The Blindness of the ‘Dubia Cardinals’ and their supporters!

In the last two months Catholics have heard a lot of talk about the Dubia [Doubts] – the letter sent by four ‘Cardinals’ to ‘Pope’ Francis asking for clarifications on ambiguous texts in the ‘Apostolic Exhortation’ Amoris laetitia (AL). The four ‘Cardinals’ are the American Raymond Burke, the Italian Carlo Cafarra, and the Germans Walter Brandmuller and Joachim Meisner. Burke is the only active Prelate; the three others are retired.

The Dubia are five questions addressed to Francis requesting a response. It is a tradition in the Church for Prelates to approach the Sacred Congregations of the Holy See, or even the Pope, with their questions, written very clearly and briefly. Normally they receive concise answers, a simple Yes or No.

These questions – whose full text and context we can read here – basically address this question: 

Is it possible for a civilly divorced and remarried Catholic who did not receive a Church annulment of his first marriage to receive 'Communion'? 

This question is motivated by the fact that some parts of Amoris laetitia strongly insinuate that this permission is granted. In other words, the basic question of the 'Cardinals' is this: 

Is it possible for a person in mortal sin to receive Communion?

The questions were first sent to Francis and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but given that the 'Cardinals' did not receive an answer, they made their document public on November 14, 2016. 

Since then, various interviews and declarations of Burke and Brandmuller have fed the discussion.

I am not taking the 'cardinals' seriously, but we have to look carefully at how deceptive the Novus ordo religion is and how utterly blind its prelates are including those calling themselves 'traditional Catholics'. these so called 'traditional Catholics' are nothing but those who do not like the reign of anti pope Francis but are comfortable with the reign of the great Apostate, John Paul II. I am simply trying to show how blind these pretend cardinals are and how equally blind their supporters. 

Given this status quaestionis, what should we think about the Dubia?

To be objective and clear, let me distinguish three different perspectives interfused in this problem.

1. Logically speaking

If we consider the content of both Amoris laetitia and the 'Cardinals'’ document from the logical perspective, we see that the dissenting 'Prelates' seem to take a win-win position. It is obvious that a Pope cannot explicitly allow anyone to receive Communion if he is in state of mortal sin.

If the Pope were to explicitly permit this, he would point-blank commit sacrilege, induce the entire Church to do so and separate himself from the past Magisterium of the Church and consequently such a pope loses office. So, it is obvious that the 'Pope' will not blatantly say: “Yes, I am allowing a person in mortal sin to receive Communion.”

It is also obvious that he will not say clearly: “No, no one can receive Communion in the state of mortal sin.” For, in fact, he is insinuating as much as possible that divorced/remarried people can receive Communion.

So, if it is obvious that he cannot say Yes or No, why did the Cardinals write their letter? Since they knew that they would not receive an answer, they deliberately chose to put Francis in a very embarrassing situation. 

Why?

In the strategic analysis (below n. 3) I will analyze this doubt about the aim of the Dubia.

Still addressing the content, why did the 'Cardinals' ignore many other situations as grave as the one they focused on? Indeed, in Amoris laetitia Francis opened doors not only for divorced/remarried Catholics to receive Communion, but also for a whole slew of others in scandalous situations who are objectively in mortal sin, such as those who engage in pre-marital sex, cohabit regularly without being married, use artificial methods of birth control and practice homosexuality. These points were analyzed in a study of Amoris laetitia seen here.

This omission becomes still more suspicious when we consider that if the 'Cardinals' would have exposed the full specter of insinuations in Amoris laetitia, it would become clear that Francis uses insinuations as a method to open doors for abuses in doctrinal matters where he pretends he cannot do so explicitly. Why did the 'Cardinals' not speak about this method?

If this method of liberalizing the need to be in the state of grace to receive the 'Sacraments' would have been clearly exposed by the 'Cardinals', it would have reinforced the fact that the 'Pope' cannot answer their Dubia. 

Again, the question arises: Why did they write their letter when it was clear that Francis would not answer?

Further, why did they make no mention of the multitude of other writings, speeches, actions and gestures so frequently made by Francis during this false pontificate that directly and indirectly favor allowing people in the state of mortal sin – even the sin of heresy – to receive 'Communion'? The same doubts of letter B are reinforced by this omission.

2. Morally speaking

A. From the moral point of view, it appears very good for supposed Catholics to have four 'Cardinals' who reinforce the traditional teaching of the Church. We live in a horrible world, morally speaking, and for us it is most opportune to have the perennial truths of the Church reaffirmed by 'religious authorities'. We have a certain number of traditionalist priests and a few Bishops who still repeat the immutable doctrine of the Church. But it is very salutary to see four Cardinals taking a correct position.

B. A grave moral fault, that usually characterize Novus Ordo prelates that I observed in the explanatory letter following the Dubia is that the 'Cardinals' are proponents of love as the primary goal of marriage.

Taking this position, they adhere to the revolution made by the evil Vatican II, which inverted the goals of marriage. The traditional goals were: first, procreation and the education of the offspring; second, mutual support of the spouses. By presenting love as the first goal, the 'Cardinals' show that they do not want to return to the traditional Magisterium as they purport to do.

C. Another moral flaw that I see in their statement is that, despite some few mentions of the Commandments and one quote from the Gospel, almost the totality of their documentation is based on the teaching of John Paul II, the great Apostate.  The 'Cardinals' publicly affirm that they are repeating the traditional doctrine, but the documents they quote are only those of the post-Vatican II 'Pope' Wojtyla.

Now then, John Paul II was very far from being a master of sound morality. Although he sometimes repeated the traditional teaching of the Church, habitually his moral approach was a tributary of the Personalism of Max Scheler, which is opposed to the traditional philosophy of the Church. 

His theology of the body is clearly immoral; eulogies of nudism are not rare in his works, and in the World Youth Days he implicitly promoted free love among youth. If the 'Cardinals' wanted to defend the perennial morals of the Church, why did they base themselves on this contaminated source?

The 'Cardinals'’ failure to quote the immense ensemble of traditional documents of the Church on marriage and Communion is an omission showing clearly the idea that the Novus Ordo religion – to which the four 'Cardinals' belong – is different from the Magisterium prior to Vatican II and therefore not the Catholic Church. 


One could even say that the 'Cardinals' themselves are in practical schism regarding the past of the Church. However, this is the very accusation made by 'Bishop' Schneider and, more recently, 'Card'. Brandmuller, against those who do not accept the teachings of John Paul II. Why this contradictory position?

3. Strategically Speaking

With the increase of speed in the Bergoglian Revolution, which was set up by none other than Benedict XVI, the number of reactions against Francis is growing. Recently even a newspaper like The Wall Street Journal labeled him “the leader of the global left.”

To catalyze these reactions, nothing could be more convenient than the emergence of a religious false right that would draw together all the discontent conservatives in the Church and prevent them from seeking an authentic Catholic Church and leadership.

This is what seems to be the goal of the four 'Cardinals', principally of 'Card'. Burke, who is the most expressive and outspoken member of the group. His principal acolyte in the public arena is 'Bishop' Schneider, whose  decietful role in Novus Ordo religion is duly noted. 



If this is true, which I believe it is, then this would explain why the Dubia were written with the certainty that it would not have an answer. Its goal would be to apparently put Francis in an embarrassing position. But in reality the writers would be playing the same game, allowing Francis to advance with a controlled reaction.



How will all this end? It could end as suggested by the new General Superior of the Jesuits, Fr. Arturo Sosa: 

“In our language of the Jesuits, we say that it is necessary to know the opinion of all in order to make a true communal discernment.”

In other words, the Novus Ordo religion may utilize this reaction to increase “pluralism” in the 'Church', which means that we could well have two parties in apparent opposition living together in the Vatican. This would help the Novus Ordo religion to become a democracy, one of the main goals of Che Bergoglio.

Indeed, there is nothing short of blindness in these pretend cardinals and their followers. They simply want to appear catholic while in actual fact they want to promote the conservative side of their false religion hinging it on the great Apostate, John Paul II. those 'catholics' who praise Burke or Schneider and people like them are just so blind that they can barely see their noses.



Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, on the feast day of St. John Bosco, 31st January 2017

The Pretender Catholics and danger to Souls!

As the Novus Ordo religion progresses, producing countless errors and heresies, scandalizing the whole world, many people calling themselves ‘Traditional Catholics’ remain within the wall of this false religion insisting that they cannot leave the Church as if Novus Ordo religion is ‘the Church’.

These so called ‘Traditional Catholics’ are NOT Catholics at all because they remain within the walls of Novus Ordo religion, recognizing the false Novus Ordo hierarchy (despite invalidity of Holy Order in Novus Ordo religion), and its head anti Pope Francis,  while having attachment to Traditional Latin Mass. We must note that 99 percent of their Masses are invalid as these are usually celebrated by invalid clergy.

They continue to propagate various heresies, mixing them with true Catholic teaching. This shows who they are! We look at these heresies they propagate

Pope Pius XII declared in Mystici Corporis Christi:

“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

According to Theologian and priest, Father Adolph Tanquerey taught:

 “For there to be pertinacity, it is not necessary that the person should be admonished several times and persevere for a long time in his obstinacy, but it is sufficient that consciously and willingly he refused a truth proposed in a sufficient manner, be it through pride or delight in contradiction or for any other reason.” (Syn. Th. Mor. et Past, pg.473.)

Those who are baptized and profess heresy are not professing the true faith. It only takes one heresy to be completely severed from membership in the Church, but the more heresies one professes, the farther from the true faith he strays. The following are the top 10 absolute blasphemous heresies and errors professed by those who call themselves traditional Catholics.

1.     Contend that without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals. [1]

2.     Contend that in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has NOT always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy, and that the See of St. Peter DOES NOT always remain unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples. [2]

3.     Popes need not profess the Catholic Faith. Popes can and have publicly rejected the Catholic Faith and remained popes. [3]

4.     Popes can be and are judged, ignored, and/or rejected by inferiors. Submission for pseudo-traditionalists just means praying for and acknowledging one as pope. [4]

5.     The Catholic Church is formally divided in doctrine. [5]

6.     The Catholic Church can and has promulgated heresy by Law and Decree. [6]

7.     The Catholic Church can and has promulgated unholy liturgies, laws, disciplines, and decrees, which implies the Catholic Church is unholy. [7]

8.     It’s permissible to actively pray and worship with public heretics and/or be united in faith to them. [8]

9.     The minority opinion of a past theologian outweighs the Church’s present law and/or teaching. [9]

10.                        The gates of hell and the gates of the Catholic Church are one and the same, which could imply that the Church is hell or that Christ allows the gates of hell to be in charge of the Catholic Church. Take your pick. [10]

Footnotes:

[1] Pope Pius IX declared those who make this contention that: “There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church. In such great perversity of evil opinions, therefore, We, truly mindful of Our Apostolic duty, and especially solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift Our Apostolic voice again. And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe, and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed, and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church.” (Quanta Cura)

[2] Pseudo-traditionalists claim that the apostolic see is sullied by unholy Vatican 2 teaching with a Vatican 2 pope contaminated with error. They complain, ridicule, and mock their pope for it. However, Vatican I infallibly declared the very opposite to the pseudo-traditionalist position.

[3] Pseudo-traditionalists readily admit that Francis I is a total apostate. Of course, they say that it’s only their private judgment which carries no weight.

[4] Canon 1556 specifically declares, “The first or primatial see is subject to no ones judgment.”

[5] The Church’s unity is the first article of the Catholic Faith, yet pseudo-traditionalists believe that Church is divided in faith with those who hold fast and promote Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo Mass and those who completely reject it all.

[6] Pseudo-traditionalists actually believe the Church is heretical which makes it no different from any other religion in that respect. Even some sedevacantists, who believe Baptism of desire is heretical even though it is taught in the Catechism of Trent and Canon law, are guilty of this blasphemous heresy.

[7] The holiness of the Church is the second article of Faith. This holiness encompasses the liturgy, laws, disciplines, and decrees as taught by numerous popes over the centuries.

[8] Pseudo-traditionalists hold that many cardinals, bishops, priests, and their pope are heretics, yet have no problem praying and worshiping with them and calling them their fathers in faith. The Church has condemned this evil a hundred times in history including this condemnation in Canon law.

[9] Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, and a few others are often cited as proof that a heretic remains in office and retains jurisdiction. However, canon 188.4 declares: “There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” Canonist Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac taught in his commentary that resignation of ecclesiastical offices in canons 185-191, “applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate. (d) Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long.”

[10] The Catholic Church twice declared that the gates of hell are heretics and their heresies. Pope Benedict XV declared that the Gates of the Church is the papacy. Even if you privately believed your pope was a heretic, then you necessarily privately believe the gates of hell and the gates of the Church are one and the same. It’s the ultimate absurdity and blasphemy against Christ.

 Presented by Malachy Igwilo with the octave of Epiphany, 12^th January 2017.

The Vatican: From Heresy to Madness!

As I Have said many times, it is impossible to view the Vatican as Catholic! Impossible! Some people will suggest that to say such a thing is to be mad. They will say, the Vatican is Catholic to booth. But surely anyone suggesting that the Vatican is Catholic does not have any Catholicism in him or her.

Since 1958, the false popes at the Vatican including John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have been showing the world that they are of the Devil but people have totally ignored these signs and have continued to sell their soul to the devil through the religion of these false popes.

The religion of these false popes is called Novus Ordo religion. A simple glance at what they believe will reveal it all. It is a heretical and apostate religion designed by the international freemasonry to deceive the world and ensure that millions are lost. No wonder Christ Himself said that ‘on;y a few will be saved’.

Anyone who claims to be Catholic will at least know that Martin Luther is the Chief heretic! He is the source of the evils spreading all over the place masquerading as Christianity. He broke with the true Church, the Catholic Church and today, his offspring are in their thousands. All pretending to be Christian. We know the truth. These thousands of religions are NOT Christian. They are of the Devil and people are taking in by them such that even governments recognize them.

In Nigeria, the government recognize the group called Christian association of Nigeria as being a Christian body. We know it is not. Thousands of heresies arise from them and believing in heresy leads to hell!

These heresies all came from martin Luther!

Now the Vatican has said that Mating Luther is NOT a heretic! The said he is to be seen as a ‘Witness to the Gospel’!

Yes. You read right. Martin Luther is a saint, a witness to the gospel according to Francis, the pretender Pope at the Vatican!

This is total Madness. Those who are not able to see the hundreds of heresies coming from the Vatican should at least recognize that the Vatican has gone mad in proclaiming a heretic and apostate ‘witness to the Gospel’!

Needless to say, this is an insult against Our Lord Jesus Christ and all the saints and Martyrs that died for the Gospel.

Despite this bombshell, there is silence among those who claim to be Catholic! There is even a new video where Francis continue to promote the evil called ecumenism. In a recent video, Francis is promoting ONLY wellbeing in this world and neglecting life after death!

In the current video seen here, Bergoglio uses Ecumenism as the vehicle to promote this end, and by doing so, he reveals once more that he and his fellow Vatican II Modernists do not believe that the Catholic Church is the only true Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which no one can attain eternal salvation. If they believed this, they would constantly promote, in the most charitable and effective ways possible, the conversion of all non-Catholics to Catholicism. Instead, what they do is, they tell us that converting others is a “great sin against ecumenism”, that it is “not right to convince others of your faith”; they assert that all “Christians” are already united in the true Church, saying that heretics and schismatics are “members of the One Body of Christ”; and they act as though Catholics and other “Christians” only have some internal disagreements to work out still (hence the talk not about conversion but about “partial communion” and “restoring full ecclesial communion”) — as though the true Church could be divided or exist in parts or elements.

If people are not outraged by the ‘canonization of Martin Luther’, how can they be outraged by the latest video from the Vatican? Or anything coming from the Vatican? The Devil has driven millions of people to madness, truly!

As a refresher, we need to look at what the Catholic Church said about Martin Luther and ALL his works.

‘Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We forbid each and every one of the faithful of either sex, in virtue of holy obedience and under the above penalties to be incurred automatically, to read, assert, preach, praise, print, publish, or defend them. They will incur these penalties if they presume to uphold them in any way, personally or through another or others, directly or indirectly, tacitly or explicitly, publicly or occultly, either in their own homes or in other public or private places. Indeed immediately after the publication of this letter these works, wherever they may be, shall be sought out carefully by the ordinaries and others [ecclesiastics and regulars], and under each and every one of the above penalties shall be burned publicly and solemnly in the presence of the clerics and people.

As far as Martin himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.

But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father's love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher’.

(from Exsurge Domine Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520)

This is a clear rebuke of the arch heretic, Martin Luther who Francis and his cohorts expect us to call ‘witness to the Gospel’.

Now imagine reading the above condemnation this way:

  

Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther this Witness to the Gospel, we likewise condemn, reprobate, and reject completely the books and all the writings and sermons of the said Martin Witness to the Gospel, whether in Latin or any other language, containing the said errors or any one of them; and we wish them to be regarded as utterly condemned, reprobated, and rejected….

As far as Martin this Witness to the Gospel himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? For after we had cited him, wishing to deal more kindly with him, we urged him through various conferences with our legate and through our personal letters to abandon these errors. We have even offered him safe conduct and the money necessary for the journey urging him to come without fear or any misgivings, which perfect charity should cast out, and to talk not secretly but openly and face to face after the example of our Savior and the Apostle Paul. If he the Witness to the Gospel had done this, we are certain he would have changed in heart, and he would have recognized his errors. He would not have found all these errors in the Roman Curia which he attacks so viciously, ascribing to it more than he should because of the empty rumors of wicked men. We would have shown him clearer than the light of day that the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors, whom he injuriously attacks beyond all decency, never erred in their canons or constitutions which he tries to assail. For, according to the prophet, neither is healing oil nor the doctor lacking in Galaad.

But he the Witness to the Gospel always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he the Witness to the Gospel implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council.

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him this Witness to the Gospel to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

Therefore let Martin this Witness to the Gospel himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him this Witness to the Gospel abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father’s love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency.

We enjoin, however, on Martin the Witness to the Gospel that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.

From the above, we see that it will not work! Martin Luther remains a heretic and apostate! To remind yourself about who Martin Luther taught read here and here.

To fail to see Vatican pronouncement on Luther as total Madness is madness itself!

By Malachy Igwilo, in the Octave of Epiphany, 10^th January 2017

  

Does the Catholic Church have the fullness of the truth? Modernism 101!

Pope Saint Pius X fought Modernism tooth and nail, calling it ‘the synthesis of all heresies’. Indeed modernism is a great synthesis that makes use of half-truths, ambiguous statements to propagate falsehood such that it takes deep Catholic sensibility to decipher this heresy! The robber council, Vatican II, is filled with Modernist verbiage all dedicated to propagating heresy in a secrete way so that millions of souls are lost!

Yet, millions claiming to be Catholic are not able to discover that Modernism have been placed on their shoulders as they risk their souls towards hell!

You’ve heard it numerous times: “The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth.” It is a very popular slogan among the so-called “conservative” Novus Ordo adherents, and even many misguided Traditional Catholics unwittingly use it.

Yet, this adage, though not incorrect if interpreted strictly, is actually favorable to heresy, specifically the heresy of Modernism. This explains why it is an expression that only began to be used with the advent of the Modernist Novus Ordo/Vatican II religion and was virtually unknown among Catholics before this religion was established in 1958.

So, what is the problem? Are we suggesting that the Catholic Church does not have all the truth? No, of course not.

Rather, the problem lies in the term “fullness” because it implies that the truth can be found in other religions as well, albeit only in part, in “elements,” as they love to say. And this idea of “partial truth” — as opposed to the fullness of truth — leads to further errors and erroneous implications, as is evidenced by the teaching and practice of the Modernist Vatican II Sect, which praises false religions for the truth supposedly contained in them.

The Danger of the Notion of “Partial Truth”

The very concept of “partial truth” in other religions as a supposedly good thing totally leaves out of account the fact that the other parts of that religion’s teaching are false. Yet this consideration is crucial because a body of doctrine that contains only some truth is not “partially true” but in fact completely false.

This is very easy to demonstrate. If I say that “Christ died on the Cross and did not rise from the dead,” my statement is false — it is not “partially true” or “imperfectly true.” Or, using an even clearer example, saying that the Most Holy Trinity consists of Father, Son, and the Virgin Mary, is false. It is not “partially true” on the specious grounds that the Father and the Son are part of the Holy Trinity after all. That’s just not how it works.

A few examples from daily life may help to illustrate the folly of the “partial truth” idea further.

Who would eat a cake from a baker who says that the ingredients he used are only “partially poisoned”? Should we praise him for the healthy parts? And yet, are not religious teaching and the health of the soul infinitely more important than some man-made cake and the health of the body, which must, in any case, wither away and return to dust (cf. Eccl 12:7; Mt 10:28)?

Likewise, a cocktail that has been poisoned isn’t “partially healthy.” Rather, the toxic elements mix inseparably with the healthful elements, thus creating a drink that is entirely deadly. And so it is also with false religions and their teachings — all the more so, in fact.

Again, no one in his right mind would point to sewage as containing “partial drinking water” and therefore laud its qualities of “partial purity” giving “partial health” — and then state that this part of the sewage is to be considered as “impelling” to the full purity of drinking water.

Yet, this is the nonsense taught by and since Vatican II, that abominable robber synod of the false Modernist church. In its Dogmatic [!] Constitution on the Church, the council asserts that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of [the] visible structure” of the Catholic Church, and that these “elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, par. 8). 

This new ecclesiology, which essentially holds that there is a little bit of the Catholic Church in every religion, has been nicknamed “Frankenchurch” by some, and is surely refuted by sound catholic Theology. See the link below:

The New Ecclesiology: Documentation [PDF]

We see, then, that partial truth is not truth at all but complete error. What is “partially true” is entirely false. A religion that teaches the truth only in part is a false religion, an erroneous religion, not the one true religion established by Almighty God, who promised to lead us into “all truth” (Jn 16:13). A religion that is “partially true,” then, is actually completely false.

But just as it is dangerous, false, and favoring heresy to speak of “partial truth”, so it is likewise dangerous, false, and favoring heresy to speak of the Catholic Church as possessing the “fullness of truth” or the “fullness of the means of sanctification and salvation,” because this implies the legitimacy of the “partial truth” error, as completeness is necessarily contrasted with incompleteness.

The True Catholic Teaching

Exhorting Protestants and other Non-Catholic Christians to return to the unity of the Faith in the Catholic Church on the occasion of the First Vatican Council, Pope Pius IX issued the Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes, in which he insisted unequivocally that there was no legitimacy to their false religions whatsoever and that their salvation depened upon their return to the true fold of Christ, the Catholic Church which alone teaches the true Faith:

'…We cannot refrain Ourselves, on the occasion of the future Council, from addressing Our Apostolic and paternal words to all those who, whilst they acknowledge the same Jesus Christ as the Redeemer, and glory in the name of Christian, yet do not profess the true faith of Christ, nor hold to and follow the Communion of the Catholic Church. And We do this to warn, and conjure, and beseech them with all the warmth of Our zeal, and in all charity, to consider and seriously examine whether they follow the path marked out for them by Jesus Christ our Lord, and which leads to Eternal Salvation. 

No one can deny or doubt that Jesus Christ himself, in order to apply the fruits of his redemption to all generations of men, built his only Church in this world on Peter; that is to say, the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic; and that he gave to it all necessary power, that the deposit of Faith might be preserved whole and inviolable, and that the same Faith might be taught to all peoples, kindreds, and nations, that through baptism all men might become members of his mystical body, and that the new life of grace, without which no one can ever merit and attain to life eternal, might always be preserved and perfected in them; and that this same Church, which is his mystical body, might always remain in its own nature firm and immovable to the end of time, that it might flourish, and supply to all its children all the means of Salvation.

Now, whoever will carefully examine and reflect upon the condition of the various religious societies, divided among themselves, and separated from the Catholic Church, … cannot fail to satisfy himself that neither any one of these societies by itself, nor all of them together, can in any manner constitute and be that One Catholic Church which Christ our Lord built, and established, and willed should continue; and that they cannot in any way be said to be branches or parts of that Church, since they are visibly cut off from Catholic unity….

Wherefore, let all those who do not hold to the unity and truth of the Catholic Church avail themselves of the opportunity of this Council … and let them, in obedience to the longings of their own hearts, be in haste to rescue themselves from a state in which they cannot be assured of their own salvation. And let them not cease to offer most fervent prayers to the God of Mercy, that he may break down the wall of separation, that he may scatter the mists of error, and that he may lead them back to the bosom of Holy Mother Church, where their fathers found the wholesome pastures of life, and in which alone the doctrine of Jesus Christ is preserved and handed down entire, and the mysteries of heavenly grace dispensed.

… We therefore address this Our Letter to all Christians separated from Us, wherein We exhort and entreat them, again and again, to hasten their return to the One Fold of Christ; for with Our whole soul We ardently desire their salvation in Jesus Christ, and We fear lest We may one day have to render an account to the same Lord, who is Our Judge, if We do not, so far as is in Our power, show them, and prepare for them the way to attain to this eternal salvation….

And since, notwithstanding Our unworthiness, We are his Vicar here upon earth, We therefore wait, with outstretched hands, and with most ardent desire, the return of Our wandering children to the Catholic Church, that We may most lovingly welcome them to the home of their Heavenly Father, and enrich them with his inexhaustible treasures. Upon this longed-for return to the truth and unity of the Catholic Church depends the salvation not only of individuals, but also of all Christian society; and never can the whole world enjoy true peace, unless there shall be one Fold and one Shepherd'.

(Pope Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes, Sep. 13, 1868; underlining added.)

Did you notice? Utterly absent from Pope Pius’ exhortation were any references to “imperfect communion,” “partial truth,” or a lack of the “fullness of truth.” These are all Modernist concepts disseminated by the Vatican II religion. 

Rather, the simple fact is that the Catholic Church alone has the truth, and non-Catholic sects are false. They do not have the Faith at all, not merely only “partially.” 

That’s why the Holy Father says that these Protestants and Eastern schismatics “do not profess the true faith of Christ” — he does not say they profess it only “in part” or “to an extent.” Rather, they do not profess it at all. This is because the Faith does not admit of degrees; it can only be embraced in its entirety or rejected in its entirety. 

Pope Benedict XV, in his inaugural encyclical in 1914, emphasized this very point: 

“Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected” (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, par. 24).

“Partial truth,” then, is not praiseworthy but worthless; it is complete error. Just as a single pin can pop an entire balloon, so denying or doubting a single dogma renders one wholly a non-Catholic — not a “partial Catholic” or “pretty much” a Catholic. 

In fact, Pope Leo XIII warned that those heretics who admit nearly all truths of the Catholic Faith but reject a single one are the most dangerous of them all: 

“There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” 

(Encyclical Satis Cognitum, par. 9).

Whatever individual truths heretical communities may teach and whatever valid sacraments they may even have, they have simply stolen from the Catholic Church. This is the reality of the matter, and only a fool would seek to admire or commend them for it.

Having laid all of this out, let us now proceed to consider some excerpts from Catholic authorities that amply reinforce what we have just presented.

The first comes from the great anti-liberal Spanish priest Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, whose 1886 work Liberalism is a Sin was endorsed by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation of the Index, that office of the Roman Curia that deals with the censorship of books (a liberal priest in Spain had submitted Fr. Sarda’s work to the Congregation of the Index in the hopes of having it condemned, but far from doing that, the Holy See turned instead to the liberal accuser and started investigating him, while highly praising Fr. Sarda’s Liberalism is a Sin):

In the fulsomeness of their flattery, [Liberals] hope to show that it costs a Catholic nothing to recognize merit wherever it may be found; they imagine this to be a powerful means of attracting the enemy. Alas, the folly of the weaklings; they play a losing game; it is they who are insensibly attracted, not the enemy! They simply fly at the bait held out by the cunning fisher who satanically guides the destinies of Liberalism.

…

Heresy under a charming disguise is a thousand times more dangerous than heresy exposed in the harsh and arid garb of the scholastic syllogism — through which the death’s skull grins in unadorned hideousness. Arianism had its poets to propagate its errors in popular verse. Lutheranism had its humanists, amongst whom the elegant Erasmus shone as a brilliant writer. Arnauld, Nicole, Pascal threw the glamour of their belles lettres over the serpentine doublings [tricks, artifices] of Jansenism. Voltaire’s wretched infidelity won its frightful popularity from the grace of his style and the flash of his wit. Shall we, against whom they aimed the keenest and deadliest shafts, contribute to their name and their renown! Shall we assist them in fascinating and corrupting youth! Shall we crown these condemners of our faith with the laurels of our praises and laud them for the very qualities which alone make them dangerous!And for what purpose? 

That we may appear impartial? No. Impartiality is not permissible when it is distorted to the offense of truth, whose rights are absolute. A woman of bad life is infamous, be she ever so beautiful, and the more beautiful, the more dangerous. Shall we praise Liberal books out of gratitude? No! Follow the liberals themselves in this, who are far more prudent than we; they do not recommend and praise our books, whatever they be. They, with the instinct of evil, fully appreciate where the danger lies. 

They either seek to discredit us or to pass us by in silence.

Si quis non amat Dominum Nostrum Jesum Christum, Sit anathema [“If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema”], says St. Paul. Liberal literature is the written hatred of Our Lord and His Church. If its blasphemy were open and direct, no Catholic would tolerate it for an instant; is it any more tolerable because, like a courtesan, it seeks to disguise its sordid features by the artifice of paint and powder?

(Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism is a Sin, Ch. 18; online text here or buy paperback copy here; underlining added.)

It is always a joy to quote the piercing analysis and potent logic of this great anti-Modernist. There is really not much that can or needs to be added to what Fr. Sarda has said here. The apparently good qualities of error, the “partial truths” contained in them, are not good and are not to be praised, for it is they that make the error appealing and seductive in the first place. It is precisely in the “elements of truth” found in other religions that their danger lies, just as a half-truth is more dangerous and more believable than a blatant lie, and cannot as easily be detected or repudiated.

Fr. Sarda proved himself quite a prophet by warning of the folly of thinking that recognizing truth where it may be found would be “a powerful means of attracting the enemy”, because this is exactly the attitude that prevailed at Vatican II, and just as he predicted, what happened was not that non-Catholics were attracted to the Church, but rather, that Catholics lost the Faith — “it is they who are insensibly attracted, not the enemy!”

Liberalism is a Sin is a must-read for every Catholic; we cannot recommend the book too highly. (Why not purchase some copies and pass them out to friends and family, to co-workers, neighbors and other potential converts, especially those in the Novus Ordo?)

The next passage to bolster our contention that this “fullness of truth” business favors heresy comes from Pope St. Pius X’s landmark encyclical against Modernism:

'Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true…. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth … and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity'.

(Pope Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, par. 14)

Although when read in context the Modernist error St. Pius is reproving here is not exactly the same as the “partial truth” error we are discussing at present, nevertheless this passage can very much be applied to our case as it clearly rejects the idea that we can legitimately ascribe “more” or “less” truth to individual religions — as opposed to juxtaposing the One True Religion with all other, false ones. For the Vatican II Modernists, just as with the classical Modernists, it’s not a question of true vs. false, but of more truth (or “full” truth) vs. less truth (or “partial” truth).

It would be interesting to research just who first came up with this idea of truth as consisting of elements which a religion can possess either “fully” or only “partially”, but it was certainly already present, in some form, in the thought of the Modernist Baron Friedrich von Hügel (1852-1925), who in his writings mentioned ideas eerily similar to the Vatican II error. 

Commenting on the Modernism of von Hugel, the great American theologian Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (1906-1969) chided

'…those who state that the Catholic Church is [merely] more advantageously placed than other religious bodies in this world. They assert that the Church has the fullness of God’s revealed message; but, at the same time, they likewise insist that the other religions are really from God, and that they constitute the plenitude of God’s teaching for those whom He does not call to the higher position of Catholicism'.

(Mgr. Joseph C. Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1958], pp. 141-142; underlining added.)

Fenton then proceeds to quote von Hugel:

'The Jewish religion was not false for the thirteen centuries of the pre-Christian operations; it was, for those times, God’s fullest self-revelation and man’s deepest apprehension of God; and this same Jewish religion can be, is, still the fullest religious truth for numerous individuals whom God leaves in their good faith; in their not directly requiring the fuller, the fullest, light and aid to Christianity. What is specially true of the Jewish religion is, in a lesser but still a very real degree, true of Mohammedanism, and even of Hinduism, of Parseeism, etc'.

(Gwendolen Greene, ed., Letters from Baron Friedrich von Hugel to a Niece [London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1928], p. 56; underlining added.)

This sounds a lot like Novus Ordo theology, doesn’t it? Not in its every detail, perhaps, but nevertheless very much so in its basic characteristics, its overall concepts, its points of emphasis, and its terminology and manner of expression. One of the big problems with von Hugel’s teaching is, Fenton says, that he 

“depicted non-Catholic religions as acceptable, even though less perfect than Catholicism” (p. 142), 

and this is exactly what the Vatican II Church has been teaching, not perhaps in such blunt terms, but nevertheless in plenty of documents, sometimes worded intentionally ambiguously so as to provide, should the need arise, a loophole of “plausible deniability”, but always confirming, by its official and non-official interreligious and ecumenical undertakings, that the heretical understanding is what is intended (see, for example, “Pope” Francis’ statement that he hoped Muslims would draw “abundant spiritual fruit” from their observance of Ramadan).

This is Modernism at its most cunning, and it is the reason why Pope St. Pius X said that Modernists have to be identified not only by what they teach but also by “their manner of speech, and their action” (Encyclical Pascendi, par. 3); and it is why Pope Pius VI condemned heretics who employ tactics that allow “for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it” (Bull Auctorem Fidei, introd.).

Mgr. Fenton’s main point against von Hugel is that his idea of “partial” and “fuller” or “fullest” truth implies the heresy that people can very much be saved in any religion, they are just not in as “perfect” a position as those who are inside the Catholic Church; that they have the means of salvation, just not the “fullness” thereof; that they are in a condition in which they can be saved, just not in a condition as advantageous for salvation as is that of Catholics.

But this is heresy, for there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (see Denz. 714), and “it is not true to say that a man is saved when he is transferred from a less perfect to a more perfect condition. He is saved only by being transferred from a ruinous position into a status wherein he can live as he should” (Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, p. 142).

Error has Consequences

Of course, false doctrine is only the beginning. It is from there that numerous practical ramifications flow, because thought leads to action. It will be good, therefore, to examine a few of the consequences of the Vatican II Sect’s flawed “fullness of truth” doctrine.

First, the Modernist “partial truth” error leads quite naturally to “that false opinion,” condemned by Pope Pius XI, 

“which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy…” 

(Encyclical Mortalium Animos, par. 2). After all, truth is admirable and hence deserves praise, and so it follows that “some” truth deserves “some” adulation. And this is exactly what we have today in the Vatican II Sect — they shower praises upon false religions all the time for the “truth” that is in them, that is, inasmuch as they have some truth, as they never tire to tell us.

Thus, for example, we find the Second Vatican Council teaching, quite scandalously, the following. Having praised the pagan religions of Hinduism and Buddhism, the council declares:

Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

(Bogus “Second Vatican Council”, Declaration Nostra Aetate, sec. 2)

Over the decades since the council, this asinine error has led to the most blasphemous and pernicious ideas and undertakings, such as, in particular, Antipope John Paul II’s prayer meetings with all religions in Assisi in 1986 and again in 2002, later repeated once more by Antipope Benedict XVI in 2011; John Paul II’s visit to India (1986) and his praise of Voodooism in Benin (1993), to mention just a few of a seemingly endless number of examples that could be given.

There is virtually no conclusion following from this distorted idea of truth as consisting of “elements” that can be possessed “fully” or “partially” that these Neo-Modernists don’t find too disturbing to draw. In fact, one of the Novus Ordo religion’s most indefatigable full-time crusaders, Dave Armstrong, even stoops so low as to argue that there is nothing wrong with contributing to the building fund of a mosque! 

He did this in response to a Protestant (!!) complaining about a Novus Ordo parish in Germany taking up a collection for the building fund of the local mosque. You can’t make this stuff up! At this point, Protestants are “more Catholic” than these Novus Ordo people!

Think about this for a minute. Armstrong is promoting the idea that financially supporting the building of a house of false worship to a false god by a religion that is most odious in God’s sight, is morally good and praiseworthy! He calls it “a gesture of good will” and “part of charity,” and justifies it by saying that a mosque is “not pure evil by any stretch of the imagination” (huh??) and — get this — “there is truth and falsehood in virtually any religion” (source). This is disgusting!

But is it really surprising? Once you start with the wrong principles, it’s only a matter of time before you will draw all the conclusions that follow logically. And Mr. Armstrong, it is abundantly clear, has no idea about Catholic moral theology, as his argumentation shows. He does not understand Catholic moral principles, he does not lay them out, and he does not define his terminology. His misuse of Holy Scripture and distortion of Catholic morality to bolster his position are as sickening as they are reprehensible. 

Though his conclusion — that it’s good to contribute financially to the building of mosques — is so disturbing that it should cause nothing but the greatest consternation in every person claiming to be Catholic, apparently Mr. Armstrong has been steeped in the foulest errors of Modernism for so long that he cannot detect apostasy when it’s right in front of him. (The cartoon “The Descent of the Modernists” illustrates the slippery slope quite well, by the way.)

Don’t think that Armstrong is a Modernist lone ranger somewhere who’s simply lost it. Oh no — he’s part of the Novus Ordo “conservative mainstream.” Just recently, no less of a personality than Mr. Karl Keating, the well-paid president of so-called Catholic Answers sent out an appeal to his own supporters to ask them to help Armstrong stay afloat financially so he can continue his work of “Catholic” apologetics. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, such people are the New Church’s finest “conservative” apologists today. With “Catholics” like these, who needs heretics?

Conclusion

Does the Catholic Church possess the “fullness” of truth?

We have seen that this popular adage, though no doubt well-intentioned, is loaded with theological problems and is very favorable to heresy. No Catholic should use it because it implies or at least strongly suggests the “partial truth” error of the Modernists and contradicts the clear Catholic teaching that the Catholic Church alone possesses the truth, which has been entrusted to her by Christ, and that she alone is the Ark of Salvation into which all who wish to be saved must enter.

Apart from the True Faith of the Catholic Church, there can be no faith at all. The Faith she preaches is entirely true, and the faith preached by other religions is entirely false; so the Catholic Church alone has the True Faith, and all the others have nothing. It is for this reason that salvation can only be found inside the Catholic Church, “the only ark of salvation,” so much so “that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood” (Pope Pius IX, Allocution Singulari Quadem; Denz. 1647).

Presented by Malachy Mary Igwilo, feast of St. Catherine (Patron of Philosophers). 25th November 2016