Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apologetics. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 20, 2018

Russian Catholic Converts

Here is an interesting new You Tube channel: The Russian Catholic Insider. Some Russians have been converting to the Catholic Church. They are Byzantine Catholics.
it won't let me embed the video so I will but a link to their channel.

Monday, August 6, 2018

Solemn Enthronement of Evolution

Many have been shock by Pope Francis' teachings, especially his recent change to the Catechism on the death penalty.

Here is a good article that explains the train of thought of the Modernist, which is basically applying Darwinism to theology.

The Jesuits have been keen on this thinking. So it is more of a heretical method than a particular teaching. It varies in degrees of orthodoxy those who fall into it, since it is not a particular teaching, some people accept it more and fall into serious error, some not so much.

While it is an established point of our faith that the Church cannot change teachings that have been definitively proposed to the faithful for belief, the about-face the Catholic Church has done on the question of evolution since the mid-19th century is nothing short of revolutionary - revolutionary in the most literal sense of the word, "to turn around", for the Church has done just that, turned around on its approach to evolution and questions surrounding the origin of human life. In this article, we will trace the origins of the Church's interaction with evolutionary theology and witness how, while the papacy of the 19th century condemned evolution as incompatible with Christian theology, the late 20th century Magisterium has essentially enthroned the theory as a permanent fixture of Catholic thought.

The two most influential theologians behind this enthronement were none other than Teilhard de Chardin and Joseph Ratzinger.
PART I: EVOLUTION AS A FRINGE HYPOTHESISDarwin's Origin of Species, published in 1859, ushered in the beginning of what would be a long struggle between reductive scientism and Catholic theology. In the decades immediately following the release of the book, evolution was a fringe belief professed by very few members of the clergy and was a characteristic belief of a small cadre of intellectuals divorced from the popular religion of the masses. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church saw very early on the threat that this theory could become to the faithful and began to warn Catholics about evolutionary theory very early on. In these years, we see the Church, with the support of the popes, drawing a firm line against evolutionary theory by insisting not only on the special creation of man's soul, but of his body as well.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

EENS Doctrinal Cheat Sheet

1) The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation (de fide, Trent, Sess. 7, ON BAPTISM Can. 5).

2) Unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot enter heaven (de fide, Florence, Exultate Deo; Denz 696).

3) The Church understands John 3:5 literally every time, as it is written (de fide, Trent Sess. 6, Chap. 4), and with no exceptions (de fide, Florence (aka Basil): Denz 696; and Trent: Denz. 791858861).

4) The Spirit of Sanctification, the Water of Baptism and the Blood of Redemption are inseparable (de fide, Pope St. Leo the Great--dogmatic letter to Flavian (ep. xxviii; ch. 5) aka "the Tome").

5) All Catholics must profess only one baptism of water (de fide, Clement V, Council of Vienne).

6) There is absolutely no salvation outside the one Church of the faithful (de fide, Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council), which only includes the water baptized.

7) Every human creature must be subject to the Roman Pontiff to be saved (de fide, Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam), and it is impossible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff without the Sacrament of Baptism (de fide, Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 2).

8) One must belong to the Body of the Church to be saved (de fide, Eugene IV;The Council of Florence (aka Basil), “Exultate Deo and Pius XI, Quas Primas [# 15]), and only the water baptized belong to the Body of the Church.

9) Pope Benedict XII solemnly defined that all martyrs, virgins, confessors, faithful, etc. in Heaven have been baptized (Benedictus Deus, 1336, de fide).

10) The Church is defined as a union of sacraments (de fide,Florence (aka Basil), Eugene IV, Cantate Domino-- Denz 696; Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam), which means that only those who have received the Sacrament of Baptism can be inside the unity of the Church.

11) All true Justification meets up with the Sacraments (de fide, Trent  Sess. 7, Foreword to the Decree on the Sacraments).

12) The Sacraments as such are necessary for salvation though all are not necessary for each individual (de fide, Profession of Faith at Trent and Vatican I; and the Profession of Faith for converts), which means that one must at least receive one Sacrament (Baptism) to be saved but one doesn’t need to receive them all.

Monday, January 12, 2015

More quotes for the Barron -ites

The controversy of, "Are there many saved or few?" has popped up again, so here is a Church Father, Doctor of the Church and Pope to comment on our Lord's words that few are saved

The broad road is crowded the narrow way of salvation nearly empty:


"And THUS IS PERFECTLY FULFILLED THAT ASSURANCE OF THE TRUTH, by which we learn that "narrow and steep is the way that leads to life [cf. Mat. 7:14];" and whilst the breadth of the way that leads to death is crowded with a large company, the steps are few of those that tread the path of safety."

read more of his sermon click here

Sunday, November 2, 2014

How Lovely (Again) is Thy Dwelling Place

St. Mary's Church
In a recent Crisis essay, I indicated that the recovery of tradition, reverence and symbolism in sacred architecture is not limited only to newly built churches, but that it has also been on the increase in existing church renovations in recent years.
Some of the most jarring evidence of internal unsettledness in the Church over the past century has been the drastic physical alteration of older church interiors, often to a point of becoming unrecognizable as what they once were. Such alterations were enforced based on the assumption that the buildings, along with the liturgy and other sacraments inside them, needed to cede to the thinking of the times in order to remain relevant with modern Catholics.
Had this been a truly successful endeavor—or even a correct initial assumption on which to base such an endeavor—we should be able to observe, after all these years, that the majority of lay people actually want their churches to look and feel like casual living rooms or concert halls. Yet, according to Fr. Jamie Hottovy of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, a growing body of evidence would seem to suggest exactly the opposite.

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Modernism vs. Neo-Modernism: What is the Difference?

 The overarching principle of post-conciliar theology is not modernism, properly speaking. Let us get our terms straight.

Above you see Fathers Ratzinger and Biali attentively listening to the comments of Fr. Karl Rahner, left, their mentor
Modernism is the idea that there are no eternal truths, that truth is the correspondence of the mind with one's lifestyle (adaequatio intellectus et vitae), and that, therefore, old dogmas must be abandoned and new beliefs must arise that meet 'the needs of modern man'. This is a radical denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth: the correspondence of the mind with reality (adaequatio intellectus et rei), which is the basis of the immutability of Catholic dogma.

No, the post-conciliar theological principle is neo-modernism, and the theology that is based on it is known as the nouvelle theologie.  It is the idea that old dogmas or beliefs must be retained, yet not the traditional 'formulas': dogmas must be expressed and interpreted in a new way in every age so as to meet the 'needs of modern man'. 

This is still a denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth as 
adaequatio intellectus et rei (insofar as it is still an attempt to make the terminology that expresses the faith correspond with our modern lifestyle) and consequently of the immutability of Catholic dogma, yet it is not as radical as modernism. 

It is more subtle and much more deceptive than modernism because it claims that the faith must be retained; it is only the 'formulas' of faith that must be abandoned--they use the term 'formula' to distinguish the supposedly mutable 
words of our creeds, dogmas, etc. from their admittedly immutable meanings

Therefore, neo-modernism can effectively slip under the radar of most pre-conciliar condemnations (except 
Humani generis, which condemns it directly) insofar as its practitioners claim that their new and unintelligible theological terminology really expresses the same faith of all times. 

In other words, neo-modernism is supposed to be 'dynamic orthodoxy': supposedly orthodox in meaning, yet always changing in expression to adapt to modern life (cf. Franciscan University of Steubenville's mission statement).  

Take extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a clear example of a dogma that has received a brutal neo-modernist re-interpretation: they claim that the old 'formula' that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be abandoned; rather it is more meaningful to modern man to say that salvation is not in, but through, the Church;  people who are not in the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to them the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is salvation outside the Church.  Hence see Ven. Pope Pius XII condemning those "reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation." (Humani generis 27).

Yet this mentality of reinterpreting everything anew in order to 'meet the needs of the times' is generally tends to be found in different degrees among different post-conciliar sources:  

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Understanding Modernism

Here are a series of video/talks on Modernism. Few understand it and some think it doesn't exist

Friday, November 15, 2013

Fr. Barron ---- Not all will be saved

For some reason this post wasn't being searched on the blog, so we figured we would just re-post it. Something for the Barron-ites and the Balthazar-ites:

Matthew 7:13: "13Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. 14How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! "

The Council of Quiersy in 853 stated that, "not all will be saved" (Denz. No. 318);

and Pius II in 1459 even condemned the opinion "That all Christians are to be saved" (Denz. No. 717[b]);

THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS CONDEMNED BY PIUS IX: "17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ." --Condemned

SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS--LAMENTABILI SANE, Pius X July 3, 1907 (#24): "24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves ."-- Condemned

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Catechism on Modernism

Full text of "Catechism on Modernism according to the encyclical 'Pascendi dominici gregis' of his Holiness Pius X"

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Baptism of Desire: Matt vs Hammer

[Editor: Here is a debate that is very convincing that Fr. Feeney indeed may have had the truer answer to the Baptism of Desire debate. We at Catholic Vox are starting to see the logic of his position. Either way both Fr. Feeney and Catholic Vox hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation.

We find it strange that Matt claimed victory on his site when in fact he comes off as childish, breaks his own rule, evades answering questions clearly, and is caught in one contradiction after another Hammer definitely won this debate. This debate is from Matt 16:18 site]

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

The Sacrament of Baptism vs Penance: Precept and Means

       A point of  distinction  must be made between the necessity of Baptism and the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance, for our salvation. Baptism is wholly necessary, and the Sacrament of Penance is only provisionally necessary. Confession of one's sins is necessary but not a necessity of means, for salvation. It is necessary by the necessity of precept BUT  Baptism is necessary by the necessity of means and precept, together.

If you do not receive Baptism of Water, you cannot be saved, whether you were "guilty" or not "guilty"
for not having received it. If it was not your "fault" that you did not receive it, then you can't go to Heaven. You are lacking something required for Heaven. You did not add your own positive rejection of the requirement so as to give you a positive deficiency. Yours is a permanent lack of something required for eternal salvation. This may seem cruel but one's way of life of sin formed barrier to receiving the grace to seek your salvation, so indirectly one has rejected it.. For Jesus says all that seek find and all that knock it is opened to them.

With regard to the Sacrament of Penance, a man in the state of mortal sin is required to confess that mortal sin. If he should make a perfect act of love in the meantime, that mortal sin is forgiven, but the confessing of it is still required.

If a man should commit a mortal sin, and then elicit a perfect act of love of God, which included the intention to confess his sin, and then later went to Confession and refused to confess the sin he had been forgiven because of the act of perfect love, he would never get that sin back again. But he would get a new sin for failing to confess the old one, and that would be a new mortal sin. And that mortal sin would send him to Hell, if he died in that state.

If a man in the state of mortal sin made a perfect act of love of God, and intended to confess his mortal sin, but died before the priest reached him, he would have died before he received a sacrament which was necessary by precept, but not a sacrament which was necessary by the necessity of both precept and means. Penance is not of its essence a salvational sacrament. It is a sacrament of justification, or rather, of re-justification for those who are baptized. Baptism is the sacrament of justification and salvation in one sheer act where both these needs exist, and of salvation alone, if justification has preceded it.

What is necessity of means in a sacramental requirement? Necessity of means means, if you have not got the requirement, whether you are to blame or whether you are not to blame, you are missing something necessary. If you are not to blame, it is just sad. And if you are to blame, so much the worse!

Monday, April 2, 2012

St. Peter's Last Miracle !

  St. Peter's last miracle happened in Mamertine Prison, otherwise known as the Tullianum, which is located on the east side of the Capitoline Hill, adjacent to the Roman Forum, and near the Arch of Septimius Severus, and below the church of San Giuseppe dei Falegnami. The prison consisted of two vaulted chambers, one above the other. The lower chamber is often referred to as the "Tullianum".

The name "Mamertine" is medieval in origin, and may be a reference to a nearby temple of Mars. The ancient Romans simply called the site "carcer", which is commonly translated to mean "prison". The "carcer" the only prison in the ancient city, and was reserved for important state prisoners, often prior to their execution.

 "Tullianum" is from the archaic Latin tullius "a jet of water", in reference to the cistern, which it now contains and the miracle done there.

The Sacramental Seal of Baptism:The Baptismal Watermark

[editor: here is an article from a few years back explaining the sacramental seal. Some Church Fathers called it "the seal of salvation". Understanding the seal (or sacramental "mark") is important to understand the doctrinal position of EENSers, Church Fathers or doctors of the Church considered  no one a member of the Church without it. This is the real crux of the debate: The seal can only be gotten by the Sacrament. Even Ott who defended BOD said the BOD couldn't make one a member of the Church because there is NO SEAL given by BOD or BOB. This is where we think the Church needs to focus on explaining the Seal of Baptism and how it works.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Membership in the Church, p. 309:

“3. Among the members of the Church are not to be counted: a) The unbaptized… The so-called blood Baptism and the Baptism of desire, it is true, replace Baptism by water (sic) in so far as the communication of grace is concerned, BUT DO NOT EFFECT INCORPORATION INTO THE CHURCH… Catechumens are not to be counted among the members of the Church… The Church claims no jurisdiction over them (D 895).  The Fathers draw a sharp line of separation between Catechumens and ‘the faithful.’”
[Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 309]

Why do we say that God requires more than just a desire? Why does He insist on Baptism with water? Why is such a common, superabundant substance like water so important in His designs?
We have seen that the principal difference between the Sacrament of Baptism (water) on the one hand, and the two theories (desire or blood) on the other, is the fact that only by the sacrament is the character impressed on the soul. The character, then, must carry with it a special importance and degree of necessity. It is too wonderful a spiritual reality to be arbitrary. Were it not necessary, Christ certainly would have qualified His statement to Nicodemus by naming the only allowable exceptions to Baptism by water. But He named no exceptions, so it behooves us to take a deeper look at this "watermark" on the soul called character.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Character (Greek, engraving instrument), the mark or trait by which the personality of one person is distinguished from that of another. The word is used to express the spiritual and indelible sign imprinted on the soul by the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders.
The Sacramental Character marks the soul . . . as distinct from those who have it not; as obliged to perform certain duties; as conformed to the image of God; as disposed for God’s grace.
Baptism marks the soul as a subject of Christ and His Church; Confirmation, as a warrior of the Church Militant; Holy Orders, as a minister of its Divine worship.

In Volume I of The Sacraments by Pohle-Preuss, first published in 1915, the author, Monsignor Joseph Pohle, elaborates on these four functions of the sacramental character — to distinguish, to oblige, to conform, to dispose. We will take from his text those comments which pertain only to the baptismal character.
Since God does nothing without a purpose, we must first ask: Why did He institute the baptismal character? Monsignor Pohle answers:

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Whether it is necessary for the salvation of all, that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ?

[Editor: to say the "Feeneyites" are in error because we question St. Thomas Aquinas' understanding on "Baptism" of Desire (which is not Baptism but a metaphor for it.). They usually don't see the hypocrisy of accusing  EENSers of not being "Catholic" for questioning St. Thomas but they themselves, by their theory of Anonymous Christians--"Baptism" of Desire, deny St Thomas Aquinas' understanding on the necessity of EXPLICIT Faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.]

By St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica:  Second Part of the Second Part; Question 2; Article 7

Objection 1. It would seem that it is not necessary for the salvation of all that they should believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ. For man is not bound to believe explicitly what the angels are ignorant about: since the unfolding of faith is the result of Divine revelation, which reaches man by means of the angels, as stated above (6; I, 111, 1). Now even the angels were in ignorance of the mystery of the Incarnation: hence, according to the commentary of Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii), it is they who ask (Ps. 23:8): "Who is this king of glory?" and (Is. 63:1): "Who is this that cometh from Edom?" Therefore men were not bound to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ's Incarnation.

Objection 2. Further, it is evident that John the Baptist was one of the teachers, and most nigh to Christ, Who said of him (Mt. 11:11) that "there hath not risen among them that are born of women, a greater than" he. Now John the Baptist does not appear to have known the mystery of Christ explicitly, since he asked Christ (Mt. 11:3): "Art Thou He that art to come, or look we for another?" Therefore even the teachers were not bound to explicit faith in Christ.

Objection 3. Further, many gentiles obtained salvation through the ministry of the angels, as Dionysius states (Coel. Hier. ix). Now it would seem that the gentiles had neither explicit nor implicit faith in Christ, since they received no revelation. Therefore it seems that it was not necessary for the salvation of all to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Fr, Barron --Is Adam a real person?

There is another error Fr. Barron is involved in, and it is of no surprise, since it is linked with his semi-Origen views.
The question came up in a video by Fr. Robert Barron
around 5:53.

Here is the transcription of that portion:
"Adam. Now, don't read it literally. We're not talking about a literal figure. We're talking in theological poetry, Adam, the first human being, . . ."
So, he seems to be saying Adam isn't a real human person, the individual parent of all humans.

Pius XII taught in Humani Generis
"37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.

Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12] "

Several people have asked Fr. Barron for a clarification,

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar

by Rev. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap.


The theological ideas of Hans Urs von Balthasar, the Swiss Catholic theologian who died in 1988, have captured the imagination of Catholic scholars throughout the Church. Both "conservative" and "progressive" churchmen have hailed him as one of the century's pre-eminent theologians. He has been called one of "the twentieth century's outstanding Catholic thinkers," and compared to Augustine and Aquinas. Clearly, Balthasar's opinions carry considerable weight among Catholics today.

Balthasar's "Hope" For Judas & All Men

Balthasar, in Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved"? claimed there was no certainty that anyone is in Hell or ever will be in Hell. He stated that "the Church ... has never said anything about the damnation of any individual. Not even about that of Judas." Thus, he declared, every Christian has the "obligation" to hope that all men are saved, including Judas.

It seems compassionate to desire that all men be saved and to be horrified at the thought of anyone suffering eternal punishment -- even Judas. But this feeling must not cloud the intellect to the point of undermining the Gospel or the natural law and truth itself. The problem with Balthasar's "hope" is that it conceals an implicit doubt about the Church's philosophy of truth and her doctrine on Jesus Christ.

A hope is absurd unless there is the possibility that it will be realized in the future. But, if Balthasar's "hope" would come to fruition and everyone would in fact be saved, what would then be said about the fact that this situation contradicts statements in sacred Scriptures, Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church? If these sources clearly teach that Judas or someone else is in Hell (or will be in Hell), then to hope that everyone will be saved is to hope either that these sources of revelation are in error or that the natural law with its principle of noncontradiction is in error. A hope like this really seems to be a doubt that the natural law and "unchangeable truth" exist and can be known by the Church. It seems to be a doubt about one's faith and the sources of revelation. And if Jesus Christ Himself taught that Judas or anyone else is in Hell (or will be in Hell), then to "hope" for universal salvation is to hope that Jesus made erroneous statements. The most disconcerting feature of Balthasar's hope for universal salvation is that its logic appears to require an assumption of Christ's ignorance and fallibility.

But the question is: Do Scriptures, Tradition, and the Magisterium clearly teach anything about the end of Judas and the possibility of universal salvation? Let's investigate.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

No Salvation Outside the Church and Vatican II

I have been in some discussions concerning Vatican II lately and I think this paper by  Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, Obl. S.B., M.I.C.M., is a great source and food for thought for those investigating EENS.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Feeney Friendly Forum

There has been a lot of better communication among EENSers lately (a.k.a. by our opponents as Feeneyites-- The reason I like to be called an EENSer is that  Fr. Feeney had his faults, as I do too, that can distract us from the dogma he devoted his life defending. So I follow the Church not a personality. That being said being called a Feeneyite doesn't bother me--LOL) and I was notified  today of a Feeney friendly forum:

So often EENSers get kick out or silenced on Catholic forums. Sometimes because of imprudent zeal, which is understandable. But often without notice or explanation of why they have been shut out of the discussions. So to all you EENSers out there please keep it civil  and remember : "He who loses his cool loses the argument" meaning that people today often are more convinced by tone than by facts and if we combine both then we will make some headway.

Merry Christmas!