Archive for the ‘Catholic’ Category

A public heretic can lose his office in the Catholic Church, as a formal heretic cuts himself off from the Church. Here, we will look at what the Church teaches on the matter.

Below is no.9 from Satis Cognitum by PopeLeo XIII:

9. The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

 

How can a pope, cardinal, or bishop lose his office in the Catholic Church? In the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law, we can see Canon 188. “Any office becomes vacant upon the fact…if a cleric: Publicly defects from the faith.”

 

There is much more Church teaching that affirms these results. But for now, the point is to understand that the Church teaches that any office CAN become vacant, as now you have the theology supporting such a claim.

Next, keeping with the understanding that any office can become vacant, let’s give a simple examination of the errors of the Second Vatican Council and beyond. Below, is a side-by-side comparison of Catholic teaching vs that of the Vatican 2/Novus Ordo church. Keep in mind that these documents are all public. As you will see, the Vatican II theology is contrary to Catholic theology. These must qualify as public defections & sins against the First Commandment of God, right?

Catholics are required to believe that the Church is indefectible. Catholics also have full faith that the Holy Ghost is guiding the Church. Being infallible, it is impossible for the Church to err through the Teaching Magisterium on matters of faith and morals.

Therefore, the teachings of the Vatican II church and that of the Catholic Church are irreconcilable. If one believes the popes from St. Peter through Pius XII were valid, then they must reject the false claimants who brought forth contradiction and error since 1958.

Association with Invalidly Married

June 1st, 2018 by Vigilo

In modern times, we are confronted with many difficult situations. We must live on this world and in this time, yet we must also live according to God’s law. One of the many confrontations, a symptom of modernism, are the amount of marriages that have ended in ‘divorce’, with the attempt of a ‘remarriage’. As Jesus Christ personally condemned this as sinful, how are we to deal with a situation that is all too prevalent?

Before continuing, maybe a refresher would be of use to explain just how sinful is a divorce and ‘remarriage.’ In Luke 16:18, Jesus Christ said: “Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery.” In Exodus 20:14 we plainly read “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Sacred Scripture is very clear on this matter and you can see that by reading Jeremias 5:7 Ecclesiasticus 23:33 Matthew 19:9 to list a few. Again, this is NOT the opinion of this author on how we SHOULD have association with invalidly married persons. This is the TRUTH of Christ and the Church on how we MUST treat association with invalidly married persons.

So now that we know what adultery is, and that it is sinful….What is the appropriate Association with Invalidly Married?

For some guidance on the matter, below is Father Connell’s Answers to Questions (AER, 1948, Vol cxviii, p. 306)

Association with Invalidly Married

Question: What should be the practice of Catholics in the matter of association with persons who have been divorced and have attempted another marriage? Nowadays, it is not unusual for Catholics, especially those who are well-to-do and move in more “exclusive” circles, to associate as freely with such persons as with those who are properly married. Some Catholics do not hesitate to attend the remarriage of a divorced friend in the presence of a civil magistrate or a non-Catholic clergyman. Catholic parents are sometimes faced with the problem as to whether they may or should attend the marriage of their daughter to a divorced man outside the Church. What norms can be proposed to Catholics to guide them in situations of this kind?

 

Answer: The questioner has brought has brought up one of the most difficult problems in modern American life. Persons who have been divorced and “remarried ” are now numbered by the hundreds of thousands in our country. They are found in all classes of society; they represent all religious denominations, including even some who call themselves Catholics. Association with such persons cannot be entirely avoided. They live in the same apartment houses as Catholics, they are found among the tradespeople and professional men and public officials with whom the faithful transact business, they are their fellow workers in shop and office, they are their employers or their employees. To avoid all contact with such unfortunate persons nowadays we should have to bury ourselves in a desert.
The chief moral problem centered about association with those who have attempted remarriage after divorce (whom we shall call simply “divorced persons” hereafter) is the scandal which such association may cause. The scandal consists principally in the fact that by freely associating with such persons Catholics are likely to give the impression that they regard the conjugal life of the couples in question as perfectly lawful, or as only slightly culpable. Other persons who are contemplating divorce may in consequence be more inclined toward severing their marriage tie. The couple themselves may be encouraged in their efforts to persuade themselves that their union is a genuine marriage. Those who are not well instructed in Catholic doctrine may be led to believe that the Catholic Church is mitigating its teaching on divorce, and that it will be only a matter of time before the Church will fully conform to the standards of the modern world.
It would be impossible to lay down rules for the guidance of Catholics that would adequately cover every possible case. But the following general norms, we believe, will be helpful:

Business Relations and Pleasure

Purely business relations with divorced persons are ordinarily permissible. To trade in a store whose owner is a divorced man, to consult a lawyer or a doctor enmeshed in a similar marital entanglement, to attend a ball game when several of the players are divorced men – such activities would be allowed to Catholics, even though only their own personal utility or convenience or pleasure is thereby promoted. Under this heading would come those meetings which appear to be of a social nature, though actually business is involved, such as the visit of the junior member of a firm, aspiring to advancement, to the home of the senior member who happens to be divorced. Similarly, to attend a motion picture whose star actor has been divorced and remarried three times would not be forbidden, provided the picture is not itself objectionable. In saying that these things are permissible we do not intend to deny that it would be more commendable in some instances for Catholics to abstain even from such associations with those whose marital status is opposed to God’s law. For example, it might be a healthy move if Catholics banded together to boycott motion pictures which feature actors and actresses who flaunt even the fundamental canons of decency in their private lives.

Social Relations

Purely social relations with a couple, one (or each) of whom is known to have a previous spouse still living should be avoided by Catholics or at least reduced to the minimum. When Catholics are as friendly with such couples as they are with decent people, properly married, they manifest little regard for the attitude of their Church towards those who so gravely violate the divine law. For the Church declares such persons ipso facto infamous (Can. 2356). And it is difficult to excuse Catholics from the grave sin of scandal if they frequently attend parties and dinners at the homes of such persons, or perhaps even spend a few days with them from time to time, and reciprocate by an invitation to their own home. The strange fact is that these same Catholics would emphatically decline an invitation to a social function in a household of which the master is openly living in concubinage without having had any marriage ceremony. Yet, according to Catholic belief, the man who has divorced his lawful wife and attempted remarriage as actually in the same situation. The mere fact that he and his partner with through the marriage service before a minister or justice of the peace does not alter the fact that, as the Catholic Church views the matter, they are living openly in adulterous union. Why then, should not Catholics realize the incongruity of giving this couple the same respect and courtesy that are given to a man and a woman living in honorable wedlock? At most, a very rare exchange of visits might be permitted, when some special occasion calls for it. But when Catholics associate frequently and regularly with divorced persons for merely social reasons, I would consider them guilty objectively of grave sin; if they do so only occasionally without any justifying reason, it would seem to be a venial sin. The case is not changed substantially by the fact that the couple are non-Catholics and are apparently convinced that their marriage is valid; though of course, when they are Catholics the danger of giving scandal by association with them is greater.
More leniency could be exercised when the association involves only one of the parties— for example, when a group of men invite a divorced fellow-worker to accompany them on a fishing party. Again, Catholics would not be guilty of scandal if they attended a social function in the home of a friend to which a divorced person and his present partner were also invited. But this should not happen very frequently. In other words, Catholics should not become regular members of a social group in which divorced persons are fully acceptable.

Attendance and Reception

Apart from most unusual circumstances, a Catholic would not be permitted to be present at the attempted remarriage of a divorced person (nor, a fortiori, to act as bridesmaid, best man, etc.), knowing full well that such a union is invalid in the sight of God. Such attendance would ordinarily be gravely scandalous. Speaking of an analogous case, the attempted marriage of a Catholic before a non-Catholic minister, Davis says: “Assistance at a mixed marriage in a Protestant church would not be tolerated, since this would be co-operation in violating a serious church law that forbids mixed marriages without dispensation, and such a marriage would now be invalid” (Moral and Pastoral Theology [New York, 1938], I, 286).

Parents or near relatives of a Catholic involved in such an unfortunate union might argue that by attending the “marriage” they can retain the good will of the erring one and thus have a better chance of later inducing him to turn away from the sinful cohabitation. But, even if there is such a probability, it would not seem sufficient reason to outweigh the grave scandal that would almost certainly ensue. Moreover, there would usually be just as much probability that a severe attitude on the part of the parents or relatives will open the eyes of the misguided Catholic.
After a marriage of this kind has occurred the parents may – and even should – show the sinner that their love and sympathy are bestowed on him in full measure, but that they are unchanged in their condemnation of his evil conduct. It would be permissible to invite him to visit them; but visits from the couple together should be definitely disapproved, or at most allowed only rarely. On the occasion of a large gathering – for example, when the parents are celebrating their golden wedding anniversary or when a son of the family is offering his first Mass – a difficult problem is presented, but I believe that Catholic principles require in such an event that the couple should not be invited. At most, the one who is a member of the family could be asked to come.

Perhaps to some Catholics these norms may appear too strict. It must be admitted that they are not in accord with the customs of the day, which regard the marriage bond so lightly. But, in view of the scandal that is undoubtedly caused by the apparent recognition of a union that is a grave violation of God’s law, it seems that priests should guide the faithful according to the principles that have here been set down. There are times when pastoral prudence will suggest that individuals be left in good faith; but that does not justify priests in failing to give general instructions concerning a problem which occurs so frequently and which so vitally affects the sacredness of the sacrament of Matrimony.

 

Though it may not be easy, let us take the guidance from Father Connell, and the grace from God, and live according to our Faith.

-Travis

JMJ – UIOGD

A Blessed Resurrection to you!

As a relatively early adopter of bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, I was the first to introduce quite a few people to the world changing technology of blockchain and associated projects. One of those people was Jerremy Newsome of the IR4 podcast and Real Life Trading. The IR4 podcast had me on last week and we discussed some bitcoin predictions, governmental policies, and ICO’s among other things. Hope you find it valuable, enjoy!

links relevant to the podcast….

Start Engine – Equity Crowdfunding Investment Opportunities

Gab ICO – Initial Coin Offering for GAB Free Speech Social Network

Start Engine ICO Summit – Network and learn about the upcoming ICOs set to disrupt the industry

CLOUD Act – A privacy infringing expansion of data collection powers

$10,000 Bitcoin – Our article from December 2016, calling for $10,000 Bitcoin, back when the price was only around $1,000.

IR4 – It’s the Fourth Industrial Revolution Podcast – You can find information surrounding Global consciousnesses, the way we interact, conduct business, and overall live as human beings. Check it out to heat about everything from entrepreneurshipAIblockchain techIoTeco intelligencenano techcryptocurrenciesfundraisingwearable techquantum computing, 3D printing and all other things changing the world. See their Patreon page HERE.

Real Life Trading – Is Jerremy’s trading group. You can get some free content there, as well as have the opportunity to join the trading groups (morning and/or afternoon sessions), get the Weekly Options Newsletter, or delve into the Cryptocurrency Trading course.

-Travis

JMJ – UIOGD

Second Vatican Council Series (audio)

December 31st, 2017 by Vigilo

This is a great series on the Second Vatican Council. Bishop Sanborn addresses head on, the inconsistencies and confusion, born out of the Second Vatican Council. This series will contain many answers to the questions you have today.

Substantial vs Accidental Changes?….Fundamental Error of Vatican II

Heresy of Ecumenism….Liturgical Changes of Vatican II

Doctrinal Errors of Vatican II….The Heresy of Lumen Gentium

Errors of the Decree of Ecumenism…. The Errors of Religious Liberty

Error of Collegiality….Evil Disciplines Regarding Ecumenism
False Doctrines & Evil Disciplines regarding Marriage

Bishop Sanborn has a sermon about Jorge Bergoglio (false pope Francis) and his denial of the Church’s mission.

Bishop Sanborn has a sermon about Pope Saint Pius X and his devotion to souls, his purity of doctrine, and his condemnation of Modernism.