Home Page - Invitation - History - Requirements for Holy Orders - Profession of Faith - The Latin Mass - Canons
Links - Questions & Answers - Candidates for the Priesthood - Apostolic Succession
__________________________________________________________________________

THE SOURCES OF BELIEF OF THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Faith of the Traditional Catholic Church is the faith of the ancient Catholic Church as it was taught and practiced and expressed from the beginning. As such the only sources of belief are Divine Revelation and Apostolic Tradition. Our beliefs are totally orthodox and in keeping with what was "taught always and everywhere and to every one." Our orthodox Catholic Faith is our greatest treasure.

WHAT IS TRADITION AND WHY ARE WE TRADITIONALISTS?

        Apostolic Tradition is a living power inherent in a living organization, in this case, the Catholic Church. In the stream of its life it bears along all that is in the past and it forms all that was in the past with the present and is present. The unity and the continuity of tradition follow from the fact that the Church is always identified with Herself. Tradition, then, is an expansive notion, including not only the laws and customs of the Church, but the very content of those norms and customs - and to the extent that it is a continual process, it does not, at least for the Church, end at any given century. This is why we are traditionalists. Not because the Novus Ordo Missae is valid or invalid, not because Latin has been lost for all time, but because of the content of the New Rites themselves. The Novus Ordo has lost all connection and continuity with the past. And because it has lost this connection, it cannot, by its very nature, be a vehicle for transmitting either Grace or the Catholic Faith to future generations. It has been said that the Novus Ordo is acceptable to Protestants. How, then, can it be acceptable to Catholics?

Further explanations:
        The Novus Ordo Missae was composed by six leading Protestant “liturgical scholars.” As such it is suspect even though approved by the Pope. Because of their Protestantism they composed liturgies which went in that direction, and, because of the new ecumenism of the Roman Catholic Church, they were approved. We cannot go along with that. It stands diametrically opposed to the past teachings of the Church. If we were to accept these new doctrines, it would mean that the Church of the past has erred. The Catholic Church cannot err. It cannot have erred in the past , present or in the future.
        Before going into the validity of the New Order of Mass, we would like to give Paul VI’s view of the Liturgy. His theology is a Protestant theology, as you will see when we compare his statements to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.
        In The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Chapter Two entitled The Structure, Elements and Parts of the Mass, in number 7 we read: In the Mass or the Supper of the Lord the people are gathered together as one, with a priest presiding and acting in the Person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord or the eucharistic sacrifice.
        Compare this with the opening paragraph of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer. It reads: “The Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass.” We all know what happened in England both before and after this disastrous book was published. The same thing happened in the Germany of Martin Luther. In both cases their new “Communion Services” were composed to deny the Catholic doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass. Paul VI did the same thing. This time the entire Church is suffering. Isn’t this startling that a pope would give to a Catholic liturgy the very same meaning that the Protestant Reformers gave to their Communion Service? It is unheard of in the annals of Catholic Theology. Since when is the Catholic Mass called “The memorial of the Lord” or “The Supper of the Lord.” Since when is the Body and Blood of Christ called “bread” and “cup” as they are in Eucharistic Prayer IV? These are Protestant notions. The Novus Ordo Missae must be judged in light of this very incriminating statement. That being said, it is invalid on the face of it.
        It has been said that, as far as the Book of Common Prayer is concerned, it is not the fact that conservative-minded clergy such as Gardiner could use it “as though it were the same as the ancient Mass” which is important; it is the fact that it could be interpreted for what it was intended to be, for what the Continental Reformers intended it to be “nothing else than a communion service.” “By a synaxis, they mean an assembly of people gathered together under the presidency of the presiding minister to celebrate the memorial of the Lord in a commemorative supper where He would be present in the same sense as He is always present where two or three are gathered together in His name. As Cramner explained: “Christ is present wheresoever the church prays unto Him, and is gathered together in His name.” And the bread and wine be made unto us the body and blood of Christ (as it is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer), but not by changing the substance of the bread and wine into the natural substance of Christ’s natural body and blood, but that in the godly using of them they be unto us the receivers Christ’s body and blood...”
        Does this sound familiar? Paul VI said very similar words, again in number 7 of Chapter 2 of The General Instruction of the Roman Missal: For this reason Christ’s promise applies supremely to such a local gathering together of the Church. “Where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in their midst.” (Matt. 18:20) Yes, the Novus Ordo Missae and the Book of Common Prayer have a great deal in common.
        According to the teaching of the Church, a sacrament is a sensible sign, instituted by Jesus Christ, to signify and to produce grace. The Council of Trent says: “If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord; or that they are more or less than seven, that is, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order and Matrimony; or even that any one of the seven is not truly and properly a sacrament, let him be anathema.”
        The sacraments are an intristic and efficacious means of grace by what is called ex opere operato Christi. To deny this is also to come under Trent’s anathemas. This means that the sacraments are effective, even if the priest himself is in a state of mortal sin (though it would certainly be sacrilegious for him to do so). Even if the recipient’s is not perfect (he also would commit a sacrilege is he were to receive the sacraments in mortal sin - that is, except for the Sacrament of Penance). There is almost something mechanical in the administration of the sacraments. One must remember that, in most of them, the priest is acting on behalf of Christ. It is Christ Who through the priest forgives sins, or confects the Eucharist. Thus it is very important that the priest follow the pattern which Christ has established as the particular vehicle of grace. Of course, this is not true of every aspect associated with the ceremony in the administration of the sacraments, but it is certainly true with regard to the essential forms of them. For instance, one cannot Baptize in the name of the church, or in the Name of the Holy Spirit only, but “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
        There are many “traditional” Catholics who attend the new rites and clam that they are convinced of their validity because of the many graces they receive from them. Even if we could grant that they are not self delusional in this area, such an argument is useless in defending validity, for it is a constant teaching of the Church that in the reception of the sacraments, grace enters the soul in two ways. First: as we have said is ex opere operato, or by virtue of the work performed. Second: by what is called ex opere operantis, and this is by virtue of the disposition of the recipient. Thus, if one in good faith should participate in false sacraments they indeed may receive grace - but it is only that grace which comes from his own good disposition, and never from that ineffable grace which derives from the sacrament itself.
        It has been argued that, providing the recipient’s disposition is proper, the deficiencies of a sacrament administered are “supplied” by the Church. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why, because it implies that no matter what the minister does, the Church automatically makes up for the defect. To see the rashness of this position, all you have to do is imagine a non-priest (an Anglican, let’s say) saying the traditional Mass correctly. This is no different than a true priest saying a false Mass. It is certainly possible that Christ makes up for the defect in the case of those who are in “invincible ignorance,” but the Church cannot make up for a defect. The Church cannot make what is not a sacrament a sacrament. No one in the Church, not even the Pope, can do that. Only God can join a visible sign to an invisible grace. A.S. Barnes, a leading authority of Anglican Orders says “God, we must always remember, is not bound by the sacraments He has instituted - but we are.” All these heresies and deviations of Modernist theology can be found in the history of the Church.
        All the above being taken for Truth, we must ask ourselves what exactly is required for the validity of the sacraments. The Church’s reply is usually given under several headings: Matter, Form, Intention, Minister and Subject. If any of the above is faulty or absent, the sacrament does not take effect.
        Regarding the “matter,” this refers to the material element used to confect the sacrament, such as, in Baptism, water, and, regarding the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the bread, wine and a little water. And to the matter is added the “form” or the determinate words which are required to effect the sacrament. As Saint Augustine said: “the word is joined to the element, and the sacrament emerges.” St. Thomas Aquinas states why this is so: “Just as the Word of God joined Himself to what is sensible by the mystery of the Incarnation, so in the sacraments the word is joined to a sensible object. As to man, since he is constituted of a body and a soul, the sacramental remedy corresponds to his nature: for it reaches the body by means of a sensible object, and it is through the word that faith in the sacrament penetrates the soul... It is not man’s function to choose at will the things by which he is be sanctified; but a divine institution must determine it.”
        To continue, Saint Pius X says in Ex quo nono: “It is well-known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to renovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments.” The Council of Trent states that: “this power has always been in the Church, that in the administration of the sacraments, without violating their substance, she may determine or change whatever she may judge to be more expedient for the benefit of those who receive them.” Saint Thomas says: “It is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form is suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed; and consequently, the sacrament is invalid.”
        The Missale Romanum, in the section called De Defectibus says: “If words are added which do not alter the meaning, the sacrament is valid, but the celebrant commits a grave sin in making such an addition.” The document goes on to say in part Five: “If anyone should take away or change anything from this form of consecration of the Body and Blood and by this change the words would not have the same meaning, the Sacrament would not be effected. If he should add or subtract anything which would not change the meaning he would confect it but would be guilty of a grave sin.”
The Roman Catechism goes on to say: The Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Bread
        We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle John, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: While they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body. This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has been always used by the Catholic Church. The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known and accessible to all, must here be omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Savior: Do this for a commemoration of me. For what the Lord enjoined was not only what he had done, but also what he had said; and especially is this true, since the words were uttered not only to signify, but also to accomplish.
        That these words constitute the form is easily proved from reason also. The form is that which signifies what is accomplished in this Sacrament; but as the preceding words signify and declare what takes place in the Eucharist, that is, the conversion of the bread into the true body of our Lord, it therefore follows that these very words constitute the form. In this sense may be understood the words of the Evangelist: He blessed; for they seem equivalent to this: Taking bread, he blessed it, saying: "This is my body".
        Not All The Words Used Are Essential
        Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words this is my body, they evidently express the use only, not the consecration, of the matter. Wherefore, while they are not necessary to the consecration of the Sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is also the conjunction for in the consecration of the body and blood. But they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament, otherwise it would follow that, if this Sacrament were not to be administered to anyone, it should not, or indeed could not, be consecrated; whereas, no one can lawfully doubt that the priest, by pronouncing the words of our Lord according to the institution and practice of the Church, truly consecrates the proper matter of the bread, even though it should afterwards never be administered.
        Form To Be Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
        With regard lo the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form. We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins. Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition.
        Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in St. Luke and in the Apostle; but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in St. Luke and partly in St. Matthew. But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth.
        Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread. The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord. Since, therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form.
        They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament. Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God has set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood, that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus. Christ. A third effect is the remission of sins.
        Explanation Of The Form Used In The Consecration Of The Wine
        Since these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries and most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute consideration.
        The words: This is the chalice of My blood, are to be understood to mean: This is My Blood, which is contained in this chalice. The mention of the chalice made at the consecration of the blood is right and appropriate, inasmuch as the blood is the drink of the faithful, and this would not be sufficiently signified if it were not contained in some drinking vessel.
        Next follow the words: Of the new testament. These have been added that we might understand the blood of Christ the Lord to be given not under a figure, as was done in the Old Law, of which we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews that without blood a testament is not dedicated; but to be given to men in truth and in reality, as becomes the New Testament. Hence the Apostle says: Christ therefore is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of his death, they who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
        The word eternal refers to the eternal inheritance, the right to which we acquire by the death of Christ the Lord, the eternal testator. The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith. In this passage, however, these words bear a meaning different from that which they have when applied also to Baptism. Here the mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ veiled under the species of wine; but Baptism is justly called by us the Sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith.
        Another reason why we call the Blood of the Lord the mystery of faith is that human reason is particularly beset with difficulty and embarrassment when faith proposes to our belief that Christ the Lord, the true Son of God, at once God and man, suffered death for us, and this death is designated by the Sacrament of His Blood.
        Here, therefore, rather than at the consecration of His body, is appropriately commemorated the Passion of our Lord, by the words, which shall be shed for the remission of sins. For the blood, separately consecrated, serves to place before the eyes of all, in a more forcible manner, the Passion of our Lord, His death, and the nature of His sufferings.
        The additional words “for you and for many,” are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind has received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not to all, but to many of the human race. When therefore (Our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, “and for many,” He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.
        With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of Our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for those whom you have given me, because they are yours. Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.

WE ARE NOT IN UNION WITH THE VATICAN, BUT WE ARE NOT SCHISMATIC

The first sign of a true schismatic is change, and this change usually comes in the liturgy. This is how the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century began their individual heresies under the guise of “renewal.” It is the Vatican II Church which made these change for the sake of “renewal and to make the Catholic Church more appealing to Protestants. We believe this to be a great sin before Almighty God. The Church’s definition of schism is: “Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” See Canon 751 of the New Code of Canon Law. We have not left the Catholic Church, nor have we refused communion with the Vatican or anyone associated with the Vatican 2 Church. They have refused communion with us.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE TRADITIONS OF THE CHURCH

The source of all tradition is Divine Revelation, either the actual words of Christ or the revelations of the Holy Spirit sent to the Apostles by Christ. "The Holy Spirit...will teach you all things and will bring to your minds whatever I have told you." (Jn. 14:26, 21:25, 1 Cor. 11.23). For instance, Infant Baptism is a tradition of the Church. Mass was celebrated, Confessions heard and the Gospel preached before ever a word of the New Testament was written down. Therefore, while these Sacraments are mentioned in the Gospels themselves, their coming down to us was by oral tradition which was eventually incorporated into Scripture. For us these teachings include those of all the Councils of the Church up to and including the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council.

WHY WE ARE NOT PART OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

The reason we are not in the Roman Catholic Church today is because of the liturgical changes. None of our reasons for leaving the Roman Church were doctrinal. Later on we came to believe that the changes in matters liturgical involved doctrinal matters as well. It was never our intention to be in a state of schism from the Catholic Church, nor do we believe ourselves to be so now. We took the Catholic faith with us, keeping it safe until the day when all will be one again.

THE SOURCES OF BELIEF OF THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Faith of the Tridentine Catholic Church is the faith of the ancient Catholic Church as it was taught, practiced and expressed from the beginning. As such the only sources of belief are Divine Revelation and Apostolic Tradition. Our beliefs are totally orthodox and in keeping with what was "taught always and everywhere and to every one." Our orthodox Catholic Faith is our greatest treasure.

POSITION OF THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH
REGARDING PRIESTLY CELIBACY

       Celibacy, the unmarried state elected in light of the Catholic faith, is the Catholic Church’s norm for her sacred priesthood. The priest is "chosen from among men to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" (Heb 5:1), promises celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God. The Church’s understanding of the magnitude of priestly celibacy has developed gradually and matured from the Lord’s own witness as a celibate and His commendation of celibacy in the Gospels — through Saint Paul’s 1 Cor. 7, Pope Saint Leo I, Pope Saint Gregory I, Lateran I, and numerous other "moments" in Church history — to our own day under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Observed with rare exception in the West by priests and by all bishops, celibacy is also observed by some priests and all bishops in the East. In recent times, the Church has proclaimed vigilantly the importance of celibacy, for example, in Pius XII’s Sacra Virginitas, Vatican II’s Presbyterorum Ordinis, Paul VI’s Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, John Paul II’s, Letter to Priests on Holy Thursday (1979), and the Congregation for the Clergy’s Directory for Ministry and Life of Priests.
        Priestly celibacy is an invaluable witness to the kingdom of God: "Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life" (Luke 18:29–30; cf. Mark 10:27–30). In imitation of the Lord, the priest promises to live solely for his sacred apostolate, in the hope of being one of those "who follows the Lamb wherever he goes" (Rev. 14:4). Priestly celibacy allows not only for imitation of the Lord but also for personal sacrifice and sanctification. "For this reason," Pius XII writes, "the Church has most wisely held that the celibacy of her priests must be retained; she knows it is and will be a source of spiritual graces by which they will be ever most closely united with God" (SV, n. 40). The unique status of the priest as the alter Christus among men demands of him a distinctive pursuit of Christian perfection in the mystici corporis Christi. Intimately and extraordinarily configured to Jesus Christ the High Priest by his sacred ordination, it is the priest who sanctifies (munus sanctificandi), teaches (munus docendi), and governs (munus regendi) in His name. Just as the world finds difficulty in comprehending the Messiah, who "was led like a lamb that is led to the slaughter" (Isa 53:7), so the world finds difficulty in comprehending men who are only "anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit" (1 Cor. 7:34). Celibacy gives testimony, both for those who live it and those who see it lived, to the life hereafter. "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt 22:30; cf. Mark 12:25).
        To be sure, "not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given" by God (Matt 19:11). Priestly celibacy is a gift concomitant with the vocation of the priest, the call from God, the invitation to love not only exceptionally but exclusively. In the response of total dedication and love to Christ and His Church, the priest is guaranteed the graces necessary for his life and work. Unfortunately in a world darkened by original sin and the consequences thereof, celibacy is too often thought of as unnatural when, in fact, it is supernatural. In many parts of the world, a period of decline in priestly vocations, which is simultaneous with consumerism, materialism, and sexual licentiousness, seemingly indicates celibacy’s ineffectualness. But the polar opposite is true: "where there is sin, grace abounds all the more" (Rom 5:20). Now, perhaps more than ever, the world is in need of the Lord and the witness of priestly celibacy. "He who is able to receive this, let him receive it" (Matt 19:12).

THE PRACTICE OF THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH REGARDING
BIRTH CONTROL, ABORTION AND REMARRIAGE

    1) "Birth control," like all matters of obedience to the laws of the Church, is a matter which requires the response of a well formed conscience, keeping in mind the constant teaching of the Catholic Church pertaining to conjugal relations and the responsibilities stemming from them. By this we mean that contraceptives, or the willful sterilization of a man or woman, are not valid measures for the prevention of unwanted children. By "birth control" we mean rather, "self control." That is, if a couple does not want more children than they can reasonably afford and educate they should agree to abstain from conjugal relations for a period of time to be
determined by them.
 
    2) Abortion is the willful killing of a human fetus and is never allowable for any reason whatsoever.

    3) Concerning divorce and remarriage, the Church teaches that a valid marriage contract cannot be dissolved while one of the partners is still living. We do not recognize divorce. But we do recognize that for a variety of reasons a couple may not want to cohabit and may seek a church annulment, although at the present time we do not feel we have the authority to grant such annulments. More study will have to be given to this most important subject. However, if a couple has obtained a Canonically valid annulment, we will recognize that annulment.

THE SACRAMENTS

WHAT IS A SACRAMENT?

        A Sacrament is an outward sign of an inward reality and grace, instituted by Christ for the salvation of mankind and which produces grace ex opere operato. A Sacrament must effect the grace which it signifies. As Saint Augustine says, the Sacraments are visible signs of invisible grace instituted for our justification.

WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM?

        Baptism is the first of the Sacraments of the New Law and the door to the valid reception of the other Sacraments. It is administered by a three-fold pouring with water or immersion in water and the words: "I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Baptism admits the recipient into the Church, granting him the remission of his sins, both Original and Actual, and produces in the soul what is called "Regeneration" in the Blood of Christ. Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders imprint upon the soul an indelible character which cannot be removed, either in this life or in the next. One cannot repeat any of these three Sacraments without sacrilege.

WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION?

        Confirmation is the sacrament in which the Holy Spirit is given to those who have already been baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ, being anointed with Chrism consecrated by the Bishop on Holy Thursday. For valid conferral of this Sacrament the anointing, the imposition of hands and the form spoken must occur simultaneously. The ordinary Minister of Confirmation is the Bishop. The imposition of hands and the blow on the cheek signify enrollment in the service of Christ which brings true peace to the soul. (Cf. St. Thomas, III:72:4).

WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST?

        The Eucharist is the Sacrament in which, under the appearance of bread and wine, the real, actual and substantial Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, are given and received for the remission of sins, the reward of eternal life, and the increase of sanctifying grace. After the words of Consecration in the Mass, the bread and wine are miraculously changed into the living Body and Blood of Christ by an actual change of being, to which the Catholic Church rightly applies the term Transubstantiation. The celebration of this mystery is the central act of worship of the Tridentine Catholic Church, being the sacramental representation and renewal of Our Lord's Sacrifice upon the Cross. It is not a mere repetition of the sacrifice offered once for all upon the cross, but is a perpetuation of that sacrifice by the Church on earth as Christ continuously offers it in heaven. It is a true propitiatory sacrifice offered for both the living and the dead.

HOW DO YOU INTERPRET TRANSUBSTANTIATION?

        Transubstantiation is taken to mean the miraculous change of substance of bread into the Body of Christ and the substance of wine into His Blood. We believe that there cannot be an accurate description of the operation of the Blessed Trinity in this Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood except by the use of this very important word. [See the Council of Trent, Chapter Thirteen, chapters 4 and 8, Canon 8 of that Session and also the Twenty-Second Session of the same Council.]

WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT OF HOLY ORDERS?

        Holy Orders is the Sacrament in which the Holy Spirit, by the imposition of the hands of the bishop, ordains and consecrates the ministers of the Church (Deacons, Priests, and Bishops) and imparts to them an indelible character which transforms their souls, giving them the power and graces necessary for their particular grade of participation in Christ's priesthood. Chief of these powers is that of offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in which, acting in the Person of Christ, he changes bread and wine into His Body and Blood, the bestowal of sacramental absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, and that of anointing the sick.

What meaning does the Tridentine Catholic Church give to the Priesthood?

        "Priests are ordained in the Church to continue the sacred saving action of Christ which is found in the sacraments, especially is the priest to gather the faithful for the Eucharistic Sacrifice which he alone offers in the Person and place of Jesus Christ. He forgives their sins in the Sacrament of Penance, again exercising a divine prerogative in the Name and Person of the Lord. He is to anoint the sick, again utilizing a uniquely priestly power. Among his other specifically priestly functions are that he must pray for the Church, and develop within men the divine life received in Baptism by the administration of the other sacraments."

What is a Simplex Priest and does the Tridentine Catholic Church have them?

        Simplex Priests are men who, in studying for the Priesthood, may not have gotten terrific grades, but who, never the less, has a vocation to the Priesthood. Simplex Priests may say Mass privately, but do not have faculties to preach or hear Confessions, and may anoint the sick in the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. We do not believe that a man who otherwise has a vocation to the Priesthood should be denied ordination because of his grades. However, that does not mean that we will ordain anyone who is slacking in his studies. Each case is determined on its own merits. At this time we do not, but we have incorporated simplex priests into our Canon Law, thereby opening the door to them in the future.

WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY?

        Matrimony is the Sacrament in which, by the voluntary union of man and woman grace is imparted to them to become an image of the union which exists between Christ and His Spouse, the Catholic Church. They also receive the necessary graces to fulfill their duties as co-creators with God in the act of procreation. The couple must have the intention of remaining together for the rest of their lives and of raising their children in the Catholic Church.

WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION?

        Extreme Unction is the Sacrament in which the Priest anoints the sick person with Holy Oil "in the Name of the Lord," for the healing of his infirmities of both body and soul. A person is advised to call a Priest even though he may not be in danger of death. Viaticum (that is "food for a journey") may be brought to the sick at any time.

WHAT IS THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE?

        The Sacrament of Penance is the Sacrament in which one receives the forgiveness of sins committed after Baptism. One must approach this Sacrament with a true spirit of amendment and sorrow for his sins. He must also be willing to perform the penance imposed upon him by the Priest and to "sin no more."

THE ATTITUDE OF THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH TOWARD
THE PROTESTANT AND OTHER DENOMINATIONS

        Our attitude toward Non-Catholics is this: "God forbid that the sons of the Catholic Church should ever in any way be hostile to those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love; but rather they should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them, whether poor, or sick, or afflicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and 'being fruitful in every good work' [Col.1:10], they may attain eternal salvation."

THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S ATTITUDE TOWARD
OTHER INDEPENDENT CATHOLIC JURISDICTIONS

        Our attitude is one of willingness to work with them and share our common Catholic heritage. However, it must be remembered that the faith of the other independent Catholic jurisdiction must be identical to ours in order for us to work toward Communicatio in sacris. It must also be remembered that there must be mutual recognition of each jurisdiction's Orders, etc. There are also other requirements which are dealt with according to the circumstances of each individual case.

THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S ATTITUDE TOWARD
THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT

        Our Divine Savior founded One Church which He intended to be the "pillar and mainstay of the truth." This being so it follows logically that everyone is bound in conscience to belong to it, "for the Lord wishes everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth," and that they do so in the Church which He founded for that purpose; that is the Catholic Church. Therefore we give no credence to the theory that one church is as good as another. We believe that the Ecumenical Movement has led to indifferentism. "Extra ecclesia nulla salus" - "outside the Church there is no salvation" is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. It is also Catholic teaching that a certain number of non-Catholics attain salvation and that this number is known only to God.

What are The Principal Heresies of Vatican II

        The Principle Heresies of Vatican II by Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B. We have reprinted this article by the kind permission of Brother Peter Dimond. Brother Dimond’s address appears at the end of the article. We have edited this article to shorten it for insertion for the sake of brevity. The word “antipope” has been omitted from the text because at this point we are not willing to go that far to state absolutely that all the popes from the end of the reign of Pope Pius XII are in fact antipopes.
        This document exposes the principal heresies of Vatican II in their complete contexts, which leaves those who would presume to defend Vatican II with no excuse. Many of the heresies exposed in this document have not, to our knowledge, been exposed in any other piece written on Vatican II. Most of this document corresponds to what is contained in our new video Vatican II: Council of Apostasy which we recommend everyone to get. However, a few of the heresies contained in this script are not contained in the video and vice versa. Heresies by Document 1. Unitatis Redintegratio – the Decree on Ecumenism. Unitatis Redintegratio #1: “Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the glory of God.”
        At the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism, Vatican II teaches that almost everyone longs for a truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel. What is the truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the world to the Gospel? It is the Catholic Church, of course, which alone is the one true Church of Christ. So what is Vatican II talking then? Why is Vatican II teaching that almost everyone longs for one the truly universal Church of Christ when we already have it? What Vatican II is teaching at the very beginning of its decree on ecumenism is that people must long for the true Catholic Church because it does not yet exist! It is teaching that the true Church of Christ – the universal Catholic Church – does not yet exist! For those who doubt that Vatican II was here denying that the Catholic Church exists we will quote John Paul II’s own interpretation of this passage. John Paul II, Homily, Dec. 5, 1996, speaking of prayer with non-Catholics: “When we pray together, we do so with the longing ‘that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God’ (Unitatis Redintegratio, 1.)”
        Here we see that John Paul II himself confirms that the longing for the one, visible Church of Christ is a longing on both sides – Catholic and non-Catholic, which means that Vatican II in its decree on ecumenism (which John Paul II is quoting from) was indeed longing for the one universal Church of Christ. Vatican II
was therefore denying that the Catholic Church is the one universal Church of Christ. Unitatis redintegratio (#4): “Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons and daughters who, though attached to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full Catholicity in all its bearings.” Here, number 4 of the same decree on ecumenism, Vatican II denies that the Church of Christ is fully Catholic! This is so heretical that if you believe this you cannot even say the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in… the holy Catholic Church.” You would have to say, “I believe in the not fully Catholic Church.” But why would Vatican II assert such a ridiculous heresy? The reason for this ridiculous statement in Vatican II is that Vatican II rejects that the Catholic Church is the universal Church of Christ. It holds that the Church of Christ is bigger than the Catholic Church.
        Cardinal Ratzinger, Dominus Iesus #17, approved by John Paul II, Aug. 6, 2000: "Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church."
        Therefore, if Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism denies that the Catholic Church is the universal Church of Christ (which it does) by longing for such a Church to exist, it follows logically that Vatican II would also teach that ”the Church” (i.e., the universal Catholic Church) is not able to fully realize its Catholicity/ Universality,” due to “divisions among Christians.” In other words, according to the clear teaching of Vatican II, divisions among the countless Protestant sects, Eastern Schismatic sects and the Roman Catholic Church prevent the universal Church (of which we are all members according to Vatican II) from realizing fully its true Catholicity (universality).
        All of this is definite confirmation that Vatican II taught that heretical and schismatic sects make up the Church of Christ! Vatican II’s words about the universality of the Church of Christ being impaired by divisions among these sects would not make sense unless it held that these sects make up part of the Church of Christ. With that explained, we will quote Pope Clement VI and Pope Leo XIII to condemn this awful heresy of Vatican II.
        Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “We ask: In the first place, whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of THIS SAME ROMAN CHURCH, WHICH ONE ALONE IS CATHOLIC, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.” Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “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.”
        Moving along, we come to # 3 of Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism. It affirmed that all the baptized professing “Christians” are in communion with the Church and have a right to the name Christian, while not mentioning anything about the necessity for them to convert to the Catholic faith for salvation.
        Unitatis Redintegratio #3: “For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”
        Notice that Vatican II teaches that these Protestant and schismatic sect members are in communion with the Catholic Church (albeit impartial), and brothers of the same Church, with a right to the name Christian. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, teaches that they are outside the communion of the Church and alien to its faithful. This directly contradicts the teaching of Vatican II: Pope Leo XIII, in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896: “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.”
        Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio #3: “The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces them as brothers, with respect and affection.” ( http://www.Vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_Vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html ).
        One must carefully consider this statement to get the full impact of its malice. (We’ve just added it to our article on the heresies of Vatican II.) Without any clarification or qualification given, Vatican II issues a general statement and excuses of the sin of separation (i.e. heresy and schism) all who, having been born into Protestant and schismatic communities, grow up in them “believing in Christ.” This is incredibly heretical. It would mean that one could not accuse any Protestant of being a heretic, no matter how anti-Catholic he is, if he had been born into such a sect! Unitatis redintegratio #3: “Moreover some, and even most, of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too.”
        Here we discover more blatant heresy in # 3 of the Decree on Ecumenism. It bluntly asserts that the life of grace exists outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. This is directly contrary to the solemn teaching of Pope Boniface VIII in the ex cathedra Bull Unam Sanctam. Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one.”
        Vatican II has rejected the dogma that there is no remission of sin outside the Catholic Church, by asserting that one can possess the life of grace (which includes the remission of sins) outside the Catholic Church. And there is even more in the same section of the decree on ecumenism. It asserts that these non-Catholic sects and communities we’ve been discussing are means of salvation.
        Unitatis redintegratio (# 3): “It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church.” This is one of Vatican II’s worst heresies. It is a total rejection of the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation.
        Pope Leo XIII, in Satis Cognitum (#9), June 29, 1896: “The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence.”
        Pope Pius X, Editae saepe (# 29), May 26, 1910: “The Church alone possesses together with her magisterium the power of governing and sanctifying human society. Through her ministers and servants (each in his own station and office), she confers on mankind suitable and necessary means of salvation.” Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives …” Vatican II also teaches in its decree on ecumenism that non-Catholics bear witness to Christ by shedding their blood.
        Unitatis redintegratio #4: “On the other hand, Catholics must gladly acknowledge and esteem the truly Christian endowments which derive from our common heritage and which are to be found among our separated brothers and sisters. It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and the virtuous deeds in the lives of others who bear witness to Christ, even at times to the shedding of their blood.” This paragraph clearly means that there are saints and martyrs for Christ in non-Catholic Churches, a heresy of Vatican II that John Paul II has repeated and expanded upon countless times.
        John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (#1), May 25, 1995: “The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigor to the Council’s call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation.”
        John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995:“Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the saints - those who, at end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities which gave them entrance into the communion of salvation.”
        The Catholic Church teaches dogmatically that outside the Church there are no Christian martyrs. Pope Pelagius II, epistle (2) Dilectionis vestrae, 585: “Those who were not willing to be at agreement in the Church of God, cannot remain with God; although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be for them that crown of faith, but the punishment of faithlessness, not a glorious result (of religious virtue), but the ruin of despair. Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned.”
        Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: “… no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” Vatican II also teaches in its decree on ecumenism that Eastern heretics and schismatics help the Church to grow. Unitatis redintegratio (13-15): “We now turn our attention to the two chief types of division as they affect the seamless robe of Christ. The first division occurred in the east, when the dogmatic formulas of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were challenged, and later when ecclesiastical communion between the eastern patriarchates and the Roman See was dissolved… Everyone knows with what great love the Christians of the east celebrate the sacred liturgy… Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows, and through concelebration their communion with one another is made manifest.” The Catholic Church teaches that heretics are the gates of Hell.
        Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “These matters having been treated with thorough-going exactness, we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)… and so we count along with the devil, the father of lies, the uncontrolled tongues of heretics and their heretical writings, together with the heretics themselves who have persisted in their heresy even to death.” Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, to the “Father” of the Eastern Orthodox, Michael Cerularius, Chap. 7:“The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.” Another heresy which holds a prominent place in Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism is the constant expression of respect for non-Catholic religions.
        Unitatis Redintegratio #3: “But is subsequent centuries much more extensive dissensions made their appearance and large communities came to be separated from the full communion of the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, both sides were to blame. Those who are now born into these communities and who are brought up in the faith of Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church looks upon them as sisters and brothers, with respect and love.” The Catholic Church does not look upon members of non-Catholic religions with respect. The Church does not respect the workings of the devil. Rather, the Catholic Church anathematizes all heresies and calls all non-Catholics in charity to convert to the true faith.
        The First Council of Constantinople, 381, Can. 1: “Every heresy is to be anathematized and in particular that of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, that of the Arians or Eudoxians, that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, that of the Sabellians, that of the Marcellians, that of the Photinians and that of the Apollinarians.”
        Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, Constitution 3, On Heretics: “We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together in as much as they are alike in their pride.” Pope Pelagius II, epistle (1) Quod ad dilectionem, 585: “If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know that he is condemned and also anathematized according to the opinion of the same Fathers.”
        Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism also implicitly denies the dogma that Popes possess supreme power in the universal Church by divine right. It teaches that in the past the Popes have acted by common consent as moderators.
        Unitatis Redintegratio #14: “For many centuries the Churches of the east and the west followed their separate ways though linked in a union of faith and sacramental life; the Roman See by common consent acted as guide when disagreements arose between them over matters of faith and discipline.”
    These words clearly imply that the Popes did not hold supreme authority over all the churches in the East with whom they were united in faith. It implies that the Holy See merely acted as a moderator when agreed upon by common consent, not by divine institution. And this heretical and schismatical idea, that a Pope’s jurisdiction comes from the consent of the Faithful, is condemned by the Magisterium. In fact, notice how the words of Pope Pius XI, in condemning this very heresy, apply exactly to the above paragraph in Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism.
        Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 7), Jan. 6, 1928, speaking of heretics: “Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider do not arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful.” Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism also teaches that in theological matters we must treat with non-Catholics on an equal footing.
        Unitatis Redintegratio #9:“We must get to know the outlook of our separated fellow Christians…Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides – especially for discussion of theological problems – where each side can treat with the other on an equal footing, provided that those who take part in them under the guidance of their authorities are truly competent.”
    This heretical paragraph is a clear assertion that Vatican II does not hold that the Catholic Church’s teachings are true and that heretical teachings are false. Vatican II holds, rather, that both the Catholic teaching and the non-Catholic heresies are true – otherwise it would never recommend that they be “treated” on an equal footing. In fact, notice in the following quotation how specifically the wording of Vatican II is condemned by Pope Pius XI! Vatican II recommends that we “treat” with heretics on an equal footing while Pope Pius XI describes the heretics as willing to “treat” with the Church of Rome, but only as “equals with an equal!” When one reads the incredible specificity with which Vatican II contradicted the past teaching of the Magisterium, one can only ask: was Satan himself writing the documents of Vatican II?
        Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 7), Jan. 6, 1928, speaking of heretics: “Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal...” There are a number of other heresies in Vatican II’s decree on ecumenism, but we feel that the above heresies are sufficient to prove our point and that we should move on to the next document.
2. Orientalium ecclesiarum – Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches
    The Vatican II decree Orientalium ecclesiarum deals with eastern Catholic churches. It also deals with the Eastern Schismatic sects, the so-called “Orthodox” non-Catholic churches. In dealing with the so-called Orthodox in #27 of this decree, Vatican II provides us with one of its most significant heresies. Orientalium Ecclesiarum #27: “Given the above-mentioned principles, the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of sick may be conferred on eastern Christians who in good faith are separated from the Catholic Church, if they make the request of their own accord and are properly disposed.”
        For two thousand years the Catholic Church has consistently taught that heretics cannot receive the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction. This teaching is founded on the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins, defined by Pope Boniface VIII. This Pope in Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin, the Spouse in the Canticle proclaiming: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one.”
        Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia productive of eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
        Only for those who abide in the Roman Catholic Church do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation. This is a dogma! And this dogma is clearly repudiated by Vatican II’s outrageous teaching that it is lawful to give the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction to those who do not abide in the Catholic Church. In fact, Popes throughout the ages have proclaimed that non-Catholics who receive the Holy Eucharist outside the Catholic Church receive it to their own damnation.
        Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitati (# 4), May 24, 1829: “Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the Lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.” Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum divinitus (# 11), May 17, 1835: “… whoever dares to depart from the unity of Peter might understand that he no longer shares in the divine mystery…‘Whoever eats the Lamb outside of this house is unholy.’” Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “…whoever eats of the Lamb and is not a member of the Church, has profaned.”
        John Paul II has repeated and expanded upon this heresy of Vatican II countless times. He teaches it clearly in his new code of canon law (Canon 844.3-4), in his Directory for the Application of the Principles and Norms of Ecumenism (#’s 122-125) and in his new catechism (#1401). He also makes many references to this heresy in many of his speeches.
        John Paul II, General Audience, Aug. 9, 1995: “Concerning aspects of Intercommunion, the recent Ecumenical Directory confirms and states precisely all that the Council said: that is, a certain intercommunion is possible, since the Eastern Churches possess true sacraments, especially the priesthood and the Eucharist.
        “On this sensitive point, specific instructions have been issued, stating that, whenever it is impossible for a Catholic to have recourse to a Catholic priest, he may receive the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick from the minister of an Eastern Church (Directory, n. 123). Reciprocally, Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick to Eastern Christians who ask for them.”(35)
        John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 48), May 25, 1995: “Pastoral experience shows that with respect to our Eastern brethren there should be and can be taken into consideration various circumstances affecting individuals, wherein the unity of the Church is not jeopardized nor are intolerable risks involved, but in which salvation itself and the spiritual profit of souls are urgently at issue. Hence, in view of special circumstances of time, place and personage, the Catholic Church has often adopted and now adopts a milder policy, offering to all the means of salvation and an example of charity among Christians through participation in the sacraments and in other sacred functions and objects… There must never be a loss of appreciation for the ecclesiological implication of sharing in the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.”
        Three things are striking in this paragraph: 1) John Paul II calls for sharing in the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist; 2) he attempts to justify this by invoking “the spiritual profit of souls,” which means that he is directly denying the definition of Eugene IV on how reception of the sacraments outside the Church does not profit one unto salvation; 3) John Paul II reminds us never to forget the “ecclesiological implication” of sharing in the sacraments – which implication is that these heretics and schismatics with whom they are sharing the sacraments are also in the same Church of Christ! Does the reader see what this heresy means? It means that the Vatican II Church, now headed by John Paul II, considers itself in the same Church of Christ with those to whom it gives Holy Communion – the Protestants and the Schismatics!
        Besides its horrible teaching on giving the sacraments to non-Catholics, in its decree Orientalium ecclesiarum, Vatican II spreads more of the heresy of indifferentism – the idea that God approves of all heretical sects.
Orientalium Ecclesiarum # 30: “They should also pray that the fullness of the strength and solace of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, may flow out upon those many Christians of any Church whatsoever who, fearlessly confessing Christ, are undergoing suffering and distress.”(37)
    Contrary to the heresy of Vatican II, the Holy Spirit does not flow out upon members of any sect whatsoever.
        Pope Leo XII, Ubi Primum (# 14), May 5, 1824: “It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal salvation on their members… by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism… This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.”
Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431: “…remember that the followers of every heresy extract from inspired scripture the occasion of their error, and that all heretics corrupt the true expressions of the holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their heads an inextinguishable flame.”
        Other Popes could be quoted to condemn Vatican II’s indifferentism, but Pope Leo XII and Pope St. Celestine should suffice. Finally, operating on the principle that all heretical sects are as good as the Catholic Church – and that the Holy Ghost approves of all heretical sects – Orientalium ecclesiarum calls for Catholics to share their churches with heretics and schismatics.
Orientalium Ecclesiarum #28: “With the same principles in mind, sharing in sacred functions and things and places is allowed among Catholics and their separated eastern brothers and sisters...”
3. Lumen Gentium – Constitution on the Church
        Vatican II’s constitution on the Church, became famous (or rather, notorious) for its heretical teaching of collegiality. This is the idea that the bishops, taken as a whole, also are the supreme head of the Catholic Church.
        Lumen Gentium # 22: “However, the order of Bishops, which succeeds the college of apostles in teaching authority and pastoral government, and indeed in which the apostolic body continues to exist without interruption, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided it remains united with its head …”
        We see that Lumen Gentium explicitly teaches that the College of Bishops possesses supreme and full power over the universal Church. If this were true it would mean that Christ did not institute single head in the Catholic Church in the person of St. Peter, but two supreme heads – the college of bishops and Peter – which would make the Church a monster with two heads.
        Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302: “… Of the one and only Church there is one body, one head, not two heads as a monster…”
    The Pope alone possesses the supreme authority in the Church. The Bishops do not.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 14), June 29, 1896: “For He who made Peter the foundation of the Church also ‘chose, twelve, whom He called apostles’ (Luke 6:13); and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 15): “But the power of the Roman Pontiff is supreme, universal, and definitely peculiar to itself; but that of the bishops is circumscribed by definite limits, and definitely peculiar to themselves.” Besides the heresy of collegiality, there are others in Lumen Gentium that cannot be overlooked. The most striking is found in Lumen Gentium 16. Lumen Gentium # 16: “But the plan of salvation also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator, and among these the MUSLIMS are first; they profess to hold the faith of Abraham AND ALONG WITH US THEY WORSHIP THE ONE MERCIFUL GOD WHO WILL JUDGE MANKIND ON THE LAST DAY.”
        This is an amazing blasphemy! Catholics are worshippers of Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity; the Muslims are not! A child can understand that we don’t have the same God. Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 6), May 27, 1832: “Therefore, they must instruct them in the true worship of God, which is unique to the Catholic religion.” Pope St. Gregory the Great: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her...”
        It is a clearly a denial of the Most Blessed Trinity to say that Muslims worship the true God without worshipping the Trinity. Secondly, and even worse when considered carefully, is the astounding statement that Muslims worship the One Merciful Who will judge mankind on the last day! This is an incredible heresy. As stated already, Muslims don’t worship Jesus Christ – mankind’s supreme Judge on the last day. Therefore, they do not worship God who will judge mankind on the last day! This is quite simple. To say that Muslims do worship God who will judge mankind on the last day, as Vatican II does in Lumen Gentium 16, is to totally deny that Jesus Christ will judge mankind on the last day.
Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome, Can. 15: “If anyone does not say that HE (JESUS CHRIST)…WILL COME TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD, HE IS A HERETIC.”(46) In addition to what is stated above, in Lumen Gentium 16 we find another prominent heresy.
Lumen Gentium # 16: “Nor does divine providence deny the helps that are necessary for salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, have not yet attained to the express recognition of God yet who strive, not without divine grace, to lead an upright life.”(47)
    Vatican II is teaching here in Lumen Gentium that there are some people who, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, have not yet attained to the express recognition of God. In other words, there are some atheists who are atheists through no fault of their own. This is pure heresy.
    It is infallibly taught in Sacred Scripture that everyone above the age of reason can know with certainty that there is a God. They know this by the things that are made: the trees, the grass, the sun, the moon, the stars, etc. Therefore, anyone who is an atheist – who believes that there is no God – is without excuse. The natural law convicts him. Read the teaching of Sacred Scripture. Romans 1:19-21: “Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God has manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and divinity: SO THAT THEY ARE INEXCUSABLE.”
        St. Paul teaches that atheists are inexcusable, because of the things that God has made. Vatican II, on the contrary, teaches that atheists can be excused. This causes us to ask, “What bible was Vatican II using?” It must have been the revised Satanic edition. Their statement about atheists is not only condemned by St. Paul, but it is also explicitly condemned by Vatican Council I, which dogmatically defined the principle set forth in Romans Chapter 1.
        Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, On Revelation, Can. 1: “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.” Vatican II, in the above passage in Lumen Gentium 16, falls directly under this anathema. Moving right along, in Lumen Gentium 15, Vatican II also teaches that the Church is united with those who don’t accept the Papacy.
        Lumen Gentium #15: “For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so honored with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.”
    It is a dogma that those who reject the Papacy are not joined to the Catholic Church.
Pope Pius IX, Amantissimus (# 3), April 8, 1862: “There are other, almost countless, proofs drawn from the most trustworthy witnesses which clearly and openly testify with great faith, exactitude, respect and obedience that all who want to belong to the true and only Church of Christ must honor and obey this Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff.”
        Pope Pius VI, Charitas (# 32), April 13, 1791: “Finally, in one word, stay close to Us. For no one can be in the Church of Christ without being in unity with its visible head and founded on the See of Peter.” Pope Leo XIII, in Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.” Vatican II also teaches that heretics honor Holy Scripture with a true religious zeal. The Catholic Church teaches that heretics repudiate the traditional Word of God.
Pope Gregory XVI, Inter Praecipuas (# 2), May 8, 1844: “Indeed, you are aware that from the first ages called Christian, it has been the peculiar artifice of heretics that, repudiating the traditional Word of God, and rejecting the authority of the Catholic Church, they either falsify the Scriptures at hand, or alter the explanation of the meaning.”
4. Dignitatis Humanae – Declaration on Religious liberty Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty was without question the most notorious of all the documents of Vatican II. This is because its teaching on religious liberty was so heretical, so contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium, that even the most liberal heretics had trouble rationalizing it.
Dignitatis humanae # 2: “This Vatican synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Such freedom consists in this, that all should have such immunity from coercion by individuals, or by groups, or by any human power, that no one should be forced to act against his conscience in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits.”
        It is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states have a right, and indeed a duty, to prevent false religions from publicly propagating and practicing their false faiths. States must do this to protect the common good – the good of souls, which is harmed by the public dissemination of evil. This is why the Catholic Church has always taught that Catholicism should be the only religion of the state; and that the State should exclude and forbid the public profession and propagation of any other.
        Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, #77: “In this age of ours it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever.” – Condemned. Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, #78: “Hence in certain regions of Catholic name, it has been laudably sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own.” – Condemned. Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, #55: “The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” – Condemned.
    Thus, it is abundantly clear that the teaching of Vatican II is direct heresy against the infallible teaching of Pope Pius IX and a host of other Popes we could quote. The teaching of Vatican II on religious liberty could literally have been added to the errors of the Syllabus condemned by Pope Pius IX.
Dignitatis humanae # 3: “So the state, whose proper purpose it is to provide for the temporal common good, should certainly recognize and promote the religious life of its citizens. With equal certainty it exceeds the limits of its authority, if it takes upon itself to direct or to prevent religious activity.”(59)
Here Vatican II says that the State exceeds its authority if it dares to direct or prevent religious activity. In other words, the state exceeds its authority if it is not godless. This is why, after Vatican II, a number of formerly Catholic nations changed their Catholic Constitutions in favor of secular ones! They went from Catholic
nations to godless nations all because of Vatican II. But justice, reason and Catholic dogma forbid the State to be godless.
Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 21), June 20, 1888: “Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness – namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in the Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it.”
    Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, Feb. 11, 1906: “We, in accord with the supreme authority which We hold from God, disprove and condemn the established law which separates the French state from the Church, for those reasons which We have set forth: because it inflicts the greatest injury upon God whom it solemnly rejects, declaring in the beginning that the state is devoid of any religious worship…”
    Pope Gregory XVI, Inter Praecipuas (#14), May 8, 1844: “Experience shows that there is no more direct way of alienating the populace from fidelity and obedience to their leaders than through that indifference to religion propagated by the sect members under the name of religious liberty.”
In line with its heretical teaching on religious liberty, Vatican II naturally teaches the heresy that all religions have liberty of speech and liberty of the press.
Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”        The idea that everyone has the right to liberty of speech and the press has been condemned by countless Popes. We will only quote Gregory XVI and Leo XIII.
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 15), Aug. 15, 1832: “Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice.”
Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888: “From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.”
        Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (# 34), Nov. 1, 1885: “Thus, Gregory XVI in his encyclical letter Mirari Vos, dated August 15, 1832, inveighed with weighty words against the sophisms which even at his time were being publicly inculcated – namely, that no preference should be shown for any particular form of worship; that it is right for individuals to form their own personal judgments about religion; that each man’s conscience is his sole and all-sufficing guide; and that it is lawful for every man to publish his own views, whatever they may be, and even to conspire against the state.”
5. Ad Gentes – Decree on Missionary Activity
        Not surprisingly, we also find heresy in Vatican II’s decree on missionary activity.
Ad Gentes # 6: “For although the Church possesses totally and fully the means of salvation, it neither always nor at once puts or can put them all into operation, but is subject to beginnings and stages in the activity by which it strives to bring God’s plan into effect. Indeed, at times, after a successful start and advance, it has to grieve at another reverse, or at least it halts in a certain state of semi-fulfillment and insufficiency.”
    One will search in vain for a clearer denial of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation; for here Vatican II asserts that the Catholic Church is insufficient as a means of salvation. This is a blasphemy against the Church Christ has established, as if what Our Savior founded upon Peter the Rock so that all nations might receive the Gospel truth just wasn’t sufficient for the grave needs of the world. According to Vatican II, the Church Christ established is not sufficient in itself for providing for the salvation of mankind.
        Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience to the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
    As we can see, the assertion of Ad Gentes that the Church is insufficient as a means of salvation is heretical and blasphemous. But besides this heresy, Ad Gentes proclaims that non-Christian religions are great.
        Ad Gentes #10: “For two billion people – and their number is increasing by day – have not heard the gospel message or have scarcely heard it… Of these people, some adhere to one of the great religions...” So non-Christian religions are great, according to Vatican II. This is not what Sacred Scriptures teaches. 2 Cor. 4:3: “And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world (that is, Satan) has blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine on them.”
       The Gospel is hidden from those that are lost, not those whose religion is great. Non-Christians are in darkness and are under the power of the devil.
1 Cor. 10:19-20: “What then? Do I say, that what is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything? Or that the idol is anything? But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.” Colossians 1:13: “Giving thanks to God the Father… Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” John 3:35-36: “The Father loves the Son: and he has given all things into His hand. He that believes in the Son, has life everlasting; but he that believes not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him.” John 8:23-24: “And Jesus said to them: You are from beneath, I am from above. You are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am He, you shall die in your sin.”
        Non-Christian religions are not great; they are false. They do not have the light, but they suffer in darkness. Vatican II is preaching a new gospel in which non-Catholic religions are no longer false, but great – no longer dark, but light.
        Ad Gentes # 29:“Together with the Secretariate for the promotion of Christian unity, it should search out ways and means for bringing about and organizing cooperation and harmonious relationships with other communities of Christians in their missionary projects, so that as far as possible the scandal of division may be removed.”
        Ad Gentes 29 teaches that Catholics should work with Protestant sects in their missionary projects. This means that Vatican II considers a conversion to Protestantism a true conversion. This again is heresy, since, as we have proven, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. A conversion to Protestantism is not a true conversion.
        Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 8, Dec. 19, 1513: “And since truth cannot contradict truth, we define that every statement contrary to the enlightened truth of the faith is totally false and we strictly forbid teaching otherwise to be permitted. We decree that all those who cling to erroneous statements of this kind, thus sowing heresies which are wholly condemned, should be avoided in every way and punished as detestable and odious heretics and infidels who are undermining the Catholic faith.”
        6. Nostra Aetate – Decree on Non-Christian Religions
        Nostra aetate # 3: “The Church also looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and mighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God… Hence they have regard for the moral life and worship God in prayer, almsgiving and fasting.”(73)
Here we find Vatican II teaching that Muslims worship the one God, the Creator of Heaven and earth. This is similar to, but slightly different from, the heresy that we have already exposed in Lumen Gentium. Here Vatican II does not say that Muslims worship God Who will judge mankind on the last day, but that Muslims worship the One God Who created heaven and earth. The false god of the Muslims did not create heaven and earth. The Most Holy Trinity created heaven and earth.
        Pope St. Leo IX, Congratulamur vehementer, April 13, 1053: “For I firmly believe that the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is one omnipotent God, and in the Trinity the whole Godhead is co-essential and consubstantial, co-eternal and co-omnipotent, and of one will, power, majesty; the creator of all creation, from whom all things, through whom all things, in whom all things which are in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible. Likewise I believe that each person in the Holy Trinity is the one true God, complete and perfect.”
        Nostra aetate 3 also says that the Catholic Church looks upon Muslims with respect, who seek to submit themselves to God wholeheartedly, just as Abraham did. But Vatican II’s admiration for the infidel Muslims is not shared by the Catholic Church. The Church desires the conversion and eternal happiness of all the Muslims, but she recognizes that Islam is a horrible and false religion; and she does not pretend that they submit themselves to God. She knows that they belong to a false religion.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Basel, Session 19, Sept. 7, 1434: “Moreover, we trust that with God’s help another benefit will accrue to the Christian commonwealth; because from this union, once it is established, there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic faith.”
        Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy name and a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful. These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine majesty. We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands. We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all.. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet…Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”)
        Pope Benedict strictly forbade Catholics to even give Muslim names to their children under pain of damnation. Pope Benedict XIV, Quod Provinciale, Aug. 1, 1754: “The Provincial Council of your province of Albania… decreed most solemnly in its third canon, among other matters, as you know, that Turkish or Mohammedan names should not be given either to children or adults in baptism… This should not be hard for any one of you, venerable brothers, for none of the schismatics and heretics has been rash enough to take a Mohammedan name, and unless your justice abounds more than theirs, you shall not enter the kingdom of God.”
        Vatican II’s document Nostra Aetate likewise expresses its great esteem for Jews who reject Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Nostra Aetate # 4: “Since, therefore, the spiritual heritage common to Christians and Jews is so great, this synod wishes to promote and recommend that mutual knowledge and esteem which is required especially from biblical and theological studies and from friendly dialogues.”
        Nostra aetate # 4: “As holy scripture is witness, Jerusalem did not know the time of its visitation, and for the most part the Jews did not accept the Gospel, indeed many of them opposed its dissemination. Nevertheless, according to the apostle, because of their ancestors the Jews still remain very dear to God, whose gift and call are without regret.”
The Catholic Church does not look upon the Jews with esteem, but with sadness, acknowledging that they exist in a state of rejection of the true God; and that they need to be recalled from their false religion in order to be saved.
        Pope Benedict XIV, A Quo Primum (# 4), June 14, 1751: “Surely it is not in vain that the Church has established the universal prayer which is offered up for the faithless Jews from the rising of the sun to its setting, that the Lord God may remove the veil from their hearts, that they may be rescued from their darkness into the light of truth. For unless it hoped that those who do not believe would believe, it would obviously be futile and empty to pray for them.”
        Pope Benedict XIV is referring to the prayer in the Catholic liturgy which implored God to convert the perfidious Jews. The word perfidious means unfaithful. Not surprisingly, in 1960, the phrase “perfidious Jews” was removed from the Good Friday liturgy by John XXIII. Furthermore, Pope Eugene IV dogmatically defined that everyone who practices the Mosaic law – that is, the Jewish religion – cannot be saved.
        Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, Feb. 4, 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic Law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time (the promulgation of the Gospel) observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors.”
Besides Jews and Muslims, Nostra Aetate made sure to remind the world how great Buddhism is and how this false religion leads to the highest illumination.
        Nostra Aetate #2: “In Buddhism, according to its various forms, the radical inadequacy of this changeable world is acknowledged and a way is taught whereby those with a devout and trustful spirit may be able to reach either a state of perfect freedom or, relying on their own efforts or on help from a higher source, the highest illumination.”
        And the false religion of Hinduism is praised for its inexhaustible wealth of penetrating philosophical investigations, as well as its ascetical life and deep meditation.
Nostra Aetate #2:“Thus in Hinduism the divine mystery is explored and propounded with an inexhaustible wealth of myths and penetrating philosophical investigations, and liberation is sought from the distresses of our state either through various forms of ascetical life or deep meditation or taking refuge in God with loving confidence.”
        Amid all of this blasphemy, no mention is made that these infidels must be converted to Christ; no prayer is offered that the faith may be granted to them; and no admonition that these idolaters must be delivered from their impiety. What we see is praise and esteem for these religions of the devil. What we see is an unequivocal syncretism, which treats all religions as if they are paths to God.
        Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 2), Jan. 6, 1928: “… that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, …Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”
Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus (# 15), Nov. 9, 1846: “Also perverse is that shocking theory that it makes no difference to which religion one belongs, a theory greatly at variance even with reason. By means of this theory, those crafty men remove all distinction between virtue and vice, truth and error, honorable and vile action. They pretend that men can gain eternal salvation by the practice of any religion, as if there could ever be any sharing between justice and iniquity, any collaboration between light and darkness, or any agreement between Christ and Belial.”
        Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in the eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives…”
Pope Gregory XVI, Summo Iugiter Studio (# 2), May 27, 1832:“Finally some of these misguided people attempt to persuade themselves and others that men are not saved only in the Catholic religion, but that even heretics may attain eternal life.”
        7. Sacrosanctum Concilium – Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy
        Sacrosanctum Concilium was Vatican II’s constitution on the sacred liturgy. It was responsible for the incredible changes to the Mass and the other sacraments following Vatican II. What Sacrosanctum Concilium started, Paul VI finished by suppressing the traditional Latin Mass and replacing it with an invalid Protestant service that is referred to as the Novus Ordo Missae (the New Order of the Mass). The “New Mass” alone has been responsible for the departure of millions from the Catholic Church. Paul VI also changed the rites of all seven sacraments of the Church, making grave and possibly invalidating changes to the sacraments of Extreme Unction, Confirmation and Holy Orders, besides the changes to the Mass as stated above. But it all began with Vatican II’s Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium.
        The revolutionary intentions of Vatican II are clear in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
Sacrosanctum Concilium #63b: “There is to be a new edition of the Roman book of rites, and, following this as a model, each competent local church authority (see article 22.2) should prepare its own, adapted to the needs of individual areas, including those to do with language, as soon as possible.”
Sacrosanctum Concilium #66: “Both rites of adult baptism are to be revised, the simpler one and the more elaborate one, the latter with reference to the renewed catechumenate.”
Sacrosanctum Concilium #72: “The rites and formulas of penance are also to be revised in such a way that they express more clearly what the sacrament is and what it brings about.”
Sacrosanctum Concilium #76: “The rites for different kinds of ordination are to be revised – both the ceremonies and the texts.”
Sacrosanctum Concilium #77: “The rite of celebrating marriage in the Roman book of rites is to be revised, and made richer, in such a way that it will express the grace of the sacrament more clearly....”
Sacrosanctum Concilium #82: “The rite of burying little children  should be revised, and a special mass provided.”Sacrosanctum Concilium #89d: “The hour of prime is to be suppressed.” Sacrosanctum Concilium #93: “… the hymns are to be restored to their original form. Things which smack of mythology or which are less suited to Christian holiness are to be removed or changed.”
        Yes, the devil could not wait to destroy the precious liturgical heritage of the Catholic Church by means of the heretics at Vatican II. His goal was to leave as little of tradition remaining as he could. In Sacrosantum Concilium #37 and #40.1, the Council falls into heresy against the teaching of Pope Pius X in Pascendi on Modernist Worship.
        Sacrosanctum concilium #37: “…(the Church) cultivates and encourages the gifts and endowments of mind and heart possessed by various races in peoples…Indeed, it sometimes allows them into the liturgy itself, provided they are consistent with the thinking behind the true spirit of the liturgy.”
    Please notice that Vatican II is allowing the customs of various peoples into liturgical worship.
Sacrosanctum concilium # 40.1: “The competent local Church authority should carefully and conscientiously consider, in this regard, which elements from the traditions and particular talents of individual peoples can be brought into divine worship. Adaptations which are adjudged useful or necessary should be proposed to the apostolic see, and introduced with its consent.” Notice again that Vatican II is calling for the customs and traditions of various peoples to be incorporated into the liturgy. This is exactly what Pope Pius X solemnly condemned in Pascendi as Modernist worship!
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (# 26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the Worship of Modernists: “THE CHIEF STIMULUS IN THE DOMAIN OF WORSHIP CONSISTS IN THE NEED OF ADAPTING ITSELF TO THE USES AND CUSTOMS OF PEOPLES, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage.”
        This heresy of Vatican II on this point could not be any more clear. It had already been condemned word for word by Pius X in 1907! But Vatican II’s heretical liturgical revolution wasn’t finished there. In Sacrosantum Concilium #34 and #50, Vatican II felt the need to again contradict word for word a dogmatic constitution of the Church. In #34 and #50, Vatican II directly contradicted the teaching of the dogmatic constitution Auctorem Fidei of Pope Pius VI regarding the simplification of liturgical rites.
        Sacrosanctum concilium # 34: “The rites should radiate a rich simplicity; they should be brief and lucid, avoiding pointless repetitions; they should be intelligible for the people, and should not in general require much explanation.”
        Sacrosanctum concilium #50: “Therefore the rites, in a way that carefully preserves what really matters, should become simpler. Duplications which have come in over the course of time should be discontinued, as should the less useful accretions.” Pope Pius VI explicitly condemned the idea that the traditional liturgical rites of the Church should be simplified in his dogmatic Constitution Auctorem Fidei!
        Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, Aug. 28. 1794, # 33:“The proposition of the synod by which it shows itself eager to remove the cause through which, in part, there has been induced a forgetfulness of the principles relating to the order of the liturgy, ‘by recalling it (the liturgy) to a greater simplicity of rites, by expressing it in the vernacular language, by uttering it in a loud voice…’” – Condemned as rash, offensive to pious ears, insulting to the Church, favorable to the charges of heretics against it.
        Besides everything stated above, Sacrosanctum concilium called for changing the rite of every sacrament, in addition to calling for “bodily self expression” in the liturgy (# 30): “In order to encourage their taking an active share, acclamations for the people, together with responses, psalmody, antiphons and hymns, should be developed, as well as actions, movements and bodily self-expression.” Sacrosanctum concilium # 40: “However, in some places or in some situations, there may arise a pressing need for a more radical adaptation of the liturgy.”
        These clauses may form part of the reason why the modern churches of the Vatican II sect frequently conduct “Masses” at which one finds polka bands, electric guitars, balloons, drums, native American ceremonies, topless dancers and rock music. One might also find the “priests” celebrating such “Masses” dressed in anything from football jerseys to clown costumes. Yes, the “spirit of Vatican II” has truly touched the modern day churches of the Vatican II sect. Fortunately, Pope Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons and Pope Clement V at the Council of Vienne authoritatively condemned all such abominations!
        Pope Gregory X, Second Council of Lyons, 1274, Constitution 25: “Churches, then, should be entered humbly and devoutly; behavior inside should be calm, pleasing to God, bringing peace to the beholders, a source not only of instruction but of mental refreshment… In churches the sacred solemnities should possess the whole heart and mind; the whole attention should be given to prayer. Hence where it is proper to offer heavenly desires with peace and calm, let nobody arouse rebellion, provoke clamor or be guilty of violence… Idle and, even more, foul and profane talk must stop; chatter in all its forms must cease. Everything, in short, that may disturb divine worship or offend the eyes of the divine majesty should be absolutely foreign to the churches, lest where pardon should be asked for our sins, occasion is given for sin, or sin is found to be committed… Those indeed who impudently defy the above prohibitions… will have to fear the sternness of divine retribution and our own, until having confessed their guilt, they have firmly resolved to avoid such conduct in the future.”
        Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree # 22, 1311-1312: “There are some, both clergy and laity, especially on the vigil of certain feasts when they ought to be in church persevering in prayer, who are not afraid to hold licentious dances in the cemeteries of the churches and occasionally to sing ballads and perpetrate many excesses. From this sometimes there follows the violation of churches and cemeteries, disgraceful conduct and various crimes; and the liturgical office is greatly disturbed, to the offense of the divine majesty and the scandal of the people nearby.”
        Finally, not wishing to leave anything untouched, Sacrosanctum concilium made sure to call for pagan musical traditions in acts of Catholic worship (#119): “In some parts of the world, especially in mission areas, peoples are found who have a musical tradition of their own, a tradition which has great importance for their religious and cultural way of life… For this reason, special care should be taken in the musical training of missionaries, so that, as far as possible, they will be able to encourage the traditional music of these peoples in schools, in choirs, and in acts of worship.” Thankfully, the Council of Trent had already condemned any diabolical insertion of pagan musical tradition into the churches.
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Session 22, Decree on this to be observed and avoided at Mass:” And they should keep out of their churches the kind of music in which a base and suggestive element is introduced into the organ playing or singing, and similarly all worldly activities, empty and secular conversations, walking about, noises and cries, so that the house of God may truly be called and be seen to be a house of prayer.”
        Is there any doubt that Vatican II tried to bring about a new apostate liturgy for its new apostate Church? Vatican II brings down the anathema of the Church on its head!
        Pope St. Pius V, Quo Primum Tempore, July 14, 1570: “Now, therefore, in order that all everywhere may adopt and observe what has been delivered to them by the Holy Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of the other churches, it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than this Missal published by Us…Accordingly, no one whosoever is permitted to infringe or rashly contravene this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, direction, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should any venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
        Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 13, ex cathedra: “If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or may be changed by any pastor of the churches to other new ones: let him be anathema.”
        8. Gaudium et Spes – Constitution on The Church and the Modern World Gaudium et Spes # 22:“For by His incarnation the Son of God united Himself in some way with every human being. He labored with human hands, thought with a human mind, acted with a human will, and loved with a human heart.”
        One of the trademark heresies of the Vatican II sect is the idea that by His incarnation, Christ united himself with each man. Vatican II speaks of a union between Christ and each man that results from the incarnation itself. John Paul has taken the baton of this heresy and run with it full speed ahead to its logical consequence – universal salvation.
        John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (#13), March 4, 1979: “Christ the Lord indicated this way especially, when, as the Council teaches, ‘by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man.’ (Gaudium et Spes, 22.)”
        John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis (# 13), March 4, 1979: “We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery.”
        Notice that John Paul II teaches that Christ is united with each man forever. This means that no one can ever be separated from God in hell. And he bases this heresy on the teaching of Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes #22, that Christ has united himself with each man in the Incarnation. But the idea that God united himself to every man in the Incarnation is undeniably heretical. There is no union between Jesus Christ and each man that results from the incarnation itself. The whole point of the Catholic Church is to unite mankind to Jesus Christ. This is done through faith and baptism. But if the union between all of mankind and Jesus Christ occurred at the Incarnation, then the Church has no value and is in fact pointless. The same would have to be said of the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the seven sacraments, etc., which are all of no importance in uniting mankind to Jesus Christ according to Vatican II and John Paul II. In this system, the Crucifixion of Christ by which the world was truly redeemed and given a chance to be saved becomes instead merely a sign of the union between Christ and each man that already exists and has existed since the Incarnation. The Redemption, then, has no saving value. One can see that in this system all of Catholic doctrine is simultaneously done away with.
      In fact, this doctrine of Vatican II, which has been repeated and expanded upon countless times by John Paul II, is actually infinitely worse than the heretical doctrine of Martin Luther. Luther, heretic that he was, at least believed that to be united with Christ one had to possess faith in the Cross of Jesus Christ. But according to the doctrine of Vatican II and John Paul II, faith in the Cross of Jesus Christ is of no value, as all of humanity has already been united to Christ “forever” (John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis, 13). We hope that the reader can see the incredible malice that lies behind the statement of Vatican II’s Constitution Gaudium et Spes #22.
        Now we will quote the Catholic dogmas surrounding the truth that union between sinful mankind and Christ only comes from faith and baptism; for original sin is not remitted in any other way.
        Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, “Cantate Domino”: “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God …”
        Pope Pius XI Quas Primas (# 15), Dec. 11, 1925: “Indeed this kingdom is presented in the Gospels as such, into which men prepare to enter by doing penance; moreover, they cannot enter it except through faith and baptism, which, although an external rite, yet signifies and effects an interior regeneration.” Union with Christ is also lost by separation from the Church, something Vatican II doesn’t bother to mention.
        Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 5), June 29, 1896:“Whoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ.”
       Besides the heresy in Gaudium et Spes #22, there are a number of others in Gaudium et Spes that are worthy of note. For example, in #58 Vatican II makes the ridiculous assertion that the Church is not attached to any ancient customs.
Gaudium et spes # 58: “At the same time the Church, which has been sent to all peoples of whatever age or region, is not connected exclusively and inseparably to any race or nation, to any particular pattern of human behavior, or to any ancient or recent customs.”
     Tradition is one of the two sources of revelation, Sacred Scripture being the other. Therefore, the Church is attached to ancient customs; for Tradition is one of the two sources of revelation! The Church is founded on the traditions of the apostles, in which is included, among other things, the traditional liturgical rites which the Church has “always been accustomed to use.”
      Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442: “But since in the above written decree of the Armenians, the form of the words, which in the consecration of the Body and Blood of the Lord the holy Roman Church, confirmed by the teaching and authority of the Apostles, had always been accustomed to use, was not set forth, we have thought that it ought to be inserted here.”
      Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 13:“If anyone shall say that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church accustomed to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments may be disdained or omitted by the minister without sin and at pleasure, or can be changed into other new rites by any pastor in the Church whomsoever: let him be anathema.”
Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787:“Those, therefore, who dare to think or to teach otherwise or to spurn according to the wretched heretics the ecclesiastical traditions and to invent anything novel, or to reject anything from these things which have been consecrated by the Church… or to invent perversely and cunningly for the overthrow of anyone of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church… if indeed they are bishops or clerics, we order them to be deposed; monks, however, or laymen, to be excommunicated.” Gaudium et Spes also expresses the heretical doctrine that dogma and all matters pertaining to the Church are in a state of evolution.
Gaudium et Spes # 91: “In view of the enormous diversities of conditions and human cultures in the world, what is proposed here is in many sections deliberately general in tone; in fact, although it expresses the received doctrine of the Church, yet, dealing as it often does with matters in a constant state of evolution, it must be pursued and expounded further.”
    This is one of the most important statements in Vatican II. It identifies what is really going on in this heretical council. It tells us that “although” the Church expresses the received doctrine of the Church – clearly implying that there is something more than just the received doctrine of the Church going on here – it also deals with matters in a state of evolution. In other words, the Church expresses a combination of the received doctrine and evolved doctrine. This is what is known as the “evolution of dogma,” which was solemnly condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi. Those who believe in this heresy of the “evolution of dogma” do not possess the true faith and must be converted if they desire to be saved.
Pope Pius X, Pascendi Dominic Gregis (#26), Sept. 8, 1907, On the doctrine of the Modernists: ”To the laws of evolution everything is subject – dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself, and the penalty of disobedience is death. The enunciation of this principle will not astonish anybody who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects.” Besides this, Gaudium et Spes teaches that birth control is virtuous.
        Gaudium et spes #51: “The council is aware that in living their married life harmoniously, couples can often be restricted by modern living conditions and find themselves in circumstances in which the number of children cannot be increased, at least for a time, and the constant expression of love and the full sharing of life
are maintained only with difficulty.”
        Gaudium et Spes #52: “Those who are learned in the sciences, especially in the biological, medical, social and psychological fields, can be of considerable service to the good of marriage and the family, and to the peace of conscience, if they collaborate in trying to throw more light on the various conditions which favor the virtuous control of procreation.”
        Gaudium et Spes # 87: “For, according to the inalienable human right to marriage and parenthood, the decision about the number of children to have lies with the right judgment of the parents, and cannot in any way be entrusted to the judgment of public authority… In exploring methods to help couples regulate the number of their children, appropriate information should be given on scientific advances that are well proven and are found to be in accordance with the moral order.”
Here we have Vatican II teaching that birth control can be virtuous and that couples can choose the number of children that are to be born. This is contrary to the natural law. God is the author of life. No human being is permitted to infringe upon God’s will to bring new life into the world by controlling birth or limiting his family. Birth control is never allowed, regardless of whether it is performed by so-called “natural” or artificial methods.
        Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#55): “As St. Augustine notes, ‘Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.”
        Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 56): “… the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
        Family Planning must be supernatural – it must be controlled by God, not man. For man to assert that he will choose the number of children he wants to have, is the utmost arrogance and a grave insult to the Creator. Man should not be worried about whether or not God will send him a child. God will send one if it is in His will. And He will not send more than anyone can handle. “Seek first the kingdom of God and His justice and all things will be added unto you.” (Mt. 6:33)
        To prevent a conception by design (as Pius XI says) – no matter how it is deliberately prevented – is a sin, a lack of faith, and a circumvention of God’s will. It is not a virtue, despite what Vatican II says. In fact, in Humanae Vitae, Paul VI himself admitted that so-called natural family planning is birth control. Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (# 16), July 25, 1968: “… the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.”
        To control birth, by deliberately restricting the marriage act exclusively to the infertile periods – as in Natural Family Planning – is nothing other than to frustrate the primary purpose of the marriage act, conception.
        Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
        We can see that Pius XI condemns the frustration not only of the power, but also of the primary purpose of the marriage act. This is an important point; for Natural Family Planning designedly frustrates the primary purpose of the marriage act – as even Paul VI admits – and is therefore intrinsically vicious (Pius XI).
        Moving on, we must cover Vatican II’s adoration of man.
Gaudium et Spes # 26: “There is also increasing awareness of the exceptional dignity which belongs to the human person, who is superior to everything and whose rights and duties are universal and inviolable.”
        Gaudium et Spes #12: “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.”
This is blasphemy. There is no other word to describe it. If all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown, this means that everything should be measured by man’s law, not God’s. This means that man is actually God, for all intents and purposes – everything is to be related to him. Man has been put in the place of God.
Gaudium et Spes # 24:“This is why the first and greatest commandment is love of God and of neighbor.” Hold on a second. The first and greatest commandment is not love of God and of neighbor. The first and greatest commandment is love of God. Mark 12:28-31:“And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one God. And you shall love the Lord your God, with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with your whole mind, and with your whole strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like to it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
        The first commandment, as it is summarized by Our Lord, is love of God. The second is love of neighbor as yourself. Vatican II says that the first and greatest commandment is love of God and neighbor, which is contrary to a truth revealed in sacred scripture and it is a direct change of the commandments as Our Lord summarized them; for if the love of God and of neighbor is the greatest commandment, this means that love of God and neighbor is one and the same, which is to say man and God are one and the same.
        There are many other heresies in the documents of Vatican II. However, what is exposed above should be enough to convince anyone of good will that no Catholic can accept this heretical Council without denying the faith. And it is not sufficient merely to resist the heresies of Vatican II; one must entirely condemn this non-Catholic council and all who would obstinately adhere to its teachings. For if a person rejects the heresies of Vatican II, yet still considers himself in communion with those who accept the heresies of Vatican II, then such a person is still actually in communion with heretics and is therefore a non-Catholic.
Most Holy Family Monastery, 4425 Schneider Rd., Fillmore, NY
14735, (800)275-1126 or (585)567-4433.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com.

What is “the spirit of Assisi"?

        The term “the spirit of Assisi” is a serious distortion of both the good name and the intentions of Saint Francis. As will be explained below, Saint Francis would never have succumbed to the ecumenism thrown in our faces by the modern Roman Catholic Church. He would have resisted to his death. His companions would have taken his good example and given their lives for the sake of Christ Whom they were preaching. They would never have let the teaching of a false “ecumenical council” lead them astray in such a deceitful manner. I will explain further by quoting a venerable old book entitled "The Little Flowers of Saint Francis.” I quote Chapel XXIV called “How Saint Francis converted to the faith the Sultan of BABYLON” as follows:

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR
HOW ST. FRANCIS CONVERTED TO THE FAITH THE SULTAN OF BABYLON

        St Francis, urged by zeal for the faith of Christ and by a wish to suffer martyrdom, took with him one day twelve of his most holy brethren, and went beyond the sea with the intention of going straight to the Sultan of Babylon. They arrived in a province belonging to the Saracens, where all the passes were guarded by men so cruel, that no Christian who passed that way could escape being put to death. Now it pleased God that St Francis and his companions should not meet with the same fate; but they were taken prisoners, and after being bound and ill-treated, were led before the Sultan. Then St Francis standing before him, inspired by the Holy Spirit, preached most divinely the faith of Christ; and to prove the truth of what he said, professed himself ready to enter into the fire. Now the Sultan began to feel a great devotion towards him, both because of the constancy of his faith, and because he despised the things of this world (for he had refused to accept any of the presents which he had offered to him), and also because of his ardent wish to suffer martyrdom. From that moment he listened to him willingly, and begged him to come back often, giving both him and his companions leave to preach wheresoever they pleased; he likewise gave them a token of his protection, which would preserve them from all molestation.
        At length St Francis, seeing he could do no more good in those parts, was warned by God to return with his brethren to the land of the faithful. Having assembled his companions, they went together to the Sultan to take leave of him. The Sultan said to him: “Brother Francis, most willingly would I be converted to the faith of Christ; but I fear to do so now, for if the people knew it, they would kill both me and thee and all thy companions. As thou mayest still do much good, and I have certain affairs of great importance to conclude, I will not at present be the cause of thy death and of mine. But teach me how I can be saved, and I am ready to do as thou shall order.” On this St Francis made answer: “My lord, I will take leave of thee for the present; but after I have returned to my own country, when I shall be dead and gone to heaven, by the grace of God, I will send thee two of my friars, who will administer to thee the holy baptism of Christ, and thou shall be saved, as the Lord Jesus has revealed to me; and thou in the meantime shall free thyself from every hindrance, so that, when the grace of God arrives, thou mayest be found well disposed to faith and devotion.” The Sultan promised so to do; and did as he had promised. Then St Francis returned with his company of venerable and saintly brethren, and after a few years ending his mortal life, he gave up his soul to God. The Sultan, having fallen ill, awaited the fulfillment of the promise of St. Francis, and placed guards in all the passes, ordering them if they met two brothers in the habit of St Francis to conduct them immediately to him. At the same time St Francis appeared to two of his friars, and ordered them without delay to go to the Sultan and save his soul, according to the promise he had made him. The two set out, and having crossed the sea, were conducted to the Sultan by the guards he had sent out to meet them. The Sultan, when he saw them arrive, rejoiced greatly, and exclaimed: “Now I know of a truth that God has sent his servants to save my soul, according to the promise which St Francis made me through divine revelation.” Having received the faith of Christ and holy baptism from the said friars, he was regenerated in the Lord Jesus Christ; and having died of his disease, his soul was saved, through the merits and prayers of St Francis.
        The true “spirit of Assisi.” means that one should be willing to give up his life for his Savior. It means that we should pray to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth promised by Our Lord, praying that the Church returns to her former glory, honor and orthodoxy.

Why the Tridentine Catholic Church is totally against
the new practice of ecumenism in the Catholic Church

        We are against this practice because the Catholic Church is the One, True Church. It is not for the Catholic Church to placate Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or for that matter, any other religion, into thinking or believing that salvation is possible in any of these organizations. It is not. The Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Mortalium Animos, states it far better than we can, and that’s why we are including this encyclical here in toto, as follows:

ENCYCLICAL ON RELIGIOUS UNITY FROM POPE PIUS XI - January 6, 1928

2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.
6. We were created by God, the Creator of the universe, in order that we might know Him and serve Him; our Author therefore has a perfect right to our service. God might, indeed, have prescribed for man's government only the natural law, which, in His creation, He imprinted on his soul, and have regulated the progress of that same law by His ordinary providence; but He preferred rather to impose precepts, which we were to obey, and in the course of time, namely from the beginnings of the human race until the coming and preaching of Jesus Christ, He Himself taught man the duties which a rational creature owes to its Creator: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all, in these days, has spoken to us by his Son." [3] Heb. I, I seq. From which it follows that there can be no true religion other than that which is founded on the revealed word of God: which revelation, begun from the beginning and continued under the Old Law, Christ Jesus Himself under the New Law perfected. Now, if God has spoken (and it is historically certain that He has truly spoken), all must see that it is man's duty to believe absolutely God's revelation and to obey implicitly His commands; that we might rightly do both, for the glory of God and our own salvation, the Only-begotten Son of God founded His Church on earth. Further, We believe that those who call themselves Christians can do no other than believe that a Church, and that Church one, was established by Christ; but if it is further inquired of what nature according to the will of its Author it must be, then all do not agree. A good number of them, for example, deny that the Church of Christ must be visible and apparent, at least to such a degree that it appears as one body of faithful, agreeing in one an the same doctrine under one teaching authority and government; but, on the contrary, they understand a visible Church as nothing else than a Federation, composed of various communities of Christians, even though they adhere to different doctrines, which may even be incompatible one with another. Instead, Christ Our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society, external of its nature and perceptible to the senses, which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head, [4] Matt. 16: 18 seq; Luke 22: 32; John 21: 15-17. with an authority teaching by word of mouth, [5] Mark 16, 15. and by the ministry of the sacraments, the founts of heavenly grace; [6] John 3, 5; 6: 48-59; 20: 22 seq; cf. Matt. 18: 18, etc. for which reason He attested by comparison the similarity of the Church to a kingdom, [7] Matt. 13 to a house, [8] cf. Matt. 16: 18. to a sheepfold, [9] John 10: 16. and to a flock. [10] 10. John 21: 15-17. This Church, after being so wonderfully instituted, could not, on the removal by death of its Founder and of the Apostles who were the pioneers in propagating it, be entirely extinguished and cease to be, for to it was given the commandment to lead all men, without distinction of time or place, to eternal salvation: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations." [11] Matt. 28: 19. In the continual carrying out of this task, will any element of strength and efficiency be wanting to the Church, when Christ Himself is perpetually present to it, according to His solemn promise: "Behold I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world?" [12] Matt. 28: 20. It follows then that the Church of Christ not only exists today and always, but is also exactly the same as it was in the time of the Apostles, unless we were to say, which may God forbid, either that Christ Our Lord could not effect His purpose, or that He erred when He asserted that the gates of hell should never prevail against it. [13] Matt. 16: 18.

A Traditionalist response to the current crisis in the Catholic Church.

        The Traditionalist response to the Conciliar crisis has been varied from the beginning. That should hardly be surprising. While the Council shocked Catholics all over the world, even shocking some liberals who sometimes boasted they got more than they had dared to hope for, those Catholics who accepted the defined teaching that doctrines cannot change were left to scramble. First they had to try to clarify the situation as it was developing for many years, no easy task, to say the least. Even after the conclusion of the Council, the haphazard implementations of its decisions amidst general confusion, and the chaos of interpretations of what the Council intended and meant for Roman Catholicism, made understanding very difficult. Only time could tell and, still, the situation remains very complex.
        It was clear to practically everyone before the Council that to be a Catholic meant to be, by definition, a Traditionalist. For Catholicism is not something invented or freshly imagined in every generation, but is a body of teaching "received," from the Apostles and faithfully transmitted until the end of the world, despite the restrictions of time. This is not to say that Catholic Tradition precluded any developments in doctrine. To the contrary, as Cardinal Newman had reminded the Anglicans and the whole world just a little over a century before, so long as the development was faithful to the truth from which it began, there may indeed be development in doctrine.
        In such cases it may be easier to understand "development," as a "clarification;" as the making explicit of what had hitherto been implicit in a doctrine, dogma or tradition. The definitions of both the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary are to be understood in this way. In theology too, old concepts may yield new insights when theologians who are faithful to the truths taught "always" and "everywhere" ponder the Sacred truths which were handed down in the changeless Deposit of Faith. The task of the theologian is precisely to teach the unchanging truth to each new generation and to probe the dogmas of the Church for faithful, and perhaps fuller, meanings if the situation calls for it, often in response to deviant presentations of doctrine. All that the Catholic Church rejected, in this regard, was the idea of a corruption, as opposed to development, of doctrine, that is, a rupture between what the Church "always" and "everywhere" believed and any new statement of doctrine not consonant with the truth and tradition which came before.
        The Church has indeed always taught that dogmas must ever be understood in the "same sense" or meaning (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, St. Pius X #28) and that this is a critical criteriological measure for any proposed restatement of the Church's teaching.
        Needless to say, this is the opposite of any modernistic "evolution" of dogma, wherein dogmas and meanings change from one species of meaning to another according to the needs of the times. The notion that dogma evolves was condemned many times by the Church (Cf. Pascendi #26, etc.) And it is precisely this false notion which is involved in the Conciliar crisis and which has evoked the Traditionalist response. When the Conciliar Popes boast of a "new consciousness," wherein the today’s Church they seem to differ radically from the Church of yesterday, and when the Council proposed doctrines which appear to ambiguously state or even contradict all previous Church teaching in certain critical areas (e.g., in the areas of ecumenism and religious liberty), the situation is grave, and the Catholic conscience is scandalized. Traditionalists do not at all question Papal authority, like Luther, but, rather, seek to protect and strengthen this very authority by lovingly and forcefully pointing out wherein the human element involved in the Council may have erred in stating Catholic teaching. For no one contends that Vatican II was verbally inspired and beyond constructive criticism and improvements.
        What scandalizes us even more, however, is when the hierarchy appears to turn a deaf ear to such witness and criticism, as if nothing serious were at stake, despite the bitter fruits which have all but destroyed so much of the Church in an incredibly short 38 years! Traditionalists were not unfaithful to the Church, when, with the First Vatican Council, they reminded liberals and conservatives that neither the Pope nor a council is to be confused with a divine Oracle, as in paganism, whose every word is considered inspired: "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine [novam doctrinam], but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles. See the First Vatican Council, Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi (Pastor Aeternus), chap. 4, De Romani Pontificis Infallibili Magisterio."
        Only under very strict conditions, when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra - is the teaching of the Pope infallible. At all other times he is infallible only to the extent that he faithfully repeats and reaffirms the teachings of Sacred Tradition in the exercise of his ordinary magisterium. Any teaching which contradicts the ordinary and universal magisterium teachings of the Church is null and void. As Pope Gregory said in Mirari Vos: "This you will do perfectly if you watch over yourselves and your doctrine, as your office makes it your duty, repeating incessantly to yourselves that every novelty attempts to undermine the Universal Church and that, according to the warning of the holy Pope Agatho, 'nothing that has been regularly defined can bear diminution, or change, or addition, and repels every alteration of sense, or even of words." Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.
        Note the last sentence carefully: "repels every alteration of sense, or even of words." These qualifications are critical. This is not teaching verbal inspiration, but it does show the gravity of changing words because this risks the changing of "sense" or meaning. Then there are other and no less profoundly serious changes in the post-conciliar Church's liturgy and sacraments, devotions, social teachings, understanding of the Bible, etc., all of which suggest a theological cataclysm of revolutionary proportions.
        Also, the Catholic conscience is shocked to see the Pope apologizing for the policies and beliefs of his predecessors despite the Church's previous teaching regarding these points. To bring so much of Church history before the bar of modern democracy and globalism is a scandal and is clearly an abuse of authority which Traditionalist's deplore. Saint Paul said it is a scandal for Christians to bring lawsuits against one another before secular judges (cf. 1 Cor. 6). How much more, then, is this ongoing series of spectacles without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church which has caused not a few secular scholars even to wonder at the simplistic interpretation of events which would target Catholics as the prime culprits in so many historical woes. And often, as one must expect, it has only given rope to the enemies of the Church who now demand the most ludicrous and unjust unilateral apologies on the most dubious historical grounds. And all of this is self-inflicted, as if the Church had suddenly succumbed to a disturbing and mystifying death wish as the world watches, more than a little amused. It was Vatican II alone which set these wheels in motion. It is Vatican II which will have to answer for it.
        As a result of all this, there are two exaggerations especially wherein some opt to take the plunge into denial, seeking a false security by one of two routes: either by denying that the visible Catholic Church is still the Catholic Church (sedevacantists) or by closing ones eyes to the awful reality of the ongoing scandals under the pretext of simple obedience to the hierarchy (conservatives).
        The sedevacantists err by opting for an invisible, allegedly pristine Church, thinking that apostasy simply negates the visible Church and authorities. So they go out and set up their own "true Church" and, increasingly we find them "electing" their own "pope." Naively confusing an hypothetical opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine (who, as a matter of fact, did not believe the Pope could fall into formal heresy) for Catholic truth, though the Church never pronounced, that is, defined it so, these believe that a man is a formal heretic when they say so, and that, thus, he, ipso facto, cannot be Catholic, much less priest, bishop or Pope. Each Sedevacantist sets himself up as a superman: theologian, canon lawyer, Church historian, jury and judge, and treats the matter as if it were the most simple thing - even if it is anything but simple and that even in great ages of Faith canon lawyers could debate long and hard on matters we consider altogether perspicuous.
        To illustrate this error further: it is by no means clear or certain that John Paul II is a formal heretic. John Paul II believes he is organically developing sacred Tradition! And, of course, intention is crucial to the question of formal heresy. Material heresy alone is not sufficient to make one a formal heretic who can be condemned by the Church. Now, he is either right or he is wrong in this, and all Traditionalists believe he is wrong if our sacred texts, encyclicals, councils and the law of contradiction mean anything at all. Therefore, traditionalist's ask for clarifications and the repairing of those apparent errors which must be repaired, and the repudiation of any teachings or activities which must be repudiated. We do not judge yet, for the Church has not so judged, whether these apparent errors are the result of the naiveté or the malice of men. Not every modernist is knowingly one. One day the Church will indeed have to decide the exact culpability of those Shepherds who have seriously endangered the Faith by not clearly stating Catholic teaching and for not keeping out the wolves. We hope sooner than later.
        But many today, itching for a false security which in effect denies the crisis by pretending to resolve it, have concluded too quickly to John Paul II's formal heresy in certain areas, when it is much more likely that his grave theological illness, perhaps serious enough to be deposed one day, lay not in teaching positive heresy, but in:
        1. Endangering the faith by not defending it. 2.Ambiguously stating Catholic truths and promulgating inferior sacraments which are open to modernist interpretations. 3. Interpreting Catholic teaching in the terms and categories of un-Catholic and alien philosophical schools. 4. Not keeping out wolves. Islam is coiled like a serpent and ready to strike everywhere in once Catholic nations. This is a consequence of a false understanding of religious liberty. These are very serious charges.
        Some think they can clinch the matter and virtually damn John Paul II as a heretic for teaching universal salvation. Wrong! His teaching on this subject is certainly dangerously ambiguous and it is not an exaggeration to say recklessly so. But one cannot simply take texts, isolated from other texts, and conclude to positive heresy. It was the same John Paul II who authorized the following teaching taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in Whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
        The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and few there are who find it." Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth." God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God in mortal sin is required, and persistence in it until the end.
        This is not universal salvation but conditional salvation. Many more examples could be cited in all areas of the Pope's teachings. We must always be fair and honest in our criticism. In sacramental theology there is a principle which, by analogy, we may apply here: signification ex adjunctis, which intends that no liturgy should be interpreted in itself, apart from the entire liturgical book, and the overall teachings of the Pope. By extension, and in all justice, we cannot abstract texts which seem to teach universal or Incarnational redemption from the entire opus of John Paul II - and ignore other texts which qualify, clarify, or even contradict that teaching, a good deal of which is deeply Catholic and even beautiful, we must admit. Having said that, we are not unfamiliar with the modernist ploy of deliberately speaking out of both sides of ones mouth precisely in order to deceive. Nor are we unfamiliar with the modernist ruse whereby Traditional concepts are imbued with new and alien meanings. And this is why we agree with the Abbe de Nantes who insists that such teachings must be put on trial and judged by the Church, if they are not repaired and clarified in favor of Sacred Tradition first, as we must hope if we love the Church. If reckless teachings are the result of naiveté, it may happen that the Pope may come to see the futility of such reckless teaching and look in good faith for the cause! Then we might just see excommunications and a Vatican III which will realign the Church's teachings with her Tradition. If, however, such ambiguity is the work of modernist malice, then we must believe that God will raise up courageous bishops one day who will cry out against such heretical intentions and demand an accounting. Indeed the Church would then have to depose those responsible for "manifest and notorious" heresy on the part of the unrepentant modernists. Such an official judgment would expose in a final and definitive way that the deposed had first lost their faith and were thus not worthy of their offices.
        The point we are trying to male is that only the Church can judge in such grave matters. It is highly presumptuous for laymen or even priests to think they can do it themselves, not to mention Sedevacantist bishops). And it is grave error to think that even apostasy simply negates the visible Church so that some think they can abandon her as if abandoning some "sect." "Where the bishop is, there is the Church." (St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn. 8:1).
        That is a fact which does not change. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. None of these marks of the true Church can be abstracted away from the bishop as if the bishop were not a decisive sign of the visible unity of the Church. Rather, the four marks of the Church converge in the bishop who guarantees their presence, according to Saint Ignatius' dictum. If a bishop rejects us because we keep the unchanging faith of Sacred Tradition, it is our task to turn the other cheek, eat the crumbs which fall from his table on the steps of the Church if he has thrown us out, and confess the Faith before him and warn him of judgment in order to quicken his conscience and bring him back to orthodox thinking, the Church's teaching. This is where the traditional theological concept of the "Sense of the Faithful" comes into play. The people will keep the bishop straight if the bishop cannot keep himself straight, as was seen in the Arian crisis which lasted some three centuries. Those bishops, it should be noted, who equivocated and neglected their flocks, abandoning them to Arius and his followers - a great many even becoming outright Arians through ignorance or force of propaganda - were not all deposed, though only God knows how many kept their souls. If the "new consciousness," which John Paul II speaks of today amounts to a malicious intention to introduce the "evolution" of dogma, he will doubtless go down in history as a wolf in sheep’s clothes and be deposed, if not in this life, then after his death. Let us hope, rather, that it is all naiveté, born of the mixing of false principles and philosophies learned in bad schools, and that their very futility will, sooner or later, awaken the Church hierarchy to eventually abandon the great and terrible Experiment called Vatican II. Meanwhile, let us avoid both exaggerations and denial. And, above all, let us be honest in our criticism as we confess the Faith before God and man, without fear or compromise. In this way we will truly be Peter's faithful servant, but God's first.

THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT ADMIT
NON-CATHOLICS TO EUCHARISTIC COMMUNION

        Communion is not only a sharing in the Body and Blood of Christ, but is also a communion in the one faith.

THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S POSITION TOWARD
COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES

        While we see nothing wrong with the practice of receiving Communion under both Species we do not practice it. We distribute Communion only in the traditional manner, which is under the Species of bread.

THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT ALLOW CONCELEBRATION

        The reason we do not is because it was disallowed by the Council of Trent. The only exceptions are those which Trent allowed, namely the Ordination of Priests and the Consecration of Bishops. And this only allowed by the Ordaining Prelate with the newly ordained Priest(s) and the Bishop Consecrator with the newly consecrated Bishop(s).

THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH REJECTS THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN

        We reject the ordination of women because we believe it is totally against the intentions of Christ for the ordained priesthood of His Church and it is against the constant tradition of the Church also. As we have said above, the Church's revelation was given to her by Christ through the Apostles in two modes, Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. There were certainly no women in the priesthood of the Old Testament for this function was only fulfilled by the male members of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, nor in the New Testament. Indeed neither the Apostles nor their Successors ordained women. Theology teaches us that the Priest stands at the Altar in Persona Christi - in the Person of Christ. Doesn't it stand to reason that the Priest who thus stands before his Altar to confect His Body and Blood resemble Him in his physical nature as well?

WE TEACH THE DOCTRINES OF PURGATORY AND LIMBO

        We teach that the souls of the faithful departed are helped by our prayers, especially by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered for them. Likewise do we teach that the souls of unbaptized infants go to Limbo should they die before they have been baptized.

OUR TEACHING CONCERNING THE POPE

        Our teaching can be summed up in the words of Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam, as follows: The following English translation is taken from a doctoral dissertation written in the Dept. of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America, and published by Catholic University Press in 1927. Promulgated November 18, 1302: Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Song of Songs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then, there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism [Eph. 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
         We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn. 19:23-24].
        Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not a two headed monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep’ [Jn. 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put back your sword into your scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
        However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom. 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
        For, according to Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of God that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold today I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms” and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man Judges of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven' etc., [Mt. 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom. 13:2] unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen. 1:1].

THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES THE DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES
(From the 1914 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia)

        In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Is., lxi, 1) the word indulgence was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is considered here, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio.

        To facilitate explanation, it may be well to state what an indulgence is not. It is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power. It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven. It is not an exemption from any law or duty, and much less from the obligation consequent on certain kinds of sin, e.g., restitution; on the contrary, it means a more complete payment of the debt which the sinner owes to God. It does not confer immunity from temptation or remove the possibility of subsequent lapses into sin. Least of all is an indulgence the purchase of a pardon which secures the buyer's salvation or releases the soul of another from Purgatory. The absurdity of such notions must be obvious to any one who forms a correct idea of what the Catholic Church really teaches on this subject.

        An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Jesus Christ and the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. The following points are to be noted in the definition of what an indulgence is:

• In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.
   

• Some writings of indulgence-none of them, however, issued by any pope or council (Pesch, Tr. Dog., VII, 196, no. 464)-contain the expression, "indulgentia a culpa et a poena", i.e. release from guilt and from punishment; and this has occasioned considerable misunderstanding (cf. Lea, "History" etc. III, 54 sqq.). The real meaning of the formula is that, indulgences presupposing the Sacrament of Penance, the penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, is afterwards freed from the temporal penalty by the indulgence (Bellarmine, "De Indulge"., I, 7). In other words, sin is fully pardoned, i.e. its effects entirely obliterated, only when complete reparation, and consequently release from penalty as well as from guilt, has been made. Hence Clement V (1305-1314) condemned the practice of those purveyors of indulgences who pretended to absolve "a culpa et a poena" (Clement, I. v, tit. 9, c. ii); the Council of Constance (1418) revoked (Sess. XLII, n. 14) all indulgences containing the said formula; Benedict XIV (1740-1758) treats them as spurious indulgences granted in this form, which he ascribes to the illicit practices of the "quaestores" or purveyors (De Syn. dioceses., VIII, viii. 7).
   

• The satisfaction, usually called the "penance", imposed by the confessor when he gives absolution is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; an indulgence is extra-sacramental; it presupposes the effects obtained by confession, contrition, and sacramental satisfaction. It differs also from the penitential works undertaken of his own accord by the repentant sinner - prayer, fasting, alms-giving -- in that these are personal and get their value from the merit of him who performs them, whereas an indulgence places at the penitent's disposal the merits of Christ and of the saints, which form the "Treasury" of the Church.
   

• An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice. This, however, does not imply that the Church pretends to set aside the claim of God's justice or that she allows the sinner to repudiate his debt. As St. Thomas says (Suppl., xxv. a. 1 ad 2), "He who gains indulgences is not thereby released outright from what he owes as penalty, but is provided with the means of paying it." The Church therefore neither leaves the penitent helplessly in debt nor acquits him of all further accounting; she enables him to meet his obligations.
   

• In granting an indulgence, the grantor (pope or bishop) does not offer his personal merits in lieu of what God demands from the sinner. He acts in his official capacity as having jurisdiction in the Church, from whose spiritual treasury he draws the means wherewith payment is to be made. The Church herself is not the absolute owner, but simply the administratrix, of the superabundant merits which that treasury contains. In applying them, she keeps in view both the design of God's mercy and the demands of God's justice. She therefore determines the amount of each concession, as well as the conditions which the penitent must fulfill if he would gain the indulgence.

        An indulgence that may be gained in any part of the world is universal, while one that can be gained only in a specified place (Rome, Jerusalem, etc.) is local. A further distinction is that between perpetual indulgences,which may be gained at any time, and temporary,which are available on certain days only, or within certain periods. Real indulgences are attached to the use of certain objects (crucifix, rosary, medal); personal are those which do not require the use of any such material thing, or which are granted only to a certain class of individuals, members of an order or confraternity. The most important distinction, however, is that between plenary indulgences and partial. By a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory. A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance with the penitential discipline of the early Church. To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance. Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value.
        God alone knows what penalty remains to be paid and what its precise amount is in severity and duration. Finally, some indulgences are granted in behalf of the living only, while others may be applied in behalf of the souls departed. It should be noted, however, that the application has not the same significance in both cases. The Church in granting an indulgence to the living exercises her jurisdiction; over the dead she has no jurisdiction and therefore makes the indulgence available for them by way of suffrage (per modum suffragii), i.e. she petitions God to accept these works of satisfaction and in consideration thereof to mitigate or shorten the sufferings of the souls in Purgatory.
         The distribution of the merits contained in the treasury of the Church is an exercise of authority (potestas jurisdictions), not of the power conferred by Holy orders (potestas ordinis). Hence the pope, as supreme head of the Church on earth, can grant all kinds of indulgences to any and all of the faithful; and he alone can grant plenary indulgences. The power of the bishop, previously unrestricted, was limited by Innocent III (1215) to the granting of one year's indulgence at the dedication of a church and of forty days on other occasions. Leo XIII (Rescript of 4 July. 1899) authorized the archbishops of South America to grant eighty days (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI, 758). Pius X (28 August, 1903) allowed cardinals in their titular churches and dioceses to grant 200 days; archbishops, 100; bishops, 50. These indulgences are not applicable to the souls departed. They can be gained by persons not belonging to the diocese, but temporarily within its limits; and by the subjects of the granting bishop, whether these are within the diocese or outside--except when the indulgence is local. Priests, vicars general, abbots, and generals of religious orders cannot grant indulgences unless specially authorized to do so. On the other hand, the pope can empower a cleric who is not a priest to give an indulgence (St. Thomas, "Quod lib.", II, q. viii, a. 16).
        The mere fact that the Church proclaims an indulgence does not imply that it can be gained without effort on the part of the faithful. From what has been said above, it is clear that the recipient must be free from the guilt of mortal sin. Furthermore, for plenary indulgences, confession and Communion are usually required, while for partial indulgences, though confession is not obligatory, the formula corde saltem contrito, i.e. "at least with a contrite heart ", is the customary prescription. Regarding the question discussed by theologians whether a person in mortal sin can gain an indulgence for the dead, see PURGATORY. It is also necessary to have the intention, at least habitual, of gaining the indulgence. Finally, from the nature of the case, it is obvious that one must perform the good works - prayers, alms deeds, visits to a church, etc., which are prescribed in the granting of an indulgence.
        An essential element in indulgences is the application to one person of the satisfaction performed by others. This transfer is based on three things: the Communion of Saints, the principle of vicarious satisfaction, and the Treasury of the Church.
        "We being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" (Rom., xii, 5). As each organ shares in the life of the whole body, so does each of the faithful profit by the prayers and good works of all the rest-a benefit which accrues, in the first instance, to those who are in the state of grace, but also, though less fully, to the sinful members.
        Each good action of the just man possesses a double value: that of merit and that of satisfaction, or expiation. Merit is personal, and therefore it cannot be transferred; but satisfaction can be applied to others, as St. Paul writes to the Col. (i, 24) of his own works: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church."
        Christ, as St. John declares in his First Epistle (ii, 2), "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin, Besides, there are the satisfactory works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin, and the virtues, penances, and sufferings of the saints vastly exceeding any temporal punishment which these servants of God might have incurred. These are added to the treasury of the Church as a secondary deposit, not independent of, but rather acquired through, the merits of Christ. The development of this doctrine in explicit form was the work of the great Schoolmen, notably Alexander of Hales (Summa, IV, Q. xxiii, m. 3, n. 6), Albertus Magnus (In IV Sent., dist. xx, art. 16), and St. Thomas (In IV Sent., dist. xx, q. i, art. 3, sol. 1). As Aquinas declares (Quod lib., II, q. vii, art. 16) "All the saints intended that whatever they did or suffered for God's sake should be profitable not only to themselves but to the whole Church." And he further points out (Contra Gent., III, 158) that what one endures for another being a work of love, is more acceptable as satisfaction in God's sight than what one suffers on one's own account, since this is a matter of necessity. The existence of an infinite treasury of merits in the Church is dogmatically set forth in the Bull "Unigenitus", published by Clement VI, 27 Jan., 1343, and later inserted in the "Corpus Juris" (Extrav. Com., lib. V, tit. ix. c. ii): "Upon the altar of the Cross ", says the pope, "Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent. . . thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin." Hence the condemnation by Leo X of Luther's assertion that "the treasures of the Church from which the pope grants indulgences are not the merits of Christ and the saints" (Enchiridion, 757). For the same reason, Pius VI (1794) branded as false, temerarious, and injurious to the merits of Christ and the saints, the error of the synod of Pistoia that the treasury of the Church was an invention of scholastic subtlety (Enchiridion, 1541).
        According to Catholic doctrine, therefore, the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints. This treasury is left to the keeping, not of the individual Christian, but of the Church. Consequently, to make it available for the faithful, there is required an exercise of authority, which alone can determine in what way, on what terms, and to what extent, indulgences may be granted.
        Once it is admitted that Christ left the Church the power to forgive sins, the power of granting indulgences is logically inferred. Since the sacramental forgiveness of sin extends both to the guilt and to the eternal punishment, it plainly follows that the Church can also free the penitent from the lesser or temporal penalty. This becomes clearer, however, when we consider the amplitude of the power granted to Peter (Matt., xvi, 19): "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Cf. Matt., xviii, 18, where like power is conferred on all the Apostles.) No limit is placed upon this power of loosing, "the power of the keys ", as it is called; it must, therefore, extend to any and all bonds contracted by sin, including the penalty no less than the guilt. When the Church, therefore, by an indulgence, remits this penalty, her action, according to the declaration of Christ, is ratified in heaven. That this power, as the Council of Trent affirms, was exercised from the earliest times, is shown by St. Paul's words (II Cor., ii, 5-10) in which he deals with the case of the incestuous man of Corinth. The sinner had been excluded by St. Paul's order from the company of the faithful, but had truly repented. Hence the Apostle judges that to such a one "this rebuke is sufficient that is given by many" and adds: "To whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ." St. Paul had bound the guilty one in the fetters of excommunication; he now releases the penitent from this punishment by an exercise of his authority -- "in the person of Christ." Here we have all the essentials of an indulgence.
        These essentials persist in the subsequent practice of the Church, though the accidental features vary according as new conditions arise. During the persecutions, those Christians who had fallen away but desired to be restored to the communion of the Church often obtained from the martyrs a memorial to be presented to the bishop, that he, in consideration of the martyrs' sufferings, might admit the penitents to absolution, thereby releasing them from the punishment they had incurred. Tertullian refers to this when he says (Ad martyres, c. i, P.L., I, 621): "Which peace some, not having it in the Church, are accustomed to beg from the martyrs in prison; and therefore you should possess and cherish and preserve it in you that so you perchance may be able to grant it to others." Additional light is thrown on this subject by the vigorous attack which the same Tertullian made after he had become a Montanist. In the first part of his treatise "De pudicitia", he attacks the pope for his alleged laxity in admitting adulterers to penance and pardon, and flouts the peremptory edict of the "pontifex maximus episcopus episcoporum ". At the close he complains that the same power of remission is now allowed also to the martyrs, and urges that it should be enough for them to purge their own sins - sufficiat martyripropria delicta purgasse". And, again, "How can the oil of thy little lamp suffice both for thee and me?" (c. xxii). It is sufficient to note that many of his arguments would apply with as much and as little force to the indulgences of later ages.
        During St. Cyprian's time (d. 258), the heretic Novatian claimed that none of the Lapsed should be readmitted to the Church; others, like Felicissimus, held that such sinners should be received without any penance. Between these extremes, St. Cyprian holds the middle course, insisting that such penitents should be reconciled on the fulfillment of the proper conditions. On the one hand, he condemns the abuses connected with the libellus, in particular the custom of having it made out in blank by the martyrs and filled in by any one who needed it. "To this you should diligently attend ", he writes to the martyrs (Ep. xv), "that you designate by name those to whom you wish peace to be given." On the other hand, he recognizes the value of these memorials: "Those who have received a libellus from the martyrs and with their help can, before the Lord, get relief in their sins, let such, if they be ill and in danger, after confession and the imposition of your hands, depart unto the Lord with the peace promised them by the martyrs " (Ep. xiii, P.L., IV, 261). St. Cyprian, therefore, believed that the merits of the martyrs could be applied to less worthy Christians by way of vicarious satisfaction, and that such satisfaction was acceptable in the eyes of God as well as of the Church.
        After the persecutions had ceased, the penitential discipline remained in force, but greater leniency was shown in applying it. St. Cyprian himself was reproached for mitigating the "Evangelical severity" on which he at first insisted; to this he replied (Ep. lii) that such strictness was needful during the time of persecution not only to stimulate the faithful in the performance of penance, but also to quicken them for the glory of martyrdom; when, on the contrary, peace was secured to the Church, relaxation was necessary in order to prevent sinners from falling into despair and leading the life of pagans. In 380 St. Gregory of Nyssa (Ep.ad Letojum) declares that the penance should be shortened in the case of those who showed sincerity and zeal in performing it - "ut spatium canonibus praestitum posset contrahere (can. xviii; cf. can. ix, vi, viii, xi, xiii, xix). In the same spirit, St. Basil (379), after prescribing more lenient treatment for various crimes, lays down the general principle that in all such cases it is not merely the duration of the penance that must be considered, but the way in which it is performed (Ep. ad Amphilochium, c. lxxxiv). Similar leniency is shown by various Councils--Ancyra (314), Laodicea (320), Nicaea (325), Aries (330). It became quite common during this period to favor those who were ill, and especially those who were in danger of death (see Amort, "Historia," 28 sq.). The ancient penitentials of Ireland and England, though exacting in regard to discipline, provide for relaxation in certain cases. St. Cummian, e.g., in his Penitential (seventh century), treating (cap. v) of the sin of robbery, prescribed that he who has often committed theft shall do penance for seven years or for such time as the priest may judge fit, must always be reconciled with him whom he has wronged, and make restitution proportioned to the injury, and thereby his penance shall be considerably shortened (multum breviabit poenitentiam ejus). But should he be unwilling or unable (to comply with these conditions), he must do penance for the whole time prescribed and in all its details. (Cf. Moran, "Essays on the Early Irish Church", Dublin, 1864, p. 259.)
        Another practice which shows quite clearly the difference between sacramental absolution and the granting of indulgences was the solemn reconciliation of penitents. These, at the beginning of Lent, had received from the priest absolution from their sins and the penance enjoined by the canons; on Maundy Thursday they presented themselves before the bishop, who laid hands on them, reconciled them with the Church, and admitted them to communion. This reconciliation was reserved to the bishop, as is expressly declared in the Penitential of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury; though in case of necessity the bishop could delegate a priest for the purpose (lib. I, xiii). Since the bishop did not hear their confession, the "absolution" which he pronounced must have been a release from some penalty they had incurred. The effect, moreover, of this reconciliation was to restore the penitent to the state of baptismal innocence and consequently of freedom from all penalties, as appears from the so-called Apostolic Constitutions (lib, II, c. xli) where it is said: "Eritque in loco baptismi impositio manuum"--i.e. the imposition of hands has the same effect as baptism (cf. Palmieri, "De Poenitentia", Rome, 1879, 459 sq.).
        In a later period (eighth to twelfth century) it became customary to permit the substitution of some lighter penance for that which the canons prescribed. Thus the Penitential of Egbert, Archbishop of York, declares (XIII, 11): "For him who can comply with what the penitential prescribes, well and good; for him who cannot, we give counsel of God's mercy. Instead of one day on bread and water let him sing fifty psalms on his knees or seventy psalms without genuflecting .... But if he does not know the psalms and cannot fast, let him, instead of one year on bread and water, give twenty-six solidi in alms, fast till None on one day of each week and till Vespers on another, and in the three Lents bestow in alms half of what he receives." The practice of substituting the recitation of psalms or the giving of alms for a portion of the fast is also sanctioned in the Irish Synod of 807, which says (c. xxiv) that the fast of the second day of the week may be "redeemed" by singing one Psalter or by giving one denarius to a poor person. Here we have the beginning of the so-called "redemptions" which soon passed into general usage. Among other forms of commutation were pilgrimages to well-known shrines such as that at St. Albans in England or at Compostela in Spain. But the most important place of pilgrimage was Rome. According to Bede (674-735) the "visitatio liminum," or visit to the tomb of the Apostles, was even then regarded as a good work of great efficacy (Hist. Eccl., IV, 23). At first the pilgrims came simply to venerate the relics of the Apostles and martyrs; but in course of time their chief purpose was to gain the indulgences granted by the pope and attached especially to the Stations. Jerusalem, too, had long been the goal of these pious journeys, and the reports which the pilgrims gave of their treatment by the infidels finally brought about the Crusades. At the Council of Clermont (1095) the First Crusade was organized, and it was decreed (can. ii): "Whoever, out of pure devotion and not for the purpose of gaining honor or money, shall go to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God, let that journey be counted in lieu of all penance". Similar indulgences were granted throughout the five centuries following (Amort, op. cit., 46 sq.), the object being to encourage these expeditions which involved so much hardship and yet were of such great importance for Christendom and civilization. The spirit in which these grants were made is expressed by St. Bernard, the preacher of the Second Crusade (1146): "Receive the sign of the Cross, and you shall likewise obtain the indulgence of all you have confessed with a contrite heart (ep. cccxxii; al., ccclxii).
        Similar concessions were frequently made on occasions, such as the dedication of churches, e.g., that of the old Temple Church in London, which was consecrated in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 10 February, 1185, by the Lord Heraclius, who to those yearly visiting it indulged sixty days of the penance enjoined them -- as the inscription over the main entrance attests. The canonization of saints was often marked by the granting of an indulgence, e.g. in honor of St. Laurence 0'Toole by Honorius III (1226), in honor of St. Edmund of Canterbury by Innocent IV (1248), and in honor of St. Thomas of Hereford by John XXII (1320). A famous indulgence is that of the Portiuncula (q.v.), obtained by St. Francis in 1221 from Honorius III. But the most important largess during this period was the plenary indulgence granted in 1300 by Boniface VIII to those who, being truly contrite and having confessed their sins, should visit the basilicas of Sts. Peter and Paul 
        Among the works of charity which were furthered by indulgences, the hospital held a prominent place. Lea in his "History of Confession and Indulgences" (III, 189) mentions only the hospital of Santo Spirito in Rome, while another Protestant writer, Uhlhorn (Gesch. d. Christliche Liebesthatigkeit, Stuttgart, 1884, II, 244) states that "one cannot go through the archives of any hospital without finding numerous letters of indulgence". The one at Halberstadt in 1284 had no less than fourteen such grants, each giving an indulgence of forty days. The hospitals at Lucerne, Rothenberg, Rostock, and Augsburg enjoyed similar privileges.
        It may seem strange that the doctrine of indulgences should have proved such a stumbling-block, and excited so much prejudice and opposition. But the explanation of this may be found in the abuses which unhappily have been associated with what is in itself a salutary practice. In this respect of course indulgences are not exceptional: no institution, however holy, has entirely escaped abuse through the malice or unworthiness of man. Even the Eucharist, as St. Paul declares, means an eating and drinking of judgment to the recipient who discerns not the body of the Lord. (1 Cor., xi, 27-9). And, as God's forbearance is constantly abused by those who relapse into sin, it is not surprising that the offer of pardon in the form of an indulgence should have led to evil practices. These again have been in a special way the object of attack because, doubtless, of their connection with Luther's revolt. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the Church, while holding fast to the principle and intrinsic value of indulgences, has repeatedly condemned their misuse: in fact, it is often from the severity of her condemnation that we learn how grave the abuses were.
        Even in the age of the martyrs, as stated above there were practices which St. Cyprian was obliged to reprehend, yet he did not forbid the martyrs to give the libelli. In later times abuses were met by repressive measures on the part of the Church. Thus the Council of Clovesho in England (747) condemns those who imagine that they might atone for their crimes by substituting, in place of their own, the austerities of mercenary penitents. Against the excessive indulgences granted by some prelates, the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) decreed that at the dedication of a church the indulgence should not be for more than year, and, for the anniversary of the dedication or any other case, it should not exceed forty days, this being the limit observed by the pope himself on such occasions. The same restriction was enacted by the Council of Ravenna in 1317. In answer to the complaint of the Dominicans and Franciscans, that certain prelates had put their own construction on the indulgences granted to these Orders, Clement IV in 1268 forbade any such interpretation, declaring that, when it was needed, it would be given by the Holy See. In 1330 the brothers of the hospital of Hat-Pas falsely asserted that the grants made in their favor were more extensive than what the documents allowed: John XXII had all these brothers in France seized and imprisoned. Boniface IX, writing to the Bishop of Ferrara in 1392, condemns the practice of certain religious who falsely claimed that they were authorized by the pope to forgive all sorts of sins, and exacted money from the simple-minded among the faithful by promising them perpetual happiness in this world and eternal glory in the next. When Henry, Archbishop of Canterbury, attempted in 1420 to give a plenary indulgence in the form of the Roman Jubilee, he was severely reprimanded by Martin V, who characterized his action as "unheard-of presumption and sacrilegious audacity." In 1450 Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, Apostolic Legate to Germany, found some preachers asserting that indulgences released from the guilt of sin as well as from the punishment. This error, due to a misunderstanding of the words "a culpa et a poena", the cardinal condemned a the Council of Magdeburg. Finally, Sixtus IV in 1478, lest the idea of gaining indulgences should prove an incentive to sin, reserved for the judgment of the Holy See a large number of cases in which faculties had formerly been granted to confessors (Extrav. Com., tit. de poen. et remiss.) These measures show plainly that the Church long before the Reformation, not only recognized the existence of abuses, but also used her authority to correct them.
        In spite of all this, disorders continued and furnished the pretext for attacks directed against the doctrine itself, no less than against the practice of indulgences. Here, as in so many other matters, the love of money was the chief root of the evil: indulgences were employed by mercenary ecclesiastics as a means of pecuniary gain. Leaving the details concerning this traffic to a subsequent article, it may suffice for the present to note that the doctrine itself has no natural or necessary connection with pecuniary profit, as is evident from the fact that the abundant indulgences of the present day are free from this evil association: the only conditions required are the saying of certain prayers or the performance of some good work or some practice of piety. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place, while men would be induced by the same mans to contribute to some pious cause such as the building of churches, the endowment of hospitals, or the organization of a crusade. It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded. Looked at in this light, it might well seem a suitable condition for gaining the spiritual benefit of an indulgence. Yet, however innocent in itself, this practice was fraught with grave danger, and soon became a fruitful source of evil. On the one hand there was the danger that the payment might be regarded as the price of the indulgence, and that those who sought to gain it might lose sight of the more important conditions. On the other hand, those who granted indulgences might be tempted to make them a means of raising money: and, even where the rulers of the Church were free from blame in this matter, there was room for corruption in their officials and agents, are among the popular preachers of indulgences.
        While it cannot be denied that these abuses were widespread, it should also be noted that, even when corruption was at its worst, these spiritual grants were being properly used by sincere Christians, who sought them in the right spirit, and by priests and preachers, who took care to insist on the need of true repentance. It is therefore not difficult to understand why the Church, instead of abolishing the practice of indulgences, aimed rather at strengthening it by eliminating the evil elements. The Council of Trent in its decree "On Indulgences" (Sess. XXV) declares: "In granting indulgences the Council desires that moderation be observed in accordance with the ancient approved custom of the Church, lest through excessive ease ecclesiastical discipline be weakened; and further, seeking to correct the abuses that have crept in . . . it decrees that all criminal gain therewith connected shall be entirely done away with as a source of grievous abuse among the Christian people; and as to other disorders arising from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or any cause whatsoever--since these, on account of the widespread corruption, cannot be removed by special prohibitions--the Council lays upon each bishop the duty of finding out such abuses as exist in his own diocese, of bringing them before the next provincial synod, and of reporting them, with the assent of the other bishops, to the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence measures will be taken for the welfare of the Church at large, so that the benefit of indulgences may be bestowed on all the faithful by means at once pious, holy, and free from corruption." After deploring the fact that, in spite of the remedies prescribed by earlier councils, the traders in indulgences continued their nefarious practice to the great scandal of the faithful, the council ordained that the name and method of these quaestores should be entirely abolished, and that indulgences and other spiritual favors of which the faithful ought not to be deprived should be published by the bishops and bestowed gratuitously, so that all might at length understand that these heavenly treasures were dispensed for the sake of piety and not of lucre (Sess. XXI, c. ix). In 1567 St. Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving fees or other financial transactions.

THE CODE OF CANON LAW OF THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH

        We follow the Codex Juris Canonici of the Roman Catholic Church, 1917 edition, plus our own Constitutions. (See Canons on this web site).

THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOLLOWS THE CUSTOM OF EASTER DUTY

        Every member of the Church is required to receive Our Lord in Communion at least once during the Easter Season.

OUR CLERGY ARE OBLIGED TO RECITE THE ROMAN BREVIARY DAILY

        Everyone from the Order of Subdiaconate to the Episcopate are required to recite the entire Roman Breviary daily.

THE DAYS OF MASS OBLIGATION IN THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH

        They are as follows:
    1) All Sundays of the year.
    2) Christmas day, December 25.
    3) Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord, January 1.
    4) All Saints Day, November 1.
    5) The Ascension of Our Lord into Heaven, forty days after Easter.
    6) The Feasts of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, December 8.
    7) The Assumption, August 15.

        One is obliged to hear Mass on all these days. The only excuse is personal illness or an obligation to care for small children or the elderly. In this case one should ask one of the priests to come to the home for the celebration of Mass. One should never neglect his duties toward God.

THE DAYS OF FAST AND ABSTINENCE

        The law of Fast applies to everyone between the ages of twenty-one and fifty-nine. On a fast day meat may be eaten with one full meal and two light meatless meals, which together do not equal the main meal. Meat may be taken at the principal meal, except on days of complete abstinence. Liquids such as water, milk, and fruit juices may be taken between meals.
        The law of Abstinence applies to everyone seven years of age and over. On a day of complete abstinence no meat, no gravy made with meat, no soup made from meat may be taken. On a day of partial fasting meat may be eaten only once. The traditional days of Fast are all the days of Lent till mid-night of Holy Saturday, the Ember Days, the Vigil of Pentecost, the Immaculate Conception, Christmas, and All Saints Day. Every Friday of the year, Ash Wednesday, Holy Saturday (until noon), the Vigils of the Immaculate Conception and Christmas are the traditional days of complete abstinence. Ember Wednesdays and Saturdays and the Vigil of Pentecost are the traditional days of partial abstinence.

THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCHES POSITION ON MIXED FAITH MARRIAGES

        As a general rule we do not allow a mixed faith marriage. If a member of the Tridentine Catholic Church wishes to marry a non-Catholic (or a non-Christian) he or she must first seek the consultation of the Pastor of his parish, who will counsel the non-Catholic partner regarding the obligations of the Catholic partner concerning any children coming from this marriage. It is the teaching of the Church that all children coming from this marriage must be raised Catholics. A dispensation is required to marry in church.

OUR BELIEF IN THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AND THE SAINTS

        Our Catholic faith is confirmed to us through the infallible teaching authority of the Church. That teaching says that the Virgin Mary was Immaculate (that is, without original sin) from the first moment of her conception in the womb of her mother, Saint Ann, and that, at the end of her life upon this earth she was taken up, body and soul, to the glory of heaven to reign with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ forever. We affirm these truths and encourage both private (such as the Rosary) and communal devotions (such as Novenas) to Our Lady and the Saints. Our belief concerning the Virgin Mary and the Saints is identical to that of the Roman Catholic Church. One of the foundational purposes of the Tridentine Catholic Church is promoting the time honored devotions in honor of the Saints and, most especially, in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

WHY WE PERMIT THE USE OF THE VERNACULAR IN THE LITURGY

        The reason we do this is because we want our people to take an active a part in the liturgy. This is not to say that we have abandoned the use of Latin. Latin is still obligatory for us. The vernacular is only an option. This exception only pertains to the first half of the Mass, that is the Mass of the Catechumens. The Council of Trent in Canon Nine of the Twenty-Second Session did not strictly forbid the use of the vernacular, saying only that "Mass ought not to celebrated only in the vernacular." Therefore if Trent did not strictly forbid it, why can't we use it in at least the Mass of the Catechumens in which, for the most part, are contained the Scripture readings which are instructional? The Mass of the Faithful is said in Latin. If a vernacular translation of the Mass of the Catechumens is used, it must have been in existence prior to the Second Vatican Council. If you remember, in the "old" days, the Priest read the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular after he had read it in Latin. We are following suit on this common practice. It should not be forgotten that Latin is an intellectual bond with the Fathers of the Western Church who wrote in Latin.

LITURGICAL BOOKS THAT ARE USED IN THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH

        We use the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V. We also use the Rituale Romanum, the Pontificale Romanum, and the Breviarium Romanum. We are allowed to use any rite which was in use for two hundred years prior to the Council of Trent. For instance, the Dominican, the Carmelite, the Carthusian, etc. We are also open to the idea of parishes which would use the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites. We also allow the Sarum Mass for those converts from the Anglican Churches.

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BECOMING A MEMBER OF
THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH

        This would depend on the jurisdiction to which they belonged before. If the individual is coming from one of the Protestant denominations, he must be instructed in the Catholic Faith first. This would be followed by conditional Baptism, unless it has been already determined that he is validly baptized. He would then have to make a Profession of Catholic Faith and will be given the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. If he is coming from the Roman Catholic Church or one of the Orthodox Churches all that would be required is a Profession of Faith, especially regarding the acceptance of the Canons of the Council of Trent regarding the Sacraments, the Divinely instituted hierarchy of the Church, etc. Reception of the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist would then follow.

WHY THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT ALLOW
COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES

        We do not practice this for the reasons which were given by the Council of Trent, which are:

    1) Spilling the Precious Blood.

    2) The difficulty of receiving the Sacrament under the Species of Wine.

    3) The very apparent danger to health by partaking of a chalice touched by contaminated lips, etc.

        These are our reasons for not allowing Communion under both Species.

WHY THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT ALLOW COMMUNION IN THE HAND

        We do not allow Communion in the hand because:

    1) Worship reflects belief - lex credendi lex orandi - the law of belief is the law of prayer. Since many modern theologians publicly deny the doctrine of Transubstantiation and still remain in good standing in the Conciliar Church it was felt that we should retain the tradition of receiving Communion on the tongue.

    2) This leads to people of different theological opinions of the Eucharist receiving what for them may or may not be the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. For instance: "I believe It is Christ's actual Body and Blood, so I receive It on the tongue, you believe It is only a memorial of His death upon the Cross so you can receive It in the hand. Thus they're both right.

    3) To us it projects unsound pastoral practice in so far as it leads to a less worshipful reception of Communion, which is an act of adoration of Our Savior in the Sacred Species and of nourishment for our souls. These are our reasons for rejecting Communion in the hand.

HOW THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH SUPPORTS ITSELF

        Everyone in the Tridentine Catholic Church is expected to support the Archdiocese in whatever capacity they can, either by the financial contributions of its people, or by other means such as time contributed for the work of the Archdiocese. All the clergy of this jurisdiction, from those in Episcopal Orders on down, are expected to support the financial endeavors of the Archdiocese. We do not provide for Insurance, Salaries. Homes. Income, Secular or Non-Secular items of her clergy. In other words the Clergy must be self supporting. The reason is that we cannot financially afford to pay for these things, maybe some day things will be different. 

        Each member of the clergy is required to support himself "by the work of his hands." We became Priests to give glory and praise to Almighty God and to work for the salvation of souls, not to be given financial support by the Archdiocese. This is not to say that some day we do not wish to be in the position of at least receiving a small salary, but, at the present time we must be content with things as they are.

WHY YOU SHOULD JOIN THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH

        There are a number of reasons for joining us: First we love and cherish the Catholic faith as a direct gift of Almighty God as it was handed down to us. We teach others to love and cherish this faith also. Secondly, practicing the faith teaches us to worship the Father through His Son, Jesus Christ Our Lord, in the Holy Spirit, and is a source of great joy and stability which makes the Traditions of the Church alive for us. This provides us with the opportunity to experience the Catholic faith and the Tridentine liturgy in all their fullness and beauty. Indeed, as Father Faber once said, the Tridentine Mass is "the most beautiful thing this side of heaven." Faith and liturgy go hand in hand.

WHY INACTIVE PRIESTS SHOULD REACTIVATE THEIR MINISTRY
IN THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH

        There are many reasons why inactive Priests may want to join us. But, generally speaking, they come to us because they were being stifled in their former jurisdictions. There are many Priests who left the active ministry simply because, in their eyes, the Church has made a complete "about face," turning from the traditions which they held so dear. The Mass rite itself is completely different than the one many of them knew as children and in which they were ordained. Many of the younger Priests also feel a definite sense of loss, and these also are invited to join our ranks.
        We are known for our faithfulness to Sacred Scripture, to the traditions of the Church and our willingness to serve the people of God. There is a great deal of "the freedom of the Spirit" in this jurisdiction and a great deal of stability. As explained earlier, a man may marry and father children and still be ordained to the Priesthood in order to serve God and His Church. Secondly, there are many opportunities of ministerial service which are wide open to us and which, because of lack of space we cannot mentioned here. This is a relatively young jurisdiction and as such there is so much that the inactive Priest can offer us and we him. We live difficult lives but they are also very rewarding.

WHY THE LAYMAN SHOULD JOIN THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH

        As you know there are many traditionalist jurisdictions in the Church today, all preaching the faith of Christ and bringing the sacraments to the faithful, but, generally speaking, we are more theologically rounded and present to the world our body of beliefs in a saner manner. We do not put up with liturgical or doctrinal error of any kind and the people see in us genuine Christians who hold their faith high. We do not merely preach our faith, we practice it. Many people, even young people, have come from other Catholic jurisdictions and have stayed because they see in us the Church in which even the gates of hell cannot prevail - the Catholic Church which does not compromise with Protestants and non-Christians, the Catholic Church whose liturgy is theologically correct and is the "stuff of which Saints are made" and is not framed so as to be acceptable to other religions. It is a very difficult thing to be Catholic in today’s world, especially when things are so liberal that most people don't see any reason why the Church should exist at all or why they should belong to it. We are here to give them that reason by our example.

THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCHES TEACHING
CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY

        Homosexuality is a result of Original Sin. The homosexual lifestyle is not compatible with the law of God or the Church. This follows for all other sins of the flesh as well. We affirm that the homosexual person must remain chaste in order to better serve God and neighbor. However, the homosexual as much as any other person is worthy of our respect and love. We wish it understood that we do not tolerate violence against any person, regardless of their sexual orientation. Any member of the Tridentine Catholic Church who willfully takes part in or supports such violence will be removed, regardless of the position they hold in the Church or how needed they may be.

THE POSITION OF THE TRIDENTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON
THE ORDINATION OF HOMOSEXUALS

        Practicing homosexuals, according to the ancient Canons, cannot receive the Sacraments, much less receive ordination to the Diaconate or to the Priesthood. Christians who commit homosexual acts may receive Holy Communion provided they have Confessed their sins to a Priest and have received Sacramental Absolution and have performed the penance imposed upon them. Priests who commit these acts are permanently removed from Office if proven guilty by a Canonical Court.

Top of Page

__________________________________________________________________________
Home Page - Invitation - History - Requirements for Holy Orders - Profession of Faith - The Latin Mass - Canons
Links - Questions & Answers - Candidates for the Priesthood - Apostolic Succession