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit.” As we know, the bishops now disregard the general principles of Trent since everyone now receives under both species. The “think fit” trumps the principles of Trent being that Trent emphasized Christ being present totally under each species and thus developed Canons that emphasized this fact, as well as justifying the practice of receiving under one species’. If any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.” (Canon II on Communion) It can be argued that the receiving of both species since the liturgical overhaul has over time contributed to the loss of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in totality under each individual species.

Concelebration is then discussed in which the bishops are the ultimate arbiters concerning its practice. The Sacramentals are then covered, and again the solution of simplicity is applied in the upcoming reforms. Even the rites of marriage, baptism and confirmation were not able to escape the overhauling with simplicity being the motivating factor. As we know many prayers were removed from the Sacrament rite of Baptism. Compare the old with the new sometime.

Next the revision of the Divine Office is addressed and we see several changes to be made including the removal of the hour of Prime. The “this and that” leitmotif resumes in the norms given to reciting the divine office in Latin. First we have the “norm” which is never now the norm, “In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office.” Seems clear, right? Wait for it, then comes the real norm, the “but”, “But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly.” I guess this “but” was to be a self-fulfilling prophesy being that soon every priest under every bishop in the known world was to be under the “certain cases” clause where Latin was an obstacle to their praying the office properly. Sacred music is also given the “this, but” treatment, first the norm, which is never followed, “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” Then the “but” that becomes the real norm, “But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action.” By now we can begin to see how this document in the way it was written was not terribly efficacious to celebration of the Mass.

Chapter VII covers sacred art and sacred furnishings. The document rightly speaks correctly of sacred art, “Holy Mother Church has therefore always been the friend of the fine arts and has ever sought their noble help, with the special aim that all things set apart for use in divine worship should be truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world.” As we know however, soon after the Council, this passage was forgotten and much of the beautiful church art was destroyed or replaced with inappropriate images. The directives given were to ensure that art in the churches were to remain in good taste. As we know this ends up falling into the realm of subjectivity much of the time, and one cannot really fault the document in this case.

The document opens a can of worms once again in stating the following concerning church architecture, “when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.” Is this implying that the great majority of the churches built before this time were not built for the “active participation” of the faithful? What we see in much of our church architecture after the Council was in fact not conducive to the active participation of the people, being that prayer is the primary active participation of the faithful. Hence, being a spectator is what happens, turning active participation into a concert hall type experience where everyone must focus their attention on the priest. We see churches then being primarily built in the round and the reverent cruciform architecture discarded to the dustbins of time. Again, this active participation is never really explained in any detail, and seems to be understood in a new theological manner than traditionally taught. Isn't it ironic that many in the Vatican II only crowd complain that they are only spectators in the Extraordinary From, when really their Mass in the round is the true spectator event? The document closes with an appendix concerning a new calendar. Although this document contains some valuable information on the Mass as stated above, in my estimation it has ultimately failed to achieve its end, which was to help people understand and participate more fully in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Not only has it not achieved its intended end, it has caused confusion and has in some cases been a detriment to the celebration of the Mass. 

Today's active participation.
True participation




Saturday, October 21, 2017

Edward Feser Answers the Defenders of Pope Francis Concerning Death Penalty

If you are interested in Pope Francis' latest debacle on his statements concerning the death penalty, I suggest you read this article by Edward Feser. I also recommend you pick up his new book on Capital Punishment. Enjoy!


Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Francis' "New Things": Death Penalty Now Inhumane? Pius XII a Promoter of Inhumane Acts?


 Lets translate the current Catechism into modernistic Francis language everyone can understand, it should have said "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the inhumane measures of the death penalty."
Today pope Francis has announced his method of spreading confusion across the Church like wildfire. Francis communicates to us something that has never been a part of preaching the Gospel. He said,
"It is not enough to find a new language in which to articulate our perennial faith; it is also urgent, in the light of the new challenges and prospects facing humanity, that the Church be able to express the “new things” of Christ’s Gospel, that, albeit present in the word of God, have not yet come to light.  This is the treasury of “things old and new” of which Jesus spoke when he invited his disciples to teach the newness that he had brought, without forsaking the old (cf. Mt 13:52)." 
Francis has now invented his own Gospel. He says it is not enough to ensure we are preaching the perennial faith with sufficient language to meet our time, but that now we must express, "new things"! Now we are supposed to be finding things in the Word of God that we have never heard of? Did Jesus speak of this in Matthew 13:52?  I think not. Lets look at the passage.
He said unto them: Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.
Jesus here according to Saint Thomas is speaking about the sacred teaching itself which Jesus was communicating to his followers which he also calls scribes. Why was he calling them scribes? Because they would be similar to the scribes of old, they would teach the Gospel instead of the old law. They can discuss the the kingdom of God and Sacred teaching, wherein things new and old are contained. "Behold I send you prophets, and wise men and scribes." Dan 12:10 They are also called scribes because they are Christ's secretaries. Jesus taught them in parables so they would see the fulfillment of the Old Law in the New. Thomas says according to Gregory, the old things refer to all those things which are attributed to sin, and the new to those things which are attributed to the grace of Christ and eternal life. (Taken from St Thomas' Commentary on Matthew)

How on earth does this refer to "new things" that we have never heard of over the past 2000 years the Church has been preaching the Gospel? Francis is simply inventing new teaching. As we all know, Divine Revelation closed with the death of the last apostle. We can only delve deeper into the existing, perennial teaching that we have been given at the outset. So yes, it is enough to articulate our perennial faith to the world, because like God it is the same today and forever.

Then Francis then drops one of his "new things" on us. He invents a new teaching out of thin air! Brace yourselves!
I would like now to bring up a subject that ought to find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church a more adequate and coherent treatment in the light of these expressed aims.  I am speaking of the death penalty.  This issue cannot be reduced to a mere résumé of traditional teaching without taking into account not only the doctrine as it has developed in the teaching of recent Popes, but also the change in the awareness of the Christian people which rejects an attitude of complacency before a punishment deeply injurious of human dignity. It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity.  It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor. 
So the "new thing" is now condemning 2000 years of Christian teaching which teaches that the death penalty is a legitimate form of punishment. What Francis is really saying is that the Church taught and upheld an act which was contrary to human dignity, contrary to the Gospel, and he is the one who is going to correct it. If it goes against the Gospel, then the Catholic Church has been teaching something contrary to the Gospel for 2000 years! We all know this is an impossibility. Better yet, he is calling Pope Pius XII and many other popes monsters who were promoting heinous acts against human dignity! His predecessors were promoting an act as being a legitimate form of punishment that was really contrary to the Gospel! Is Pope Pius XII so far removed from our advanced society that he did not realize this? If you think so I have ocean front property to sell you in Kansas. Do we see what this kind of thinking leads us? This is modernism at its finest! He is claiming that this is a development. Does he know the definition of development? Development means the teaching is the same, we just understand it more fully. Development is not that we overturn the teaching and then label it a development.

Everyone who came before Francis was wrong, and he is right. This is the leitmotif of his papal occupation. Francis knows better than all the popes who came before him. Francis knows the "new things" that no one else ever knew! Almost sounds like the Gnostics no? As for me, the Church teaching is what it is. For now the Catechism teaches, "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty..." Guess what, if the act was contrary to the Gospel, this could never have been said in the Catechism! Lets translate this into modernistic Francis language everyone can understand, it should have said "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the inhumane measures of the death penalty."  I feel ashamed for anyone who falls for this "new thing." Do you think we are idiots? As you can tell I am a bit miffed at this whole debacle.


 Above: Pope Pius XII now according to Francis a monster who promoted inhumane acts against human dignity!

Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life. 
(Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology
of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)


Thursday, September 28, 2017

Amoris Laetitia Now Trying to Hijack Thomism?

This is a great laugh. Sorry this is now getting ridiculous. Pope Francis, who clearly has no idea what Thomsitic theology is, is now claiming that his troubled document, Amoris Laetitia is a Thomistic document. You can't make this stuff up! He says, "...some maintain that there is no Catholic morality underlying Amoris Laetitia, or at least, no sure morality. I want to repeat clearly that the morality of Amoris Laetitia is Thomist, the morality of the great Thomas. You can speak of it with a great theologian, one of the best today and one of the most mature, Cardinal Schönborn." As we also know, Schönborn is no Thomist either, as for his theological maturity, well....

I Don't Think So!


This is another case of the emperor's new clothes. This is now going to be the mantra going forward for everything the modernists are going to try and push on us. Say it over and over again and everyone will believe it. All I read are Thomistic theology books, I know what the basics of Thomistic morality are, and I can say with complete confidence, that Amoris concerning Pope Francis' accompanying teaching encouraging Communion for the divorced and remarried is not Thomistic. In fact, has he ever read the Summa? The answer is clear as day if he were to actually read it. What does Thomas himself say about receiving communion if a person be known publicly to be in serious sin? He says, "A distinction must be made among sinners: some are secret; others are notorious, either from evidence of the fact, as public usurers, or public robbers, or from being denounced as evil men by some ecclesiastical or civil tribunal. Therefore Holy Communion ought not to be given to open sinners when they ask for it." This obviously refers to most of the divorced and remarried since they are publicly known to be living and having relations with someone other than their spouse. Therefore in these cases they should be denied Holy Communion.

What about a case where someone is in serious sin and no one knows about it except the priest? Should the priest give a divorced and remarried person who just moved from across the country Communion, if he is the only one who knows they are living in sin? Thomas says yes if the sin be absolutely private, although the priest should warn them and their parishioners openly that these types of sinners should not receive it because it would be a detriment to their souls. Notice, Thomas never encourages someone in serious sin to receive Holy Communion. He says, "But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord's table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Corinthians 5:11, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc., Augustine's gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal." Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church; because after repentance and reconciliation, Communion must not be refused even to public sinners, especially in the hour of death.... it is worse for the secret sinner to sin mortally in taking the body of Christ," So if the person is not resolved to quit committing the sin, they should not receive Our Lord Thomas makes this clear, yet if it is absolutely private, to their own detriment they could receive it.

So the Pope Francis is wrong any way you go here concerning a person having relations with someone other than his or her spouse with no firm purpose of amendment. He is out of his mind if he is going to claim Thomas as his moral support for encouraging unrepentant sinners to approach the the Lord's Table. The Church's age old teaching that someone who is having marital relations with someone they are not married to, should not receive Holy Communion, is Thomistic and stands as the teaching of the Church. To think that he is now going to try and pass this confusing mess off as Thomistic and hi-jack Thomistic theology is really upsetting to say the least. For those who actually want to read what Thomas has to say on the matter should go here and read it. Question 80, Article 6.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

The Silence of Pope Francis and its Implications: Three Sacraments Profaned

In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent!” Prophesy from Our Lady of Good Success, Quito, Ecuador



A couple of years ago I had the privilege of visiting the Conceptionist Convent in Quito, Ecuador where the apparitions of Our Lady of Good Success appeared to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres. It was a life changing experience seeing the body of Mother Mariana and participating in the procession carrying Our Lady of Good Success. It was also very enlightening to speak to the local Catholics who are very involved with the convent and are very familiar with the prophesies of Our Lady of Good Success. I was able to sit down at the local coffee shop and chat about these apparitions. One of the discussions was on the prophesy of the "one" who should speak and will fall silent.

Although we could not be certain that this is referring to Francis, the prophesy does fit quite well if it is read in context of the rest of the prophesies, which refer to our time, most importantly concerning the assault on marriage and purity. "In those times will be an atmosphere full of the spirit of impurity which, by way of an evil sea run through the streets, squares and public places with an amazing freedom..." As we know there is a great siege upon us throughout the world regarding impurity and a heightened rebellious attitude towards marriage. "As for the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with the Church, will be attacked and profaned in every sense of the word."

We have seen this confusion enter into the Church itself and we must examine the primary cause, especially in its escalation over the past few years. It is no secret that since Pope Francis has taken the seat of Peter confusion has escalated to an unprecedented level in the Church concerning marriage. His document Amoris Leatitia and his accompanying public teaching has not only caused mass confusion in the Church, it is spreading the heretical idea that one can with full knowledge remain in serious sin and yet receive Holy Communion. Pope Francis knows the bishops conferences who are doing this, and he has approved this act by a letter to the Argentine bishops. It does not take a scholar to see the error. Many liberal writers and commentators are defending the Francis agenda claiming that those who are opposing it are insignificant, Pharisaical, and rigid conservatives who are not willing to follow the Holy Spirit in updating the Church's teaching. Those who understand this tactic see it for what it is, modernism.

Back to the prophesy. Pope Francis has now been approached six times by clergy and laity charitably asking him to clarify his document and affirm the Church's definitive teaching on the matter. As we know, despite these six petitions we have....silence. Thus the one who should obviously speak is remaining silent, allowing the assault on the Sacraments of Marriage, Confession and the Eucharist to continue. It is important to recognize the avalanche of profanation that comes from this one noxious error, it effects not only the Sacrament of Marriage, but it also trivializes the Sacrament of Confession, being that there is no firm purpose of amendment, and the Eucharist, since it is being received  unworthily. Obviously I have no  idea how all of this is going to play out with Francis in the future. As we know many controversies have arose in the Church over the centuries where popes have been deposed, removed, proclaimed anti-popes years after their occupancy. There have been horrible popes who have been lost under the dust of history. Who knows what the future holds. We are in another unique time in the Church where the "one" who appears to be the one who should be speaking, is remaining silent when asked to uphold the perennial teaching of the Church. In the end we know what the outcome will be, God's truth will triumph. However, it will require of those souls who remain faithful to suffer much. As the one who should speak remains silent, we must prepare to persevere.

"At that time there will be great calamities, physical, public and private. The small number of souls in which the cult of faith and virtue is preserved will undergo cruel and unspeakable suffering, the pair that prolonged martyrdom. Many of them go down to the grave by the violence of suffering and will be counted as martyrs who sacrificed themselves for the Church and for the Fatherland. To free others from the slavery of these heresies, those who have the merciful love of my Most Holy Son will need great strength of will, perseverance, courage, and confidence in God." Our Lady of Good Success

Monday, September 25, 2017

The Correction by Theologians: Amoris Laetitia

Here is the list of the seven heresies that has been addressed to Pope Francis. The entire document can be found on this news clip.

By words, deeds, and omissions, and by passages of the document 'Amoris
laetitia,' Your Holiness has upheld, directly or indirectly, and, with what degree of awareness we do not seek to judge, both by public office and by private act propagated in the Church the following false and heretical propositions:

1. "A justified person has not the strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the divine law, as though any of the commandments of God are impossible for the justified; or as meaning that God’s grace, when it produces justification in an individual, does not invariably and of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin, or is not sufficient for conversion from all serious sin."

2. "Christians who have obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom they are validly married and have contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of their spouse, who live 'more uxorio' with their civil partner, and who choose to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of their act and full consent of the will to that act, are not necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and can receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity."

3. "A Christian believer can have full knowledge of a divine law and voluntarily choose to break it in a serious matter, but not be in a state of mortal sin as a result of this action."

4. "A person is able, while he obeys a divine prohibition, to sin against God by that very act of obedience."

5. "Conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, although one or both of them is sacramentally married to another person, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God."

6. "Moral principles and moral truths contained in divine revelation and in the natural law do not include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid particular kinds of action, inasmuch as these are always gravely unlawful on account of their object."

7. "Our Lord Jesus Christ wills that the Church abandon her perennial discipline of refusing the Eucharist to the divorced and remarried and of refusing absolution to the divorced and remarried who do not express contrition for their state of life and a firm purpose of amendment with regard to it."


I extend my congratulations and gratitude to the originators of the Correction and I wish to have my name added to the list of those individuals who agree with the content of the Correction and want to be identified with it.
Sincerely and in gratitude,
The Most Reverend Rene Henry Gracida, D.D.
Bishop Emeritus of the Diocese of Corpus Christi

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Watch EWTN Tonight for Pontifical Latin Mass!


A reminder that EWTN will broadcast live the Pontifical Latin Mass which His Excellency Bishop Joseph Perry will celebrate at the Cathedral Basilica of Ss Peter and Paul in Philadelphia, for the Exaltation of the Holy Cross and the 10th Anniversary of Summorum Pontificum.

You can also watch on EWTN’s website: http://ewtn.com/multimedia/live.asp; the Mass begins at 7pm EDT. It will re-air at 11PM.

Sacred music for the Mass will include Mozart’s Missa Brevis in C-major, (the “Sparrow” Mass), Elgar’s Ecce Sacerdos Magnus, Monteverdi’s Adoramus te, and John Blow’s Salvator Mundi, in addition to the Gregorian chants.


Tuesday, August 29, 2017

What is the Duty of the State in Regard to Religion?

Here is a great summary of the duty of the state in relation to the Church given by a great priest who shall remain anonymous.



Look.. it's perfectly simple...

1. All men have duty to worship the True God.
2. The State is a collection of men
3. Ergo, the State has the duty to provide for the worship the True God.

But...
1. Not all men recognize the True God and therefore don't worship Him.
2. But worship must be both interior and exterior in order to be an act of true worship, and since no one has the ability to coerce another to make an interior act.
3. Ergo, the State cannot coerce men to worship the True God against their will.

Corollary...

1. The State has the duty to provide for the common Good.
2. False worship of false Gods and especially Satanic worship mitigate against the common Good.
3. Ergo, the State has the right to forbid false worship of false Gods especially Satanic worship.

Conclusion....

The State must allow men to worship the True God ergo, the State cannot impinge or make laws regarding the Catholic Church which is the only true Church which gives true worship to the True God.

But, the State cannot force its citizens to engage in worship, ergo, it cannot mandate that all be Catholic or attend Catholic worship services.

However, the State CAN and SHOULD both foster evangelization programs that promote the Catholic Church and forbid the exercise and promulgation of false religions.