Ever Notice How the Cross is Always Diabolically Last on the List?

A friend emailed me recently with a kind of challenge for the Baltimore Catechism (BC), which was to see if the BC could demonstrate that the Novus Ordo religion was a sin to participate in, and whether the Pray-at-Home position could be proven from the BC alone without consulting other sources, and this to be done with the least amount of steps as possible. The following, then, is an attempt at his challenge, at least in the first part. It is only one way to skin a heretical Tradcat. There are any number of ways to prove that the Novus Ordo religion is not the Catholic religion, and so participation in it is inherently sinful.

For fun, I will throw out this argument, which is perhaps the quickest way to demonstrate that the Novus Ordo Church of Francis (NOCOFF) is not the Catholic Church. Then I will develop a more elaborate argument based upon direct quotations from the BC. But this brief argument may be used over some beer and barbecue with relatives since, being brief, it may be more readily remembered and recalled. 

If the Catholic Church teaches faith and morals, then it is infallible. (BC 526) 

The Catechism is a teaching of faith and morals. (BC 124)

Therefore, the Catechism is infallible. 

Modus Ponens

The supposed Catholic Church—the church headed by Francis—teaches faith and morals in its Catechism of the Catholic Church, but it is not infallible, because it teaches the belief that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, which is an explicit denial of the Trinity (CCC 841). 

Therefore, the church headed by Francis is not the Catholic Church.

Modus Tollens

You will notice that after each argument, there is a Latin designation of what kind of argument is being employed. Both Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens are valid logical arguments. This means that, if the premises are true, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false. The premises used in these arguments are fact and are therefore true. There is no argument against a fact. And there is no argument against a valid logical form whose premises are true. Therefore, there is no argument against the above argument.  

WE ARE BOUND TO BELONG TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 

But, let’s be real for a second. I know that people do not respond well to such crystalline discourse. People need more to cling to, because ultimately—as my friend pointed out—people tend to choose their religion based upon human comfort instead of the Divine consolation that comes with professing the true religion and belonging to the true Church. The BC is not silent even on this idea, for it teaches us,  

1175. A want of Christian courage chiefly prevents persons who believe in the Church from becoming members of it. They fear too much the opinion or displeasure of others, the loss of position or wealth, and, in general, the trials they may have to suffer for the sake of the true faith.

How often have we seen this unfold before our eyes with relatives or friends who do not take the next logical step, once they have identified that the NOCOFF is not the Catholic Church? Nevertheless, though it is hard, the sacrifice real and painful, we are obliged to belong to the Catholic Church: 

509. All are bound to belong to the Church, and he who knows the Church to be the true Church and remains out of it cannot be saved.

And, again, the BC reiterates elsewhere: 

1179. They who fail to profess their faith in the true Church in which they believe cannot expect to be saved while in that state, for Christ has said: “Whosoever shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.”

I do not want to be denied by my Lord because I didn’t want to lose my job, or be estranged from my relatives. But I say this with the utmost humility, without the grace of God, I am sure I would have forsaken Him and His Church the moment it proved disadvantageous to adhere to it and belong to it. Let’s not forget Who is in control here. God calls us into His sheepfold, and preserves us here. We do not call ourselves. Membership in His Church is a gift, not a right. Our membership hangs as by a thin thread of grace to God. Therefore, this is not about condemning those who are not members of the visible Church—those who are baptized and profess the entire faith. There may be those who are not members who appear to be, and there may be those who are members but do not appear to be. Though we must be unshaken in our determination of doctrine and dogma of the Church as is taught in the BC, we must proceed with all humility in determining these questions as they pertain to individual persons. The knowledge of the faith ought not to be used as a club to beat our neighbors into submission to the truth. True doctrine is a medicine to our friends, and a weapon to our enemies. Those who are not inimical to the true faith, though they do not perfectly profess it, are our friends, not our enemies. They are simply in need of a medicine.          

WHAT IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The question, then, becomes for those to whom it is not self-evident that the NOCOFF is not the Catholic Church, how do we know what the Catholic Church is? To say that the NOCOFF is not the Catholic Church, one must first demonstrate what the Catholic Church is, before saying what it is not. So, let’s do that. First, the BC tells us what the Church is:

489. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible Head.

Further, the Church has provided for our understanding for distinguishing it from counterfeits—or knockoffs:   

518. A mark is a given and known sign by which a thing can be distinguished from all others of its kind. Thus a trademark is used to distinguish the article bearing it from all imitations of the same article. 

519. We know that the Church must have the four marks and three attributes usually ascribed or given to it from the words of Christ given in the Holy Scripture and in the teaching of the Church from its beginning.

520. The Church cannot have the four marks without the three attributes, because the three attributes necessarily come with the marks and without them the marks could not exist.

Though the BC teaches us that the four marks (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic) are better known than the three attributes (listed below), in my opinion, because the three attributes are a necessary condition and cause of the four marks, it makes for a better argument to show how a church which does not have the three attributes couldn’t have the four marks. This is only necessary because it is self-evident that the NOCOFF is not the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ, but to argue at length on this point is to try to convince someone of the obvious, which is very difficult to do. In this backward age in which we live, people seem to respond better to more elaborate and oftentimes more zesty and fresh or new argumentation, with fancy terms and several steps of logic, because they are too blind to see the Great Apostasy staring them in the face. To do that is just boring for them, I guess, so they need to read a hundred thousand words of a theology manual before they can assent to the commonsensical proposition that Rome has lost the Faith and has become the Seat of the Antichrist. 

Anyway, the BC continues:    

522. The attributes of the Church are three: authority, infallibility, and indefectibility.

526. By the infallibility of the Church I mean that the Church can not err when it teaches a doctrine of faith or morals.

528. I know that the Church can not err because Christ promised that the Holy Ghost would remain with it forever and save it from error. If, therefore, the Church has erred, the Holy Ghost must have abandoned it and Christ has failed to keep His promise, which is a thing impossible.

529. Since the Church can not err, it could never be reformed in its teaching of faith or morals. Those who say the Church needed reformation in faith or morals accuse Our Lord of falsehood and deception.

530. The Church teaches infallibly when it speaks through the Pope and Bishops united in general council, or through the Pope alone when he proclaims to all the faithful a doctrine of faith or morals. 

From these data points of doctrine, a picture of what the Church is emerges, which is quite different from the picture we see today of the NOCOFF. An official organ for teaching faith and morals in the NOCOFF is the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCCC). (I make an aside here that it is ridiculous that a catechism needs a compendium to condense it down, when a catechism is supposed to be a concise statement of belief. Of course, the NOCOFF’s modus operandi has always been confusion and needless verbiage to further obfuscate the true faith, which is, as the BC demonstrates, quite accessible and able to be simply stated.) In it, a catechumen will read—as I was once upon a time, and did so read—the following teachings regarding what the Church is and who belongs to it: 

162. Where does the one Church of Christ subsist?

816

870

The one Church of Christ, as a society constituted and organized in the world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him. Only through this Church can one obtain the fullness of the means of salvation since the Lord has entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone whose head is Peter.

The verb subsists seems as good a word as is, so what is the foul here? Well, the CCCC continues:

168. Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836-838

All human beings in various ways belong to or are ordered to the Catholic unity of the people of God. Fully incorporated into the Catholic Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, are joined to the Church by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion. The baptized who do not enjoy full Catholic unity are in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

This is simply a restatement of a teaching which was put forward when—wait for it—“it [spoke] through the Pope and Bishops united in general council” at the Vatican back in the 1960s. It is essentially stating that those who belong to heretical or schismatic churches are in communion with the Catholic Church, which is false. And just in case one is not convinced that this is what it is teaching, the CCCC goes further to say:

163. How are non-Catholic Christians to be considered?

817-819

870

In the churches and ecclesial communities which are separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, many elements of sanctification and truth can be found. All of these blessings come from Christ and lead to Catholic unity. Members of these churches and communities are incorporated into Christ by Baptism and so we recognize them as brothers.     

So heretics and schismatics are recognized as brothers, and even these sects have elements of sanctification? This is obviously false, and so shows that the NOCOFF is not the Catholic Church, because its teachings on the very identity of what the Church is, are false, which is impossible if it were the Catholic Church. 

The BC clarifies how non-Catholic Christians are to be considered:

571. Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church, because:

   1. They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no chief head, and they profess different beliefs;

   2. They are not holy, because their doctrines are founded on error and lead to evil consequences;

   3. They are not catholic or universal in time, place or doctrine. They have not existed in all ages nor in all places, and their doctrines do not suit all classes;

   4. They are not apostolic, for they were not established for hundreds of years after the Apostles, and they do not teach the doctrines of the Apostles. 

Well, that is how a real Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals. The CCCC of the NOCOFF would have us live somewhere between right and wrong, in communion and not in communion, in making our yes merge into our no, and, in the ultimate analysis, make good evil and evil good. Is this satisfactory to show that it is a sin to belong to the NOCOFF? Well, since we are bound to belong to the Catholic Church, and since the NOCOFF is not the Catholic Church, it stands to reason that it is a sin (and a jeopardy to the eternal salvation of our souls) to remain in the NOCOFF. 

I have no more space to take up the second part of my friend’s challenge, which would be to demonstrate from the BC alone the reasonableness of the Pray-at-Home position. I intend to do so in a future post, but let me say this much now in closing. We must show people of good will what we have seen with our own eyes, before we can show them the path we must walk to Heaven. A man will not save his soul in the NOCOFF, because it is not the Catholic Church. That eliminates the possibility of going to an indult mass society for the sacraments or to the Society of Pope Pius X, because these claim that the NOCOFF is the Catholic Church. They just cling to most of the teachings—not all of them!—of the Catholic Church, and cling to Her ceremonies. But one is obliged to believe all that the Church teaches, not just most things, like, for instance, the attribute of infallibility. 

The second part of this post will be in answer to the question of Sedevacantists and their organizations and outfits, and whether they are the Catholic Church and if we are bound to belong to them. I will attempt an answer at these questions using only the BC, because I believe it is sufficient to answer the question. I encourage you to leave your comments and ask questions below.

Powered by

Anymore during this reign of Antichrist, it is altogether almost unheard of that two people’s minds should meet. Of course, people may agree on such things as have no importance at all or which are so self-evident as to be instantaneously believed upon hearing, but in the main, with those things which are important, which challenge people to grow and be other than they are, a meeting of the minds almost never happens. 

Knowing this to be so, because I live it daily, where does that leave CatholicEclipsed? What is the use of writing about important truths no one really agrees with, unless they do already? This blog is, I suppose by virtue of the times in which we live, always preaching to the choir, because only those who actually agree with it read it. The rest sneer and talk past it. 

The age of debate, of systematically presenting one’s ideas, providing syllogistic proofs and refutations according to set rules of reason, is dead. We live during the Apocalypse, and we who are more spiritually inclined and know our Scriptural prophecies, know that this world shall end in a flood of fire. But, as we approach that Day of Wrath, we must pass, as it were, in reverse fashion through the Biblical narrative once again. After the Flood, Noah and his family set out of the Ark to populate and inhabit the world once again. It wasn’t long, though, before pride set in, and people were building a tower to Heaven. God looked upon this insolent race and subsequently confused their tongues as to make each misunderstand each, and scattered the lot to the four winds of the world. 

Babel means confusion. When people try to read those with whom they disagree, what often happens is that one is confused about what they read, though they may not think so. The practical result is that there is disagreement about what is being argued, why it is being argued, and the discussion often ends in flames and a falling away—or, in other words, people scatter. 

Now, some of you may have noticed that a post went missing in action recently, which was written by Teresa Benns. I pulled that post, which was a response to Introibo, because it contained what I believed to be an error. It wasn’t necessarily a big error, but an error it was nevertheless. I gave Benns the opportunity to correct the error, but she instead doubled down on it, and wrote one of her lengthy posts in support of it. Such a response is to be welcomed if something to the purpose were produced, but that was not to happen. 

The error to which I refer was Benns’s claim that immediate jurisdiction was a Protestant heresy. Leaving aside the qualification of Protestant, the claim may just be that immediate jurisdiction is heresy. Okay. Well, heresy is something the Church has defined within a narrow definition. To say that such and such an idea is heretical should be easily demonstrable therefore. The subject matter of the faith and of heresy are the same, namely, Divine revelation, that is, those truths which are either found in Tradition or Scripture that are proposed for belief by the Church. The heretic, then, denies an article of belief which has been defined by the Church as having been Divinely revealed. The problem with denying mediated jurisdiction by a Roman Pontiff, or, positively stated, affirming that bishops receive their power of jurisdiction directly from God, is that the teaching has never been defined by the Church as having been Divinely revealed. Pius XII seemingly settles the matter within an encyclical letter, that jurisdiction is mediated through the Roman Pontiff, but the denial of this does not arise to the level of heresy, because heresy is not defined as a denial of a papal teaching, and Pius XII did not dogmatically define it as having been Divinely revealed.  

I took issue with this because it reflects on us Pray-at-Home Catholics. We are already marginalized and compared to Feeneyites. We have to fight tooth and nail just to get a hearing in the broader Catholic blogosphere, and often times we are laughed out of the combox entirely. We must be rock-solid in our conclusions, especially when those conclusions involve claims of heresy, the belief in which may mean hellfire. I tried to get Benns to see this, but she refused to listen. Let me make this clear, though: Teresa Benns of BetrayedCatholics is Catholic. She is a good woman, and a very studied woman, who has been defending the papacy and the teachings of the Church for a long time running. I do not have an issue with her personally, as she has been personally there for me and my family in a time when I thought I wasn’t sure what would happen to me. I look at her as a friend and a fellow Catholic. That said, however, it is incumbent upon me to show where another has erred, especially if that may make people discredit what we say on our websites.

BetrayedCatholics has a lot of good on it, most of which I haven’t even read yet. But the problem is there are errors on it, as I am sure there are errors on my website, too. The difference is I am willing and eager to be corrected, whereas Teresa has shown a reluctance to be corrected by anyone. Catholic apologetics in the time of the Apocalypse in which there is not a hierarchical Teaching Church is already a shaky enterprise. Introibo has reminded me (not that I really needed it, but it is a good point) that theology is a science, indeed the Queen of the Sciences. This means that words are technical and are not to be loosely used to try to prove a point. But the power of science rests in the exactitude of definition and in linking defined terms with defined terms through valid laws of logic. I am not a theologian, nor is Teresa Benns. I confess I do not have the training to conduct this kind of rigorous scientific activity. Neither does Benns. That is why I have stressed time and again that here on CatholicEclipsed I must present whatever argument I may based upon received and approved teachings of the Catholic Church, principally found in the Baltimore Catechism. Should we poke around into encyclical letters to try to discern what the Church teaches regarding certain matters? Perhaps, but only if such things are not dealt with by a Catechism. And this is an interesting point, if an encyclical letter teaches a matter that is not implicitly or explicitly taught in a Catechism, why do we the laity think it is something that we should know? If the papal teaching did not find its way into a Catechism, perhaps it was too obscure for the faithful? Perhaps it would have required a theological education almost no laity have, in order to understand. 

As a case in point—and I apologize for the rambling nature of this post, but I feel like rambling—I was recently contacted by an individual who believes that the popes from Leo XIII to Pius XII and after were all false popes. This individual claims that Pius XII was not the pope because he wrote in an encyclical letter:

“For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith,” (Humani Generis, 36).  

It is perhaps instructive to note that this encyclical, as I believe almost every encyclical, was addressed to the bishops of the world. Now, I am not sure if it was the practice of the local ordinary to make available these papal encyclical letters to his flock. Perhaps he did. But I think it is clear that, unless one knows how the Church’s magisterial organs work, how they go about defining doctrines and condemning errors through investigations such as what Pius XII seems to call for here, people may get confused as to what is being called for, and conclude that popes are saying something they are not. It is telling that the quotation shared with me by the emailer did not quote the paragraph in its entirety, which ended with the following cautionary qualification: 

“Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of Divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question,” (Ibid.)   

What am I driving at here? I am trying to say in a rather rambling and circuitous way that Catholic bloggers should be more humble and not seek things beyond their understanding or station in life or learning. If God wanted me to be a theologian, He would have created me during a time when I could have been. I was born in a time which makes the pursuit of theological training impossible, because there are no theologians alive today from whom I may learn the science. The learning of a science, as the learning of an art, requires feedback. The student of the science or art must be responsive to the instructions of the master’s corrections, that the student might grow in their understanding or technique. In a very real way, no one teaches himself anything. This is so from the lowest art, which is probably cooking, to the highest science, which is most certainly theology. There are those who make it seem like they can cook, but the fact that they can heat things up without causing significant food poisoning hardly qualifies them as a chef. Likewise, the fact that one can blog out a bunch of quotes seemingly touching upon a disputed question in theology, and opining from these to a conclusion which has no necessary connection with the sources cited, hardly qualifies them as a theologian. In either cooking or theology, a technique and procedure is needed which accords with the demands of the subject matter, be it making and baking gluten-free cinnamon buns (which I do splendidly and deliciously well), or making an argument that a heretofore un-condemned proposition is heresy, which I don’t think anyone without a theological faculty can do well.          

CatholicEclipsed is just a blog on which I share my opinions about the Apocalypse. I am not trying to erect a tower to Heaven. God has already provided a ladder for that: the Catechism. If we confine our conclusions on doctrinal issues to what is stated verbatim in catechisms, then there would be a lot more agreement and a lot less confusion. There will be those who read BetrayedCatholics and agree with every conclusion published there, because its readers are already willing to agree with whatever the author Teresa Benns says. I hope and pray that those who read my silly little blog will have more independence of mind not to agree with everything I say, and when I am in error on something doctrinal, please send me an email saying why you disagree with me. I hope we all can agree on the Catechism. At least then, our minds may meet and be of one mind with the Church, just as God intended. Maybe then we shall be far less scattered. Maybe then we shall no more be Blogs of Babel.        

Addendum

A very concerned commenter and critic of mine has stated that I have violated my own simplistic approach to apologetics in not sticking with the catechism in this post. I concede their point, which was true in its way, but I also am writing in a transitional period of CatholicEclipsed. Coming up on the actual one year anniversary–I thought that that was the octave following the Feast of the Sacred Heart, but the Antichrist Paul VI changed the date on me (as prophecy foretold). The actual anniversary date of CatholicEclipsed will be August 22, which Pius XII established as the feast day of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Some observant visitors to CatholicEclipsed will notice that the DATABASE page is gone. This was not a glitch in the Matrix. I intentionally removed that page, because it had links to resources which I am not sure it is wise to delve into, at least not until one has mastered his catechism.

And I suppose that is the fine line here. Am I saying that we shouldn’t read anything other than catechisms? No, that is not what I am saying. But I am saying we should not build up an apologia for the faith based upon those materials which we lack the training and education to explore and expound upon. Perhaps the greatest difficulty lies in reading Sacred Scripture, and yet Holy Mother Church encourages us to study the Bible. But She does not encourage us to write up our own exegesis of particular passages, or even form our opinions of the faith based upon our reading. Rather, we must consult approved commentaries to learn the sense of the Sacred Scripture, while also referring everything back to our catechetical formation–which, under normal circumstances, we would have fully received before we could drive a car.

To follow up with my critical commenter, I would add this from the Baltimore Catechism (BC):

Q. 1004. Can bishops, priests and other ministers of the Church always exercise the power they have received in Holy Orders?

A. Bishops, priests and other ministers of the Church cannot exercise the power they have received in Holy Orders unless authorized and sent to do so by their lawful superiors. The power can never be taken from them, but the right to use it may be withdrawn for causes laid down in the laws of the Church, or for reasons that seem good to those in authority over them. Any use of sacred power without authority is sinful, and all who take part in such ceremonies are guilty of sin.

You see here that the BC teaches two ideas at once: First, that in Holy Orders bishops, priests, and other ministers of the Church receive power; the second is that this same power may not be exercised unless authorized and sent by lawful superiors, that is, the Pope principally for bishops in sees, but also the local ordinary for parish priests. The lesson also teaches us that this same power cannot be taken away from the bishop or priest or minister, but the right to use said power may be withdrawn for causes the Church deems fit or good. Finally, the passage concludes with a pithy statement on communicatio in sacris, or the communication or participation in holy things with those who have not right to them.

It may be a stretch to say, or a gross simplification, but this lesson alone may just be all that is needed to prove that the Sedevacantist clergy, though they have valid orders, are not lawfully operating, and that those who attend their missions, chapels, seminaries, monasteries, and who participate in their ceremonies are guilty of sin, and are not acting like good Catholics. The lesson further teaches us that an ecclesiastical law may only prevent the lawful exercise of powers conferred in Holy Orders, but such a law could never take away the valid use of them. That should clear things up for those who think and argue at length otherwise.

The BC is amazingly powerful to clarify issues and to give one a peace of mind, no matter their level of intelligence or learning. One doesn’t even need to be able to read to learn the truths of the Catholic Faith. One need only be willing to listen and believe. That is the real reason why CatholicEclipsed moving forward in the 2022-2023 year will only be using the BC. I envisioned this blog to reach the lowest of the lowbrow to the highest highbrow, through being humorous yet serious, commonsensical yet profound, researched yet accessible. I believe this is the way to proceed so as best to serve my Lord and Lady. I want to be humble yet indomitable, and the only way that I can achieve this goal is to build my house on the Rock, refined and smelted down into the gold of authentic magisterial teaching found in the catechism.

I welcome comments and questions to this developing editorial stance of CatholicEclipsed, and to other concerns or criticisms my readers may have with anything on my blog, as I am willing to be fraternally corrected by my fellow brothers and sisters of the Faith, and to make amends or change according to new insights by my readers. That is how God speaks to us, not through a booming voice in a cloud (unless we are saints of the Son of God) but through our loving and caring neighbor’s thoughtful comments or criticisms. We must be open to our neighbor if we are to be open to God.

May God bless us all!

This is a response to Intoibo’s addendum which was itself a response to my wife’s post “Of Apologetical Lawyers and Theological Laymen.” 

Introibo begins his response by saying the following:

“It’s not often that I put an addendum on my post. The last time I did so was in 2019, if memory serves me correctly. Since last week, I’ve been hit by a barrage of blather by HAs accusing me of “arguing fallaciously and reasoning poorly.” That particular quote comes from Laura Robbins, wife of Robert Robbins, who runs the HA website “Catholic Eclipsed.” Ironically, it is Mrs. Robbins who is guilty of arguing fallaciously and reasoning poorly. Her husband touts his Masters Degree in Philosophy from the Catholic University of America as proof of his expertise in logic and is offended that I would call his understanding of logic into question (in the comments below). Robert should be well aware of what his wife writes and posts on the website to check for grammatical errors (if any) and to make sure the content is solid. Therefore, unless Robert allows things to be posted without checking for serious errors, it is reasonable to presume he read it and saw nothing wrong.”

I am sorry if I have given anyone the impression that I am on some kind of pedestal because I hold a few degrees in philosophy. Though I do mention the fact on my BIO page, that is only to show that I have a basic competency in reading, researching, writing, and, yes, even logic. I’ve spent too much inside the classrooms and halls of universities to know education hardly happens in them anymore. Whatever knowledge and academic skills I’ve acquired by my education could have been gained within a quarter of the time with a library card and an inquisitive mind. Education doesn’t so much happen at school anymore as much as information downloading. I was lucky enough to be a philosophy major, so classroom dialectic discussion did happen, but this so seldom as to be forgettable. But this brings me to the point. As intellectually shallow as my education was at the university studying philosophy, my brief sojourn in law school was even more so. 

My wife’s post in criticism of lawyers as such and Introibo in particular was not meant to be a slander of the profession or the man. I wanted to be a lawyer myself, and had my kidney disease not played mind tricks on me, playing with my moods and preventing me from enjoying my time in law school, I probably would have become a lawyer—such was and is my respect and esteem for the profession, and I dare say my admiration as well. 

But what Laura Robbins says in her post is absolutely true. The law is not concerned with what is true, but what is expedient, or what will win the decision of the court. An up and coming lawyer who is bent on the defense of the truth at all costs will lose every single case he tries to argue, because judges don’t care about truth—just look at the cases that came out of the 2020 Presidential pseudo-election. I don’t blame the lawyers. I don’t really blame the judges, who are just veteran lawyers. I blame the culture.

Does Introibo not care about the truth because he is a lawyer? Of course not! But the point I believe Laura was making is that Introibo, along with all lawyers who want to be successful at law—and I am assuming Introibo is successful, as I have no doubt he is—must play by the rules of the game in order to win. But by doing so, and this is the point of Laura’s criticism, there is inculcated a habit of mind which is most certainly unavoidable. There are virtues to this habit of mind, to be sure. I am speaking of the pugnacity of spirit in the lawyer, the bulldog mentality, which says that one is as virtuous as he is vicious, and which is the sine quo non of the lawyer profession, but which is, in the ultimate analysis, the very reverse virtue which is required for the discovery of truth.

You see, truth when being sought must be wooed like a woman, not fought with like a gladiator. There’s a reason why it is called philo-sophia and not mákha-sophia. The truth-seeker is in love with the truth, which is why he seeks Him out in the first place. The fighter does not seek but is contented to pick up whatever is handy and bludgeon his combatant over the head until he surrenders. Truth is not discovered in a social vacuum, where the individual in his study, insulated from the world, has eureka after eureka moment all alone. Truth is discovered by discourse, by working out the terms and the logical connections in a dialectic give and take, abiding by rules of reason, to be sure, but discovered through a cooperation and surrender of one’s own petty opinions heretofore unproven or specious. That is how the truths of the Faith must be acquired, but that is not how they are presently, and we—all of us Catholic bloggers—are guilty of too much pugnacity when what should be our animation is a desire for peace. 

This, then, being the resolve of CatholicEclipsed, to seek out truth in the spirit of peace and not pugnacity, I publicly make apology to Introibo Esquire for allowing any slanderous remarks (perceived or in fact) to be published against his profession or his person, and I further resolve to redact any portion of text published here, when pointed out, which may be considered so slanderous. I have already done so on certain passages I believe went too far afield or which misrepresented the truth of what was trying to be communicated.  

CatholicEclipsed was envisioned as a website to disseminate authentic Catholicism and to expose the agents of darkness eclipsing the Faith. Slanders, or ill-considered rhetoric, errors known or suspected which go unquestioned, these only aid the enemy in darkening hearts and minds to the truths of Catholicism we all so earnestly long for. I resolve today neither to allow any moral misconduct or doctrinal error to be allowed on CatholicEclipsed. If I so allow, through my own frailty of mind or will, I ask you, gentle reader, to instruct me, that I may make amends. 

Now, if I may, I would like to address the substance of Introibo’s addendum as it touches upon doctrine. Introibo opines: 

“When a top theologian, like the great Salaverri, tells us the pope was not deciding something infallibly or closing off discussion altogether, you can bet that is the case. Why? Because the Magisterium checks to make sure, guided by the Holy Ghost, that nothing they write in their theology manuals contain any error in Faith and/or morals that will be used to train the priests (and future bishops) of the Church. Salaverri would have been censured and ordered to redact what he wrote under pain of suspension (and possibly excommunication). Laura Robbins believes de facto, in a Church that can’t teach correctly, and thereby defects. That’s not the Roman Catholic Church.” 

First of all, where does Salaverri tell us “the pope was not deciding something infallibly or closing off discussion altogether?” Because Salaverri used the word “preferred”?! The second claim of Introibo’s is rather gratuitous, that the Holy Ghost preserves theological manuals from containing error. Now, apparently, we are to believe that theological manuals are infallible, even where papal encyclicals are not, because a theological manual can be printed which says that mediated jurisdiction is merely an opinion, whereas a papal encyclical teaches it definitively! But, if Salaverri is correct, Pius XII could not have taught that mediated jurisdiction is definitely true—which he did—because it was just an opinion according to Salaverri. If Pius XII is right, Salaverri is wrong. If Salaverri is right, Pius XII is wrong. There is no middle term between right or wrong, false and true. The question is, who do we listen to, a single theologian or the universal teacher of the Catholic Church and, quite literally, the Vox Christi on Earth? I’ll let you decide that one.                   

And the claim that Laura Robbins believes in a Catholic Church that can defect because a theological manual contradicts what a Roman Pontiff teaches in an official organ of his magisterium is preposterous in the utter extreme. Where did all the apostate clerics at the Second Vatican Council attend seminary? What theology manuals did they use in seminary that were so orthodox and infallible as to lead the vast majority of them to defect from the faith? Come on, Introibo, you can do better than that. And to accuse my wife on such absurd grounds does not reflect well on your reasoning abilities. But, I am sure you had a long week of work at the law office which tired your mind, so I forgive the accusation, as I am sure my wife does, too. 

Finally, let us consider Introibo’s actual refutation proper of Laura’s post, which comes almost at the very end. (I skip over the few points which Introibo makes about the importance of theological censures, because it is irrelevant to the actual point Laura was making.) Introibo writes:       

“What does that mean? According to theologian Cartechini, it is “A truth unanimously held by all schools of theologians which is derived from revealed truth, but by more than one step of reasoning.” What censure is attached to [its] denial? Temerarious. What are the effects of such denial? Usually, mortal sin of temerity. Can a Catholic ever dissent and not sin? Proportionately grave reason can sometimes justify an individual who has carefully studied the evidence in dissenting from such a proposition..” Therefore, an approved theologian, like Salaverri, can dissent. He does not in fact do so, but even under the highest classification given, theologians CAN dissent and hold the opposite opinion, and the laity can follow their teaching.”

First, let me note that the above citation does not abide by the basic standards of scholarship. When content is quoted from a source as a direct quote, it is offset by quotation marks, used at the beginning just before the first quoted word and at end just after the last quoted word. Introibo has a stray quote mark within the supposedly quoted comment of Cartechini, so we are left wondering what words are Cartechini’s and what words are Introibo’s. Second, the Cartechini citation ends with a strange double dot punctuation. Perhaps the reader is supposed to take this for an ellipsis, but the standard scholarly practice is to use three dots, not two. So we are left wondering if there was in fact more that Cartechini had to say on the matter, or else Introibo’s fingers were just a little jittery from too much java, and accidentally typed an extra dot. Whatever the reasons for these typographical anomalies, “…[Introibo] should be well aware of what…[he] writes and posts on the website to check for grammatical errors (if any) and to make sure the content is solid.”    

What Introibo is saying here is that Salaverri was allowed to dissent (though he did not in fact do so) from the opinion that jurisdiction is mediated by the Roman Pontiff. But Introibo here is really just talking past what Laura was saying in her post, which was that mediated jurisdiction was not an opinion or open to debate anymore because Pius XII settled the matter in an encyclical letter. The quote that Introibo provides does not speak to dissenting from a papal teaching but dissenting from the opinion of theologians. The point of Laura’s post was to underscore the fact that we are obliged to listen to the Roman Pontiff when he teaches us. We do not have the right to dissent from his teaching—nor why would we, since he is the the pillar and ground of the truth, not a theologian here or there. Introibo has not shown that dissent from a papal teaching is permitted by his citation. The notion itself is offensive to pious ears, and perhaps even subversiva hierachiae, if not suspecta de haeresi.

It is my sincerest desire that this particular controversy be put to the side, that we might address the issues that really matter and which affect us good willed Catholics today. We all have egos, and I probably have the biggest. It is like a Mr. T golden necklace which strangles me something awful, or like Jacob Marley’s invisible iron chains, which I pull behind me wherever I go. But I must let it go, and I encourage others to do the same, that we all may be one in the Faith, submitting to the Catholic Church and to the Holy Father in all filial docility and love. Will there be disagreements amongst us children? Absolutely! Will there be disputes and even heated debates? I hope so. But may the good Lord forbid us to quarrel amongst ourselves about those things which His vicar has taught us, for the bond and unity of the Faith is in the Holy Father, and in no else.

As a homeschooling father of six young children, I know that outside tutoring may sound rather nonintuitive. I mean, home-educators do not usually think that it is altogether necessary to reach for outside help when it comes to drilling their seven-year-old in the multiplication table. 5×5=25, 5×6=30, 5×7=35…

But, guess what? That seven-year-old will soon—if not already—be expected to take the square root of a circle’s radius and multiply it by an enigmatic Greek letter to determine the area of a circle. Now, with just a basic algebraic knowledge, this equation may not prove very difficult for the typical parent to teach his child. But that is just the beginning of sorrows. Soon after, your child will be expected to ply his little brains on equations and mathematical notions and problems in geometry, trigonometry, and differential calculus, the likes through which your high-school elementary algebraic knowledge just won’t cut. Help will be needed. 

That is why I’d like to introduce you to a fellow pray-at-home Catholic who happens to run an online and in-person tutoring service, Mr. Eric Hoyle! He’s been featured on this website before, in the Catholic Conversations show, in which we discuss jurisdiction. Mr. Hoyle’s credentials speak for themselves: His SAT score comes in at a staggering high 1580! (The highest possible score is just an inch above that at 1600); he has documented almost 4000 hours tutoring since 2008—no, that isn’t a typo, that’s four, with three zeros behind it! He has a B.A. in music theory and history (not easy!) and a minor in chemistry, which he has taught at the high school level. 

Needless to say, Eric is not your typical, contemporary tutor. With expert knowledge in such subjects as mathematics (arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, pre-calculus, calculus, and problem solving; chemistry); and test preparation for SAT, ACT, GRE, GMAT, etc.; not to mention his general knowledge in Latin, Spanish, science, and music, Hoyle Tutoring presents a pedagogical panoply worthy of a medieval tutor—all that is missing is a lute and colorful stockings.   

If you believe that you could benefit from Hoyle Tutoring in your high school homeschool, you can try Hoyle Tutoring for a whole month FREE without any obligation to commit to more service. Give your child the best education you can, and seek out help where it is needed. Look into Hoyle Tutoring today as a possible supplement to your already awesome Catholic high school homeschool! 

By Laura Robbins

As lawyers, people like John Salza, Chris Ferrara, and the man behind the Introibo blog are used to researching. They can pick a pertinent quote out of a court decision and use it to argue well their case. They know how to use rhetoric in order to persuade a judge or jury to see their point. Their whole purpose is winning a case. What is the problem with this? Well, Law is not concerned with truth so much as judgements and justice according to cases already decided and current laws on the books. In fact, I have it on good authority that at law school, lawyers are taught that “law is ordinance of reason”, and if you try to argue for the use of “Right Reason”, you get cancelled by a Novus Ordo Catholic criminal law professor pushing Bob Dylan CDs. You see, modern American Law isn’t concerned with right or wrong, it’s concerned with winning the argument set before you and (as if you didn’t know) it’s infiltrated with a bunch of communists who only care about destruction, not about truth. 

The point to all of this is, Salza and Ferrara argue well for the R&R crowd, and Introibo argues well for the Sede crowd. They sound very convincing to their readers because they’re talented at persuading others. They are taken as authorities because others believe they have the ability to read and research well. The problem is, they argue wrongly because they all have a preconceived notion of what the Church is supposed to look like and they use that to circularly argue that the men they believe to be legitimate authority therefore must be. For more on this problem see “Snipe-Hunting for the Endangered Species Ecclesia Catholica.” 

Why do I bring this up? Well, Introibo has been at it again, arguing fallaciously and reasoning poorly. He wrote in his most recent post Contending for the Faith Part 5:

“As theologian Salaverri teaches, “On the mediate or immediate origin from God of the jurisdiction of Bishops. This question was raised in the Councils of Trent and Vatican, but it was not decided. Several authors with Victoria and Vasquez held that the jurisdiction was given immediately by God to the individual Bishops; but generally Catholic authors with St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez hold that jurisdiction is given to the Bishops immediately not by God but mediated through the Roman Pontiff. Pius XII teaches this opinion positively in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis, when he says: ‘But Bishops so far as their own diocese is concerned…are not completely independent but are subject to the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy ordinary power of jurisdiction received directly from the Sovereign Pontiff himself.’ We think that his opinion is to be preferred.” (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, [1955], pgs. 144-145; Emphasis [Introibo’s]).”

The problem with this is answered by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis (20):

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.” (Emphasis mine)

You see, regardless of what a theologian (even a well-respected one) commented, what the pontiffs say is not just “an opinion to be preferred”. The pope is actually writing to the theologians telling them, when Papa makes a decision, you listen! It’s obvious, he says, that the matter cannot be open for discussion any longer. Who cares what the ancients wrote. Who cares what a (or many) theologian(s) argued. I am the voice of Christ speaking to you and He has spoken! 

Now if the pontiff teaches something of faith and morals do we care to quibble about whether it technically amounts to heresy or some other theological censure? Introibo does. He, along with all modernists and protestants hate the word “heresy”. They sometimes seem to hate it with a passion. I wonder why that is?! But if someone is obstinately holding an opinion against Church teaching, well I call that heresy. I don’t stop to look up whether it’s officially been declared ex cathedra with all the right terminology (“declare, proclaim, define” etc.). I just know, if you don’t listen to Mother Church, I can call you a schismatic, if you’d prefer, but you’d still actually be a heretic for denying the supremacy of Peter and the requirement to believe whatever the Roman Pontiffs have heretofore taught. And that’s not just my opinion, that’s Church teaching, too!

Eric Hoyle follows truth wherever it leads, even if he can’t take pleasure in exposing the darkness. His latest well-written piece corrects the late Fr. Cekada’s errors arguing against the Home Alone position. Hoyle treats his subject with humility and his opponent with charity. We can all learn a thing or two from reading his work. I encourage you to do so.

In The City of God, that great work of theology by the Doctor and Father of the Church, St. Augustine, Christianity is defended against the accusation that Rome was in decline because of Christians. I am ashamed, though, to admit that I have only read a little of it, and only an abridged version. Perhaps I shall make a study of it in depth someday, because I am convinced that we are quite literally reliving out today the fall of Rome. 

I don’t think it is controversial to say that America is Rome. I went to school in Washington D.C., and one of the most striking features of that great city is its beautiful buildings. When you walk out through the streets of downtown D.C., and behold the monuments and mountainous facades in the neoclassical style, a feeling of national pride sweeps over your soul like a spring breeze. Indeed, the antiquity of the architecture demonstrates a kind of vital youthfulness. There are sculpted eagles and lions everywhere, like one is walking into a gigantic nursery room–or Church. Figurines as beautiful as Hercules and as strong as Venus populate archway after archway throughout the city, like so many toy dolls set up and still just for play.  

Now, contrast the childlike sunshine and brightness of D.C. with your typical small-town drab bank or postoffice, and you get a glimpse into what I mean by the youthfulness of Washington, and the decrepitude of the rest of America. The oftentimes grotesque buildings formed in the modernist style as sleek as a kitchen knife that stabs your eyeballs with angular, jetting structures, usually with reflective surfaces to further bewilder the eyes, the rhythms and motion of which all urge toward a pointless point into an indifferent easterly or westerly sky, with no apparent intentionality at all, not unlike the political and social temperament at present.    

The contrast made, we see that D.C. represents story, whereas the town represents science, or mere mathematical abstraction. The reason for this is simple enough—and there is a push to destroy the story-based architecture of D.C., which was already underway when I attended university there at The Catholic University of America, where beautiful buildings, Catholic buildings of refined American neoclassical, were being replaced by modernist glass and metal monstrosities—which is to replace the Christian and Westerner past with a new futuristic and faceless race. It is the attempt to rewrite history by defacement and replacement, by making the America feel remorse for her past (sound familiar?), that she may have no roots when planted in the desert to die. It is the same thing they (yes, they) did to the Roman Catholic Church. They are doing it today to America, because America is Rome. 

It may come as no surprise to anyone reading this that I am not entirely convinced that we have a legitimate presidency or senate or house, that those who were “elected’ were not actually selected to be the representatives, that this nation of the people, by the people, for the people, has perished from the earth. We witnessed the treason before our eyes, the hours upon hours of eyewitness testimony to the effect that so many fraudulent votes had made a mockery of the election process and the sovereignty of the American people a farce at best and a tragedy at worst. My faith in the democratic process of this country is dead. Let me just say that to get out of the way any objections to what I may say next, which is, that we are obliged to love our country no matter how iniquitous it is—and America is very iniquitous—because of the fourth commandment. Just as we ought to love our father, even if he be an abusive drunkard, so we ought to love our fatherland, not on account of the abuses but because without our country we would not be at all.

The abuses, the totalitarianism and superstition of health, the economical oppression, and reconstructing of energy systems, all of it, are so many antics of the neo-Visigoths, be they Chinese or Russian, or some other nefarious nation of actors—like Israel, perhaps. They want us to hate America, because they hate America. They want us to be be ashamed of our past—which may, in many instances, be shameful. But they want us to live in perpetual mea culpa, using what little Christian virtue remains to the average American citizen to undermine citizenry itself. Divide and conquer has ever been the Enemy’s battle plan. It happened in the Church. It is happening now in America. And it is working, but not in my house. Just as we keep the Faith, so we keep the Flag in our home. We will celebrate the birthday of America by a barbecue of (ironically) German knockwurst sausages, French fries, good old fashioned cowboy baked beans, and a cheese cake (which actually originated in Rome), because, like the Catholic faith which unites all men in the bond of faith, America unites all men in the bond of nature and reason, insofar as she is able when not thwarted by her enemies.    

I do not know when this all began. Perhaps it started with the ground-breaking of the first modernist postoffice. But just as I refuse to relinquish my inheritance of the Catholic Faith for some pottage of worldly comfort and conformity, so, too, I refuse to give up my American heritage on account of the usurpers and invaders. I am proud to be an American. I know there are those who are reading this who are not American. But I tell you, if I lived in another country, I’d be just as proud to be a Spaniard, or a German, or a Latvian. The point is not that America is great (or was great), and so I love her. Rather, she was great because she was loved. Nor should she be despised because she isn’t great anymore. Rather, we should love her more dearly, care for her more sweetly, hoist the flag higher, and salute Old Glory with tears in our eyes, not for what she is, but for what she might have been had she truly been a nation under God.      

And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.

Today is the one year anniversary of launching CatholicEclipsed, a website dedicated to disseminating authentic Catholicism and exposing the agents of darkness eclipsing it. The days leading up to this milestone have put me into a mood of critical self-reflection and recollection of the purpose with which I started out on this mission. I do not claim an ecclesiastical mission. That would be foolish. But I do believe that my efforts are a direct result of a sending of sorts, insofar as we are all sent into the world as lambs among wolves by the Good Shepherd Himself: 

“And after these things the Lord appointed also other seventy-two: and he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come. And he said to them: The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he send labourers into his harvest,” (Luke 10:1-2).  

And, in a very special way, being totally consecrated to the Blessed Virgin Mary through the St. Louis De Monfort True Devotion to Mary, which I encourage you to read and perhaps consider doing yourself, I am also sent by her into the a spiritual wilderness to help console my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ whom I have met here. That is the point of the cross in the desert with the eclipse on HOMEBASE  . It represents in a visual way where we are now spiritually during the Apocalypse. It is often lonely here in the desert, where food and drink is scarce (worldly comfort), and friendship is even more so, to where sophisticated man with his civilization has not reached. Here in the desert there is only oneself and God. 

The mission, then, of CatholicEclipsed is clear enough, but how one executes that mission is less clear. My attempt this past year at producing video content has been somewhat lackluster. No significant impact was achieved doing so. From the highly stylized “Sect Spect Report,” which (I confess) may have alienated many on account of its apparent flippancy, to awkward and fumbling interviews, my attempts at video productions has been less than stellar. So, I must reassess and adapt to my own abilities and talents to achieve the mission. I am convinced at this point that web articles, with the occasional image, is the way to go. It is a classic way to communicate, and people respond well to it. 

That said, I have had in the back of my brain the notion of a CatholicEclipsed podcast. I don’t know how that would work or if visitors here would appreciate it at all, but it does have the advantage over print in that it is more personal and intimate, which would help in the consolation department of the mission. Let me know in the comments what you would think about that. 

There have been other changes to CatholicEclipsed. Some of you will notice that I am no longer on Twitter. The reason for this is twofold: Twitter is a temptation and a distraction. Being on Twitter has tempted me in so many different ways, from its grave immodesty to its open blasphemy, I have been tempted to lust and anger so many times I cannot count. Surely, that is utterly fruitless spiritually. And Twitter has distracted me from my mission. I envisioned social media as a way to market CatholicEclipsed, but after a year doing so, my numbers were so woefully low as to be considered nil. No one, with the exception of a handful, actually ever engaged with my Tweeted content, for want of interest or because my material was lame, I don’t know. What I do know is that Twitter wasn’t helping but hurting, and distracting me from producing better and better content, and more of it, and distracting me from my family life. Finally, I had enough, and so I deactivated my account, something one gentlemanly and sagacious reader advised I do some time ago.

So, what to expect this coming year? Well, I intend to produce two kinds of content to achieve the duel aspects of my mission, to expose the agents of darkness (who ever they are) and to console my coreligionists with uplifting and spiritually enriching content. I will attempt a balance, because it is spiritually unhealthy always to be in the thick of things and doing battle. We need a breather every once in a while, a time to recoup and relax and rest in the Lord. To that end, I would really like to know what kind of articles you would like to see, what interests you spiritually, be it devotions, religious arts and music, biographical sketches of saints, prayer life and pious practices, etc. Let me know in the comments section.

CatholicEclipsed is dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, whose feast day it is today. Some of you may have seen my bracelet I wear on my right wrist. I had enslaved myself to Jesus in Mary some years back. I wear this bracelet as a reminder to myself to live out the true devotion to Mary, to be faithful to Christ by keeping my baptismal promises, and to remind myself of the chains of sin which the devil forges around us (which we cannot see), as compared with the the chains of love which God forges around us. We are either slaves to the Devil or to God. But this holy slavery to God is true and perfect freedom, unlike its counterfeit the Devil advertises with a thousand temptations to do what we want. Like a natural slave who owns nothing but depends on everything from his master, I own nothing but give all to Mary to do with as she pleases. This website is just one more thing that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the Queen of my heart and soul.  May CatholicEclipsed honor her evermore this year, and may she use it as she wills. Amen.  

Editor’s Note: My wife, Laura Robbins, wrote an open letter to the author of the Introibo Ad Altare Dei blog, in response to the post “Get The Correct Interpretation And You’re Home Free.” I thought it was very well written, and I think you will agree. The points made are salient to the controversies affecting us Catholics who are just trying to make heads or tails of the chaos. I present the letter in full below. Be sure to leave a comment if you feel inclined! She’d love to get your feedback.

Dear Introibo:

I will try to make this as short as possible. I was reading your article today about CE and I further clicked on and started reading your article “Betrayed by Benns”.  I hope you understand this has nothing to do with my husband or Benns and everything to do with truth so please be objective when you read this, as I assume I am being objective in my argument:

First, I don’t believe Thuc to have been an invalid priest or bishop, but he certainly defected from the faith and never truly came back to the Church even dying in communion with the Novus Ordo. 

Next, with Lefebvre: you say you will assume Lienart was a mason. Good, because there is plenty of evidence of it including Lefebvre’s own admission—why should we assume a public statement from Lefebvre was a lie or the result of confusion? 

I will set you some examples that don’t refute any of the Church teachings you have brought forth. 

One, say there was a man who committed theft. The authorities charge the man, but he is PRESUMED innocent, until proven guilty by a trial. The trial doesn’t come up with enough evidence to charge the man (and there are no witnesses who even saw it happen), so he’s found “not guilty” by the law. Does that mean the man did not commit the theft? No, it means that the law presumed something and couldn’t prove its contrary. It doesn’t say anything about the fact of the theft by the man.

Two, back to the Church, using your true example. The Church presumed that those native priests had sacraments. But the people were being absolved the whole time by laymen. The Church cannot supply holy orders and jurisdiction to laymen. All those absolutions were null and void and some people may have gone to hell over it, if they only had imperfect contrition for their sins!

Masons and Communists are declared enemies of the Church. Why should we (laymen) presume that the declared enemies of the Church want to perpetuate that same Church with truly ordained and consecrated clergy?! Has the Church told us specifically that masonic orders are valid? Did She so declare? Did She even declare that we are to “presume” masonic/communist orders are valid?

Here’s what She did say regarding something similar:

First:

“THE MINISTER OF A SACRAMENT IS PRESUMED TO INTEND WHAT THE RITE MEANS: NEVERTHELESS, IF IN FACT HE RESOLVES NOT TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES, HE HAS NOT SUFFICIENT INTENTION AND THE SACRAMENT IS INVALID.”

This is even emphasized as such in the original! That is a portion that I’m sure you have read since you decided to ellipsis it within your article.  

Second:

“Lehmkuhl gives an interesting case of conscience on the point. A certain priest had lost his faith and had joined a forbidden society, after which time he began to perform his priestly duties in an external manner only. He religiously observed the correct and exact performance of the matter and the form in the sacraments he administered, but inwardly he intended not to do what the Church does and what Christ instituted. The solution of the case declares that the sacraments conferred by the priest were null and to be repeated absolutely,” (The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments by Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L. 1949, referencing Casus Conscientiae, Vol. II, p. 14, Casus 7, Augustin Lehmkuhl, 1903).

He says “repeated absolutely”, not conditionally. I assume I do not need to educate you on what that means. Note that there’s not even a death bed confession here in this example.

So back to Lefebvre, his ordination to the priesthood was performed by a Mason, not just any mason with supposedly good will, but a high ranking mason. Why should we assume that his ordination is valid? Because the Church was silent on the issue?! 

An episcopal consecration cannot be made valid on a layman. The man must have holy orders according to the Church teachings cited by “Bishop” Joseph Marie, which I know you’ve read. So any ordinations that Lefebvre tried to perform were invalid. Not because of VAS, not because he was a heretic who defected from the Church either before or at Vatican II, but because you can’t give what you don’t have. 

Should we assume that his orders were valid just so that we can have possibly dubious sacraments? Because as the Church stated above, Her (and our) presumption does not a sacrament make. We can presume all day, but if they were invalid, then all these sede clergy are performing invalid and sacrilegious sacraments, because pretty much ALL of them come from Lefebvre and his unapproved seminary opened and ran with approval of and under a false pope!! 

Are you willing to risk your eternal damnation on that presumption? Because you already stated today,

“Being home is the “safe way” to Heaven. We have the Act of Perfect Contrition, Spiritual Communion, and the Rosary. Ans. All these things are beautiful and Catholic. If this is all you have (like the Japanese Catholics during the Great Persecution) that’s the way to go.”

This is all the HAs (as you call us) are doing. Ensuring that we are on the safe road. There are NO graces conferred with invalid sacraments. Why should we risk it? That, to me, is quite a presumption! We do not have a pope to rectify the issue and the Church teaches us to always follow the safer course with respect to the sacraments. (I will cite it for you if necessary. I don’t have the reference off hand.) How are you doing that?

Just because you don’t like what the outcome is, doesn’t mean you have a good argument against it. You may be a good lawyer (you certainly argue like one), but that doesn’t give credence to your arguments just because they are delivered with rhetoric. It may very well be that there were few valid clergy left by Vatican II because of worldwide infiltration of the Church from masons and communists. That may help to better explain the complete and “sudden” apostasy. 

Also, if you didn’t see this on my twitter feed, I argued that all clergy must have defected before the election of John 23 for this reason, Billot says (found here https://novusordowatch.org/billot-de-ecclesia-thesis29/):

“But whatever you finally think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis, at least one point must be maintained as completely unshaken and firmly placed beyond all doubt: the adherence alone of the universal Church will always be of itself an infallible sign of the legitimacy of the person of the Pontiff, and, what is more, even of the existence of all the conditions requisite for legitimacy itself. One need not fetch from afar proof of this claim. The reason is that it is taken immediately from the infallible promise of Christ and from providence. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and Behold I am with you all days. To be sure, for the Church to adhere to a false pontiff would be the same thing as if she were to adhere to a false rule of faith, since the Pope is the living rule which the Church must follow in belief and always follows in fact, as will be still more clearly apparent in what is to be said later. By all means God can permit that at some time or other the vacancy of the see be extended for a considerable time. He can also allow a doubt to arise about the legitimacy of one or another man elected. But He cannot permit the entire Church to receive someone as pontiff who is not a true and legitimate [pope]. Therefore, from the time he has been accepted and joined to the Church as the head to the body, we cannot further consider the question of a possible mistake in the election or of a [possible] deficiency of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy, because the aforementioned adherence of the Church radically heals the mistake in the election and infallibly indicates the existence of all requisite conditions.”

All the supposedly valid and reigning bishops adhered to both Roncalli (through his whole pontificate) and Montini (at his election and some time after). Billot emphatically says this cannot be. He says “universal adherence” is an “infallible” sign! He says this point must be firmly placed beyond all doubt! Therefore, as said above, they may not have been true clergy from having defective orders because of infiltration. You can try to argue this point, please do!, but don’t use rhetoric and ill-placed or deceptive ellipses to do so. It’s unbecoming of a man who calls himself Catholic. 

Happily Home but Not Alone,

Mrs. CatholicEclipsed

We live during the time of the Great Apostasy foretold in Holy Scripture. That is a fact as plain as the color of the sky, and equally as visible. And yet, there are those, many in fact, who do not know it. How do we unravel this paradox? How can it be that a thing as big and blue as the color of the sky could not be seen? The answer is simple enough, if you give it some thought. The answer is, because the vast majority of those who do not see that we live in the Great Apostasy, have already apostatized from the Faith. 

Apostasy is, by definition, a turning away from the revealed truths of God. But apostasy is more than that. It is also turning away from God as such, in the sense that one does not believe that God is God, that an almighty being created the world and the people in it for a purpose. What so often happens is that people either are born into a family that has already apostatized or the individual child who becomes an adult, apostatizes in adulthood. In my case, it is both. 

I was born into a heathen household. My father didn’t believe in anything so far as I was made aware. I was estranged from my mother, on account of her mental illness, so what she believed or why, I do not really know. She was born Catholic, raised in a Catholic school (Novus Ordo), but by the time she became an adult, she had longed since forgotten what it meant to be Catholic. I think she dabbled in Native American mysticism—in other words, paganism. She has since come around to reading the Baltimore Catechism with me, which I am very excited about. My father died when I was sixteen, and died presumably without baptism or the desire thereof, and outside the Catholic Church. I pray that Our Lady of the Holy Rosary intercede on his behalf at the time leading up to his death, that he in fact experienced a conversion. That is my hope and prayer. 

Such were my non-religious parents. Coming into my teens, I was curious about God, and the world, and about myself. I had the grace already then of a philosophical and I dare say theological or at least a religious notion of existence. That is what ultimately compelled me to conversion and to be baptized. I believe it was a grace from the Mother of God who interceded for me, and has brought me to where I am now, in the wilderness with her during the Apocalypse. 

I was baptized, converted to what I believed was the Catholic Church, and entered into life with my wife (a cradle “Catholic”), joining the Navy, and eventually going to university to study philosophy at the Catholic University of America, a once-prestigious and Catholic research institution, but now a den of thieves and robbers and “Saint” John Paul II the Great enthusiasts. (You are probably wondering what on Earth any of this has to do with Apostasy. Just hold your horses and be patient. It is about to all click.)

While at University, I had the pleasure of talking philosophy with the seminarians there, who lived just up the hill very close if not on campus in a seminary dedicated to John Paul II. I guess their spirituality and theological and philosophical identity was modeled around him. Now, without wanting either to lose you or bore you, I will only briefly explain what made John Paul II philosophically menacing as well as dreadful theologically. You see, Wojtyla was a personalist, which means simply, he referred all philosophical investigations back to the person, to the experience of the person as such. Hence, objective truth became possible to discuss only in light of the person. In times of old, that is, during the Apostolic age of the Church Fathers and down through to the Medieval period with St. Thomas Aquinas and scholasticism, which is really just Aristotelianism applied to the revealed truths of the Catholic Faith, objective truth was not referred to the person at all. Why would it be? The sky is blue, whether there is a person to see it or not, no? 

Anyway, John Paul II was the superstar at The Catholic University of America, even though the School of Philosophy was housed in a building called Aquinas Hall. And his philosophical method had been the standard pretty much since the Second Vatican Council. That is because even Wojtyla had a teacher, or rather teachers: the phenomenologists, who changed the philosophical (and consequently, theological) landscape of the 1900s. There was a faction afoot, or as Cardinal Manning put it, a crisis, in his book, Present Crisis of the Holy See, which actually preceded phenomenology. That was the Pantheists of the post-reformational era, that is, during the Enlightenment period. It wasn’t enough to be heretic anymore. One had to be free, not just from the Church and the Pope, but from the crushing reality that God was God, and man was merely man. Hence, the so-called enlightenment period, in which God was confounded with His creation, and made one with matter. 

We may scoff at such ridiculous notions now, but the fact is, that pretty much everyone believes this, that God is in creation, indeed that creation is God. Catholics don’t, obviously, but those who have revolted against God, those who have apostatized do. Remember how I said that, with the Medieval Church and world, the truth was objective? Well, after Descartes and other Enlightenment philosophers, the world and truth became subjective. The sky wasn’t blue anymore. Rather, it was blue because we saw it as such. We weren’t subject to God or the Church, rather we were subject because we merely thought so. Thus, Pandora’s Box let out the evil of Pantheism, the belief that all was God, including ourselves, and our own little thoughts, which were but the expression of the Great Deity evolving itself like a great big origami frog. 

“Galaxy Hair”

Who can deny this is what we see today? Blue-hair, baby-murderer, and Novus Ordo Missae attendee have far more in common than is typically thought. Each in their way believe that their own preference for how things ought to be is the true one. The blue-haired (or green or purple haired person) is in revolt against nature. The would-be beautiful brunette or blonde is saturated with the delusional notion that coloring her hair will objectively make her beautiful—as if beauty had nothing to do with truth in the objective order of things. The woman who seeks an abortion destroys the life she helps to create, thereby revolting against nature at the most fundamental level, that of life. She thwarts her very act, because the act of procreation has no meaning now apart from what her desire is. Thus, her desire and the meaning of her acts become one. Her actions only have meaning if she means them, and in the manner she means them. Thus, abortion isn’t murderer, it isn’t taking of another human life, because human life is meaningless to her. The only life that matters or means anything is her own. She has become God, whose will is truth. (I do not blame the poor women who think such and do such evil against their own children. Not that they are not culpable for their sins, but that I blame the men more, both those who help procreate the life they murder, and also the philosophers who made such madness even possible.) 

Now, as to the Novus Ordo Missae attendees; how in the world are they Pantheists? They are Pantheists because they worship Man as such, not God. All the Antipopes of the past seventy years denied the Incarnation. But John Paul II, in a special and snake-like way, denied the Incarnation by really just making it into Pantheism.

The heretical Second Vatican Council taught: “Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him [Christ], has been raised in us also [eo ipso etiam in nobis] to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man.” (Gaudium et Spes, no. 22, as quoted from TraditionalMass). 

In his pseudo-encyclical, Redemptor Hominis, John Paul II offers an authoritative interpretation of the passage:

“…the mystery [of the Redemption] in which each one of the four thousand million human beings living on our planet has become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath the heart of his mother,” (as quoted and emphasized by TraditionalMass).  

In the article quoted from above, the author continues: 

“It is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and of the impeccability of man! This is why Paul VI on December 7, 1965 in his closing speech of the Council said, ‘We more than anyone else have the cult of man.’ The cult of man is precisely, according to Saint Pius X, the distinctive sign of the Antichrist! (E Supremi Apostolatu) And Montini continued in this famous discourse: ‘The Religion of God made man has met the religion of man who has become God. What happened? A shock, a fight, an anathema: all this could have happened, but in fact did not happen…’”

“This is an explicit profession of pantheism. For pantheism, the world and God make a single thing. Acosmic pantheism (mystico-religious pantheism) is the reduction of the world to God. The world is absorbed in God, and is nothing more than an ensemble of manifestations of God which have no permanent substance distinct from God. Thus God is the substance of ‘Soul of the world.’” (from TraditionalMass). 

Those who attend the New Mass believe this, even if they do not understand that that is what they believe. Lex orandi, lex credendi, the law of what is prayed is the law of what is believed. The New Mass is a worship service of man. Work of Human Hands, a historical and theological analysis of Paul VI’s worship service would be a good read to understand just how messed up the New Mass is. Though written by Anthony Cekada, a pretender Catholic priest (recently passed, requiescat in pace) who received his priestly formation from the schismatic and heretical seminary of Lefebvre, and who I doubt was even really a priest at all, let alone Catholic, nevertheless was a strong scholar of the liturgy. Thus, I recommend his book but not the man. But suffice it here to say that the New Mass is demonstrably a worship service of man as God. The happy-clappy music, which is about as sacred as a U2 song, is one bit of evidence. If the music were actually in service to God, it would sound like it, instead of music which sounds like it is contrived to make people feel happy and glad to be wasting their time at a Sunday meet and greet service. The versus populum of the celebrant is another datum, which orients the priest to the people and not to God. Anybody with eyes can see the difference between a priest who faces the altar and tabernacle alone, addressing his prayers thereat, and a man dressed up in ugly green vestments (why are they so ugly?) who prays at the people, who is actually talking to the people, though he feigns talking to God, just as the people think they are praying to God, but they are really just talking to themselves.  

Thus we see how those who cannot see the sky is blue cannot see that they think they are God. The worship of man has made man as worthless as man. We may never get back out of this pit of pantheism into which humanity has fallen, out into the bright sunshine of Medieval Scholasticism, back into the daylight of things being what they are, not because we believe or think them so, but because God does. But since we find ourselves down here anyway, we might as well tell people that what they see and hear are but shadows and echos of reality. Truth is not here. They have taken Him. In the words of Eugene Cardinal Pacelli, who would be our last Holy Father, Pope Pius XII:   

“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a Divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul…I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the true Faith of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past…A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘Where have they taken Him?’”

I am coming to the conclusion that there may yet be almost no Catholics left in the world. 

Through correspondence, social media, and, of course, conversations with people in person, it has become more and more evident that there is some one thing that prevents me from saying, ‘Yea, he’s a fellow Catholic.” I say this with the utmost caution and reluctance, but it is something I must say, because it weighs heavily on my heart and conscience. That one thing is pride. 

Usually, personal, actual sin does not cut us off from the Body of Christ, unless that sin destroys the bond of faith or of charity, that is, if one is a heretic or schismatic. Those who belong to the Novus Ordo sect are not in the Catholic Church because they are heretics. Anyone who has a ninth-grade reading ability and who has read what the “popes” of the past sixty years have taught, would be able to see that. I am not overly concerned with them. The author over at NovusOrdoWatch.com has been doing a fine job for the past decade showcasing the absurdity of the pretender popes and the Novus Ordo clown show. Those who are of good will who are attached to that sect simply do not know their faith, just as I did not know my faith when I converted to that sect from being a heathen. 

I am not now so much even concerned with Sedevacantists. The mission of CatholicEclipsed is to expose the agents of darkness eclipsing Catholicism. Through the work done by Sedevacantist apologists (like Mario Derksen, for instance, author of NovusOrdoWatch), a lot of the dark agency that has been eclipsing the Catholic Faith has been exposed by sound Church teachings. But there is still darkness which covers up what it really means to be Catholic. I have written time and again about this proclivity of Sedevacantists to override papal law, divine law, and usurp the powers and prerogatives of the Church in the name of necessity. They invoke legal principles in canon law to construct a basis for their sacramental operation, which is really nothing more than a chain of retail businesses selling sacraments. The CMRI, SSPV, SGG, MHT are the main merchants in the Sedevacantist enterprise. I leave those out of my consideration at present. 

So, who do I have in mind? I am speaking of Pray-at-Home “Catholics” who, time and again have demonstrated a marked disregard for the Roman Pontiffs. There are those who do not believe Pius XII was even the pope. I will not discuss those people. But there is a fringe of Pray-at-Homers I am discovering who have so little regard for the regency and primacy of the See of Peter, that they actually publicly call into question the faith of the Roman Pontiffs! 

In a Twitter battle, I found myself having to defend the use of nude figurative art in Churches. The issue revolved around the so-called decadence of the Church around the time of the Council of Trent. This criticism was not unfounded, insofar as even the Council Fathers thought it prudent to say a word about keeping artwork lust-free, and so forth. I do not contend against the notion that there may have been some slippage here and there in the freedom artists had with the depiction of the human body in sacred places. Perhaps there were some instances where more modesty was demanded. I concede that point. But I emphatically do not concede what my interlocutor said next: 

“The pagan and nude artwork was never removed or whitewashed by any pope, as they remain to this day. Is that indicative of fervent faith? By their fruits you shall know them. Ezekiel 8 shows the anger and judgement of God when His temple is desecrated.”

Mind you, this was uttered in the public square (digital anyway), in front of potentially thousands of souls, and by someone who is a Pray-at-Homer. So, let’s get this straight, here is a “Catholic” who is saying out loud that the Roman Pontiffs who oversaw the artworks of the Renaissance, indeed personally commissioned said artworks, have “desecrated” the Temple of God, and that the faith of these same Roman Pontiffs is subsequently questionable. 

We already saw how earlier this week I had to contend against those Pray-at-Homers who had so little love of the papacy and of the Holy Father, Pius XII, as to believe that he could crown a demon as Queen of the world. Today I have to do the same, and for the same reason, because ultimately there is a fringe who do not really believe in the papacy. 

I will not reproduce the quotes of Church teaching which state our utter subjection of will and intellect to papal teaching and law. A Catholic simply knows that his Holy Father knows best. A Catholic prays for the pope, pays him homage and reverence, salutes him, kneels down at his feet and kisses his ring, assents to his teachings, and is joyfully directed by his laws. A Catholic is a sheep, and the pope his shepherd. A Catholic follows him wherever he goes—where else shall the sheep go, the shepherd hath words of eternal life. And if a pope commissions artwork for a holy place with nudes in it, and approves it after completion, the sheep bleat their enthusiasm (even if a little prudish in their own way, and wouldn’t prefer such artwork), and accept that Rome has decided it should be so, which is a sufficient and necessary condition for sheep approval and assent.  

I say that is what a Catholic would do, but, as is evident in the case above, that is not what some Pray-at-Homers do. Rather, they take it upon themselves to pass judgment on the Roman Pontiffs, to call into question the aesthetic and religious decisions of past popes, as if theirs could be a detriment to the faith—or worse, as was actually stated above, a “desecration”! These people assent to the teachings and laws of the Roman Pontiffs, but they hold something back, a portion of their mind and wills they think is their own, as if the popes did not exercise their authority over all of a Catholic’s person. Some take issue with a popes financial dealings; another takes issue with a particular devotion; and yet others disparage the reputation of the Roman Pontiffs on account of aesthetics and propriety in art. But the principle which creates schism between these people and real Catholics is what unites each of them in their own groups, that is pride, which St. Thomas defines as the desire to be greater than what one is, which ultimately results in either heresy or schism, and in this case, the latter: 

“Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, willfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: “Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.” Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose vicegerent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy,” (ST 2:2. 39.1).   

In my previous post, and in this one, I only wish to stress that the supremacy of the Vicegerent (awesome title) over us is valid and real and a necessary condition to be called Catholic. This subordination of mind to the will of the Roman Pontiffs is  not a trifling thing, one which may be undone or set aside in cases where one has conducted amateurish research online or read some books of history. What I have witnessed recently, and it saddens me deeply, is that would-be fellow Catholics who pray at home refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiffs, because of an inflated (“puffed up by the sense of the flesh”) sense of self-dependency in formulating their own notions as to how things ought to be, be it in devotion or art, which allows them to say such things as:

“The pagan classics, nude artwork in Catholic churches, pagan carvings on the doors of St Peters, the Renaissance itself, are not the cause but the visible symptom of the loss of faith, the seeds of which were sown hundreds of years prior to the Renaissance.” 

I guess for some, St. Bernard’s words fall on deaf ears and before blind eyes: “It is fitting that every danger and scandal of the kingdom of God be referred to your Apostolate and especially these which touch upon the faith. For I regard it worthy that there, above all, dangers to the faith are mended, where one cannot think the faith is lacking. For to what other See was it ever said: ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith not fail?’” (Epist. 190 Ad Innocentium, Emphasis added).

I do not let my own moral or aesthetic preferences determine my judgments about our holy religion. As Chesterton put it, speaking of the two greatest poets in English:

“A correspondent has written to me asking me what I meant by saying that Shakespeare was a Catholic and Milton a Protestant. That Milton was a Protestant, I suppose, he will not dispute…..But the point about the religion of Shakespeare is certainly less obvious, though I think not less true….These impressions are hard to explain….But here, at least, is one way of putting the differences between the religions of Shakespeare and Milton. Milton is possessed with what is, I suppose, the first and finest ideas of Protestantism—the idea of the individual soul actually testing and tasting all the truth there is, and calling that truth which it has not tested and tasted truth of a less valuable and vivid kind. But Shakespeare is possessed through and through with the feeling which is the first and finest idea of Catholicism that the truth exists whether we like it or not, and that it is for us to accommodate ourselves to it….But I really do not know how this indescribable matter can be better described than by simply saying this; that Milton’s religion was Milton’s religion, and that Shakespeare’s religion was not Shakespeare’s,” (as quoted from The Quest for Shakespeare, Joseph Pearce).  

I find myself in the ironic position of defending Roman Pontiffs against prudish persons who think nudes a desecration of holy places. You see, this controversy is very personal to me, but not in the way you might think. I defend the Renaissance popes, not because I like figurative art. I don’t. I have struggled with art depicting the beautiful form of the female body, and so I have always kept a safe distance from viewing such artwork, classical or modern, lest it be a near occasion for sin. As returning readers of CatholicEclipsed may know, I am also a painter—I won’t say an artist, I haven’t earned that title yet. I paint landscapes, and you can view my work here, if you’d like. What you all do not know is that, I paint landscapes almost entirely because I am too much a Puritan like Milton. I couldn’t bear the temptation of staring at a naked beautiful woman modeling for a painting. I don’t know how Michelangelo or Titian did it. But, like Shakespeare, I do not let my own private opinions about such things determine how I am to accommodate myself to what the Church has determined as good. Through grace and a filial devotion to the Roman Pontiffs of the Renaissance (as in all periods) you would see me hung, drawn and quartered before I spoke out against the Vicegerent of God. If we are to call ourselves Catholic, it is high time we stop disagreeing with the Popes of the past: otherwise, we might just as well call ourselves Protestants.