Tuesday, August 6, 2013


I. What is meant ?

  By the 'Restoration of the Communion Railing' is meant the restoration of Traditional Practices - in the fullest sense  -  for the sake of Traditional r Reverence   in regard to the Blessed Sacrament and especially in the reception of Holy Communion.

  What has  replaced Traditional Practices is centered upon the practice of 'Communion in the Hand'.

II Why Restore the Communion Railing?

    a. Because God wills it


******* SEE IN DEPTH ARTICLE AT wdsublog.blogspot.com *******

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Celebrating 50 Years of Vatican II

                                    A GREAT CONTRADICTION

    Pope Benedict called for, beginning with Oct. 11th,  a year (it seems)  of celebration of Vatican II which began Oct. 11th, 1962. A YEAR OF FAITH, this year is called.


    The  many changes brought upon a very Traditional and Unchanging Church, via Vatican II, places upon Traditional Catholics a burden and dilemma of very high degree - making CELEBRATION  - A GREAT CONTRADICTION. The massive and excellent work named - The Old Catholic Encyclopedia - of the turn of the century (19th to 20th), states quite significantly that the FACT that the Catholic Church is an UNCHANGING CHURCH gives testimony that this Church is the One True Church of Divine Institution founded by Jesus Christ.


       Since  the writings of Saint Paul are  Divine Revelation, setting the proper and most profitable to the Church role of women at Mass, then the new role of women and girls (and lay people in general) at Mass, must be a very worldly invasion of the Church. And accepting the GREAT AUTHORITY of the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, given to him by the Church herself  (via past councils and the many pontiffs), makes the Vatican II casting aside of his wisdom and authority, an impossible obstacle to acceptance of the Council in any way except strict validity - since validly convoked and executed.


    The many changes upon the Church by Vatican II has forced a denigration of the Traditional Church. [The denigration of the Vatican II Church has been self induced, by the defects which Vatican II caused to be placed into the Church. Pope Paul VI spoke of this denigration as the SMOKE OF SATAN entering the Church, and SELF-DEMOLITION of the Church.] And so the honor, respect and effective authority of the Church, especially as recognized  by the world or unbelievers, has significantly decreased . We might say that the LIGHT OF THE WORLD, has suffered an ECLIPSE.
    As a general rule, change represents a movement from imperfection toward perfection. It is meant to improve. And when significant and many changes are quite suddenly put in place, it naturally is taken to indicate a previously quite defective situation. And this is especially the natural conclusion of those who apply superficial examination to Vatican II and to the Church as affected by it. It seems that 98% of all who in any way know what the term VATICAN II means, have this degree of knowledge.And thus the term Vatican II - and its bringing about the 'NEW AND IMPROVED' Church, is naturally coupled with the idea or opinion of a PREVIOUSLY DEFECTIVE CHURCH = DENIGRATION OF THE TRADITIONAL CHURCH.  
    Vatican II has made it much easier for Satan and teachers of untruth and lies (whether intentionally and knowingly or not), to tell lies about the Catholic Church regarding her Divine Institution and Apostolic Tradition.
   And so just as Protestants, influenced by Martin Luther, conclude that the Church was greatly defective at the time, needing the Protestant return to tradition, so does Vatican II influence similar thinking regarding the Traditional Church.

   Anyway, this writer holds the position that Vatican II does great harm to the Church. By itself alone, the change in focus to action over contemplation , fulfills this negative effect - 10,000 religious abandoning their vocations and returning to the WORLD, immediately after Vatican II , is no small price to pay. Anyone wishing to look more deeply into the arguments and evidence regarding this claim against Vatican II,  please scroll down to the article 'Defense of Vatican II is Impossible',  and also go to the website  VATICANIIDEBATE.COM.

*** Also read the article in Catholic Family News Celebrating a Catastrophe

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Can a General Council Be Condemned

     Perhaps this question has already been answered - in one way or another. If not then surely this question and other questions such as Authority of Church Writings & Councils , could well use a Garrigou-Lagrange or St. Thomas Aquinas type of workmanship. This effort is meant to simply touch on the subject and hopefully prompt discussion.

    The overall principle (to the question posed) seems to be that : 'One who has authority over the matter or entity (here we treat a council), has authority to accept or reject the entity - except when a higher authority (the Holy Spirit) takes precedence or is the actual agent behind the entity, making THE ONE WHO HAS AUTHORTY actually a sub-agent or secondary authority'.

    There seems to be little doubt that should a pastor call a parish council together to decide certain matters within the parish, the pastor is not bound to abide by the decisions of the council. The prudence of doing so or not doing so is not the question - at least in the absolute sense.

    There seems likewise to be  little doubt that should the bishop or archbishop of the diocese call together in council some or all the priests of the diocese, so to decide matters like altar girls or communion in the hand, within this diocese, that the bishop or archbishop is not bound by these decisions.

    A general or universal council can be called only by the one having universal authority, namely the pope. The pope is free to accept or reject the council's decisions - is he not. The reality that a pope is pre-decided in this matter, it seems, does not change the question of his freedom. (admittedly the teaching of Collegiality seems to confuse the issue - however, it can be argued, down the stretch, that this teaching in Vatican II caries no weight).

    Anyway let us simply say :

1. The pope is free to call or not call a council. A wise or prudent pope, especially after the Church became large and complex,  would seek the advise and thinking of the cardinals and bishops, on this question of whether or not to call a council.

2. A  council serves as an advisory body for the pope. When a council shows that it has performed with great prudence, knowledge and much careful pondering and calling upon the full wisdom of the Church historically, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit during the council proceedings, then the pope should be quick to abide by these decisions. Still the pope is free to accept or reject the decisions, of the council.

3. A pastoral council remains as an advisory council to the pope, and to the Church after the pope approves its decisions. The point is that a pastoral council does not formally bring in the higher authority (the Holy Spirit). We well know that 'solemn pronouncements or defintions which bind every Catholic' are irreversible. Obviously a pastoral council does not fit this mold.

4. Thus there exists no reason to put such a council outside the authority of a pope to change or condemn should sufficient evidence exist to prove this radical move advisable for the good of the Church.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Defense of Vatican II Is Impossible

This essay will argue that - the root method which Vatican II used to supposedly 'improve the Church', by making changes for the times - is impossible to defend. The very method when examined, is self-evidently destructive or greatly harmful to the Church. Thus let us proceed.


 Various pros and cons regarding the state of the Church in its practices, life and functions, at the time of Vatican II (1962-1965), could be set forth. (Let it be clear that the strength and soundness of the Church at that time, can be fully defended and argued. However, for now it is being set aside. That aspect of the Church is not pertinent to this essay.)

The most important factor for us to examine and focus on, is the principles and teachings, or the foundation by which the Church functioned and by which it was ruled and governed at that time. To distinguish between these two, namely the foundation for governing and the effects of and from governing is a very necessary distinction, for helping to understand what happened at Vatican II and its effect upon the Church, and the resulting collapse of Catholicism in many areas and ways. We must say that the Church was principally ruled and governed at that time by the writings and teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

These teachings were translated and fed to minds according to their capacity. And so even very young children were educated by St. Thomas Aquinas through his Summa Theologica via the fine work and efforts of those who produced the Baltimore Catechism. As always, it was up to each teacher to expound upon the teachings presented by the Baltimore Catechism written for various grade levels. The point is that the root foundation for this teaching was the soundest possible - very nearly so.

Going up the ladder of implementation, St. Thomas, via Canon Law, was the required guide in seminaries and Catholic colleges and universities. The Oath Against Modernism was a further aid to help purify the foundation used to teach higher level students.

And regarding official Church documents, the popes drew faithfully, as a rule, upon St. Thomas in writing their encyclicals and other proclamations.


And so, according to reason and common sense, we must say that at the time of Vatican II, there existed a clear, sound foundation for ruling and guiding the Church in all of its many departments and functions. This point cannot be over stated. The Church was not ruled by dummies or principal shepherds without zeal for their flocks. In addition this aspect of the Church had centuries of time for minor corrections, not to St. Thomas, of course, but to the numerous documents and guides for the many departments and functions of the Church which drew from St. Thomas ( as for example various religious communities, the missions and missionary work in general, lenten fasts, and penance in general etc.). And constructive criticism by numerous saints and scholars, had centuries to help bring many things to virtual perfection. By the time of Vatican II, these many documents and guides were very highly perfected and purified. Changes were almost nonexistent. It is a modern idea that change upon change is a sign of advancement. God is absolutely unchanging. Being a Divine Institution, there are aspects of the Church which are absolutely unchanging. And the other aspects had centuries to reach a relative perfection. And as St. Thomas states, custom carries very great authority. In addition hope, confidence and strength are effects from seeing stability and firmness in all these things and functions. Change is a mark, obviously, of imperfection. Where change is natural, it leads to perfection. The body and mind of the young are meant to change and so grow. However principles and teachings and their derivatives which, as we know, draw upon truth, logically reach stability and changelessness, and so inspire confidence, trust and greater effectiveness.


Now human nature suffers the weakness of original sin, and so there exists at all times some margin between what the mind knows, or the principles and teachings presented and the will's use of that knowledge and those teachings. The Church is perfect only in the areas of Divine Institution, and it achieves a relative perfection and holiness proportional to how well its members - which includes priests, bishops, cardinals and popes - apply and live by its teachings. And so at best, it could well be argued, that at the time of Vatican II, there existed a need, or at least it would have been very helpful, to RESTORE ALL THINGS IN CHRIST, by a restoration of and a greater faithfulness to the principles and teachings which were intact. There always exists the need for a balanced and more precise application of some teachings. For example God is both just and merciful. At times the pendulum swings too far toward severity and at times too far toward mercy or need for more preaching upon hell and damnation. There exists the need for proper application of discipline, applying always the principle that virtue is a mean between two extremes. The point is that it is the interpretation and application of the principles and teachings which from time to time need attention by higher teaching authority. The principles and teaching themselves, in this matter are not the problem. And so at the time of Vatican II it must most firmly be stated that there existed a very great perfection in the foundation, or the principles and teachings by which the Church was ruled and governed.


The real problem existing at the time of Vatican II is the same one (but much advanced) which already St. Pius X battled with all his might. This problem consisted of enemies within the Church, or those who were determined to make the Church more like the world around them, and so taught and wrote many heretical doctrines in this regard. These were labeled Modernists. St. Pius X's encyclical against Modernism and the Oath Against Modernism were two of his primary means in this battle. On the positive side he attempted to see St. Thomas' weapons, that is his teachings, be fully used.

Now the dangers of calling a council of such size as Vatican II were not unknown. And so it takes no revelation from God to surmise WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT VATICAN II. The cards speak for themselves when one closely examines the situation going in to Vatican II


 Popes of the past well knew and proclaimed the greatness of the gift of the Holy Spirit given to the Church through St. Thomas Aquinas, and especially his greatest work THE SUMMA THEOLOGICA. They well foresaw and stated that if the enemies of the Church could ever remove St. Thomas, then the Church would be in very serious straits. But to their minds this was impossible. How could they possibly foresee how devious Satan might be. And so Vatican II has DONE THE IMPOSSIBLE, as far as these past popes thought. The method used to remove St. Thomas and what was developed from his teachings (that is traditional teachings), we might term TRANSFERENCE, or SPOTLIGHT, or A NEW FOCUS. Whatever we call it, we must say that St. Thomas and traditional, clear, sound principles and teachings have been set aside - not by direct action, but The New Focus, The New Theology, The New Council.

 A New Foundation was produced by Vatican II, replacing the long established, sound and proven foundation. Now the most basic foundation remained namely, the Church is built upon Jesus Christ as the ultimate foundation, and built upon Peter and the papacy as a Rock resting upon an absolute foundation. We might make the analogy that Vatican II did what replacing the first floor of the empire state building would amount to, if it were replaced by a new construction using highly defective materials and very poor engineering. The foundation would remain secure, yet the 100 floors above the first floor would be shaky indeed and sway (much more then now) in the wind with some collapse and perhaps the three top floors would fall away. However, even though Vatican II removed St. Thomas and retained the basic foundation, yet even the lower foundations were damaged. For St. Thomas gives to the Church a much clearer and more penetrating and sound teaching on God and Jesus Christ and the Church, papacy etc.

Yet this analogy fails badly since Vatican II led to a whole New Structure, or first floor and all one hundred floors above. The Vatican II documents needed a New Code of Canon Law, a New Catechism, and New Encyclicals etc. - A New Church. Somehow Vatican II was initially given great cheer leading attention, a glamour we might say, a NEW PENTECOST declared etc, and as they say :THE REST IS HISTORY. However, it is history which demands attention and correction. Satan must be cast aside and tradition restored. Michael Davies summed up the Vatican II Church by saying : IT IS AS IF NO OTHER COUNCIL EVER EXISTED.


Vatican II laid a New Foundation for ruling and governing the Church. And thus common sense combined with the above truths of this case, manifestly proclaims that Vatican II necessarily is destructive and not constructive, harmful to the Church and not beneficial, Satan's work and not the work of the Holy Spirit. It cannot be defended for its most basic means of coming to existence is destructive of a good sound foundation. In addition it quickly and carelessly produced documents, ignoring the language of the Church, failing to define its own language, failing in clarity and order, replacing what was clear, sound, and guaranteed of the Holy Spirit, and had centuries of refinement and perfection.



The documents of Vatican II are necessarily confusing and incomprehensible. There exist a number of reasons, but the main one, as indicated above, is that they fail to use the language of the Church or the words and terms well defined and traditionally used. And the new terms used, which deviate from traditional well defined terms, are not defined. Now not a few strongly defend these documents which I find very difficult to comprehend. The difference lies in whether one is reading them for a clear, deep understanding or as a sort of method of inspiration. They certainly were written to move the emotions or the sense of a spiritual value. Had they not been, they would not now be OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF THE CHURCH. There exists sufficient quoting of scripture to cause many to ignore the details of what is said. Those who like myself fully see them as a deliberate deception by Satan, through those at the Council willing to be moved by him, must see all this as a deliberate very intelligent effort.

The documents of Vatican II now exist as the absolute foundation for ruling and governing the Church, and yet are quite ambiguous, at the least, and very erroneous, at least in their possible interpretations, if not directly. They yet serve as the absolute foundation for guiding billions of souls, for governing the many and various and numerous departments and functions of the Church - or the Church in its entirety - and yet their numerous weaknesses and defects have been declared to be simply the language of the Holy Spirit, as if they were written to overpower the mind and not be a clear sound foundation for guiding the Church and leading souls to heaven. Is it not strange that a Council, called to help guide the Church, strengthen it in its mission, is itself in great need of interpretation. The Father of lies and confusion has certainly, it seems to me, performed his greatest deception since Adam and Eve.

 ***** MORE ITEMS *****

For more items to look at click http://vaticaniitruth.blogspot.com/ (Worldwide Truth Center) or continue to scroll down on this blog. ***

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Catholic Church's Present Weakness and Disorder

The Catholic Church plunged into a period of disorder and blindness (we might say) with Vatican Council II (1962 - 1965). The most insightful short answer, I must say, for this plunge, is that it exchanged CLEAR, SOUND, PRINCIPLES for PRINCIPLES WHICH ARE AMBIGUOUS, DEFECTIVE, AND HARMFUL.

What really happened, for one thing, is that the traditional language and terminology was discarded. It takes no rocket scientist to know this means trouble and confusion. But much more important is that the evidence very strongly supports the thesis of deliberate ambiguity and conspiracy against the Church. The Church, previous to Vatican II (1962-1965) had consistently declared that the writings and teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, canonized about 1325, after over 300 miracles worked through him, were the LIGHT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT given to guide the Church until the end of time. The Vatican II Church has discarded St. Thomas Aquinas (for all practical purposes and not directly but by simply baptizing and exalting Vatican II and its documents). Now by St. Thomas I also mean all those writings and official documents which Rome and the popes have put forth, drawing upon the wisdom of St. Thomas. Now especially pertinent in this matter is the 100 years of papal encyclicals prior to Vatican II.

And so Rome now rules the Catholic Church based on the Authority of Vatican II and the Documents of Vatican II, and not upon traditional teachings and writings. And the Documents of Vatican II, once more are ambiguous, defective, erroneous - if not explicitly then implicitly and effectively - and very harmful to the Church in many ways.

Please go to http://vaticaniidebate.com/id6.html and read PRINCIPLES OF AND FOR ORDER; AND ST. THOMAS AQUINAS.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Femininazation of the Catholic Church

In an age when the need for order and discipline are exceedingly great, the Church Militant, the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth has betrayed its mission, to a large degree. It certainly has been severely weakened in its mission. It's power and forcefulness to fight evil (the power and force of pornography and sexual temptation almost everywhere one turns especially for the young and teenagers, but also the many adults, including Catholic married men hooked on pornography, along with the growing homosexual abominations in this country, are little battled), it's ability to command respect as Christ's Divine Institution, it's ability to inspire hope and confidence in an infinitely good Creator and Redeemer, and a beacon for those bewildered by stormy seas, has been severely curbed. And one reason for this decay is that the firm manly approach to ruling the Catholic Church, and preaching sermons has been replaced by what I term THE FEMININAZATION OF THE CHURCH.

The changes to the Catholic Church which have severely weakened it and left it deceived with many false and poorly understood theological teachings, and many weak and modernized and irreverent practices, harmful to the Church, came about through the Great Council of Vatican II (1962-1965). Please read the 30 page paper at http://vaticaniidebate.com/. In this 30 page paper, the term FEMININAZATION OF THE CHURCH is explained in some small depth. It is explained that the term has little to do with the presence of girls and women in roles previously reserved for the priest, deacons before ordination to the priesthood, or altar boys, but refers to the soft and feminine approach to ruling the Church. Satan laughs now at much of what the Catholic Church does, while before and traditionally he trembled.

The One True Church

Please go to http://vaticaniitruth.blogspot.com/ (Worldwide Truth Center), and read the postings which include another with the title THE ONE TRUE CHURCH.

Scripture is clear in telling us that Jesus Christ, upon the apostle Peter, who He declared to be Rock (mainly because the Holy Spirit would be the power ruling the Church through him and his successors, who we refer to as the popes). No other Church except the Roman Catholic Church has a continuous line of successors dating back to Peter. Hence no other Church could remotely fulfill the meaning of the words of scripture.

The CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONE TRUE CHURCH. It is through this Church, that the salvation promised by Jesus Christ to those who believe, is actually effected. As Jesus said, referring to Peter as head and those who fill Peter's shoes : "He who hears you, hears Me. He who rejects you, rejects Me". And much other evidence confirms and supports the Church's self-proclaimed admission of it role in the world as THE ONE TRUE CHURCH.

Also go to the blog POSITIVE THEOLOGY AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS for more ptmiblog.blogspot.com.