The miracle of life.

Dieu le Roy,


Les Vendéens, Jacques Dupont ( Guerres De Vendée)

Full movie as seen on France 3.



The Protestant Plaugue

I often remind my student in Catechism that they are inheritors of a great treasure and of a great gift which God has willed that they pass on. "You see" I tell them, "you are the descendants of survivors. " Someone in your line escaped the black death, the bubonic plague which ravaged Europe in the 14th and 15 centuries. Nearly half of the population died off. ...and yet here you are." The Bubonic plague killed men's bodies, but the protestant plague kills souls. Which is worse.

I am often looked to with disdain at my parish, when I voice concern over every ecumenical event our parish is asked to participate in. In many cases these events are fostered by the Catholic parishioners.

Well, there is a reason for all that. I can read history. The history of the world is the history of the Catholic Church. Any ecumenical service we do has the possibility of the watering down of our beliefs, that includes sending the youth groups to the "House of Pain" alternative halloween tour at the local Baptist church, Palm Sunday parade, "non-denominational" discussions, and most recently the Taize communion(!) service. The communion service had a benefit for my Catechists, I was able to show them the 'Holy Hub Cap" communion set. (It still remains in my classroom as no one ever came to get it from whatever community lost it.) A Communion service is not ecumenical it is heresy. There is but one Faith, the True Faith in which the body of Christ is shared among the believers, anything else is sacrilegious. Period. Baptists, Presbiters, Calvinists, Methodists do not have the True Presence, so anything taken as communion in a Catholic Church is a parody. ...and we know who is famous for his parodies.

Currently we are living in the time of the heresy of progressivism, liberalism, modernism, call it what you will... It is merely a continuation of the heresy begun by one man. Martin Luther.

All of the post reformation ecclesiastic communities can trace their roots back to and their doctrine from Luther.

If is seems like I am bashing Protestants, I am not. I will be the first to welcome them in to the fold when they realized they are the Prodigal Sons, just as I am welcoming those brothers and sisters who are returning to the faith in England.

Prepare to Commemorate 2017
The Fifth Centenary of the Protestant Revolt

by John Vennari

Chapter 9 of the Apocalypse opens with Saint John’s terrifying vision:“And the fifth Angel sounded the trumpet; and I saw a star fall from Heaven upon the earth, and to him was given the key to the bottomless pit.

“And he opened the bottomless pit: and the smoke of the pit ascended as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun was darkened, and the air with the smoke of the pit:

“And from the smoke of the pit, there came out locusts upon the earth, and power was given to them, as the scorpions of the earth have power.” (Apoc: 9:1-3)

Devout Catholic Scriptural commentators for the past 500 years have seen in this vision a prediction of Luther and his Protestant Revolt.

Martin Luther inaugurates his Protestant Revolt in 1517, nailing his 95 theses to the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany

Father Herman Bernard Kramer, in The Book of Destiny, explains, “Luther did truly open the pit and let loose against the Church all the fury of hell. Therefore modern interpreters almost universally see in this fallen star, Luther.”[1] Father Kramer references the eminent Scriptural commentator, Cornelius a Lapide as making this point.[2]

“The whole description of the locusts”, Father Kramer explains, “fits down to the last detail the kings and princes who established by force the heresy of the 16th Century.” He continues:“When Luther propounded his heretical and immoral doctrine, the sky became as it were obscured by smoke. It spread very rapidly over some regions of the earth, and it brought forth princes and kings who were eager to despoil the Church of her possessions. They compelled the people of their domains and in the territories robbed from the Church to accept the doctrines of Luther. The proponents of Protestantism made false translations of the Bible and misled the people into their errors by apparently proving from the ‘Bible’ (their own translations) the correctness of their doctrines. It was all deceit, lying and hypocrisy. Bad and weak, lax and lukewarm, indifferent and non-practicing Catholics and those who had neglected to get thorough instruction were thus misled; and these, seeing the Catholic Church now through this smoke of error from the abyss and beholding a distorted caricature of the true Church, began both to fear and hate her.”[3]

As for Luther, he did “everything to instill hatred of the [Catholic] Church into the hearts of his followers.”[4]

Father Kramer explains:“The princes of Germany eagerly took up Lutheranism to become the spiritual heads of the churches in their domains and to plunder the Church. Their assumed jurisdiction in spiritual matters was usurpation ... In Denmark, Norway and Sweden the Kings imposed Lutheranism upon the people by the power of the sword and by lying, deceit and hypocrisy. They left the altars in the churches and had apostate priests use vestments and external trappings of the Catholic Church to mislead the people. They crushed out the Catholic faith by terrorism, by making it a felony and treason to remain a Catholic. Each monarch made himself the spiritual head of the church in his kingdom. They had so-called historians falsify history to arouse hatred against the Church in the hearts of the people. They pretended to prove the truth of Lutheranism by false translations of the Bible made by Luther and by others and by still falser interpretations of it. Those princes and kings were the locusts appearing in the vision of St. John. They had the teeth of lions to terrify lukewarm Catholics into submission.”[5]

The Haydock Commentary of the Douay Rheims contains a similar explanation of Apocalypse 9:2:“Luther and his followers propagated and de-fended their new doctrines with such heat and violence as to occasion everywhere seditions and insurrections which they seemed to glory in. Luther openly boasted of it. ‘You complain,’ said he, ‘that by our gospel the world is become more tumultuous; I answer, God be thanked for it; these things I would have so to be, and woe to me if such things were not’.”[6]

The Commentary further explains that indeed the sun was darkened since the light of faith was darkened by the widespread heresy of Protestantism. The revered Redemptorist Father Michael Müller elucidates how these Protestant “re-forms” snuffed out the light of true Faith:“... they dissected the Catholic faith till they reduced it to a mere skeleton; they lopped off the reality of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, the divine Christian sacrifice offered in the Mass, confession of sins, most of the sacraments, penitential exercises, several of the canonical books of Scripture, the invocations of saints, celibacy, most of the General Councils of the Church, and all present Church authority; they perverted the nature of jurisdiction, asserting that faith alone justifies man; they made God the author of sin, and maintained the observance of the commandments to be impossible.”[7]

Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the eminent American theologian, rightly observed that Martin Luther’s alleged Reformation of the Church “consisted in an effort to have people abandon the Catholic Faith, and relinquish their membership in the one true Church militant of the New Testament, so as to follow his teaching and enter into his organization.”[8]

This is what the Lutheran revolt was, the tearing away of millions of souls from the one true Church of Christ, and probable consignment of millions to eternal hellfire.

The Protestant revolt is nothing to celebrate!

So What Are They Celebrating?

In the present ecumenical climate, the above-mentioned facts receive little press, since ecumenical Catholics regard these truths as an embarrassment. Much of what saints, theologians and the Church herself taught regarding the errors and dangers of Protestantism are either not mentioned, or explained away as pathetic ignorance of a bygone era. Thanks to Vatican II, the Church has allegedly outgrown its juvenile counter-reformation stance that was based on the ghetto mentality of “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. The ecumenical Catholic has effectively abandoned the true God of Catholicism to serve the false god of ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue. He incinerates the Church’s anti-Protestant doctrines as burnt offerings to his new deity.

Thus, it is no surprise that a Lutheran-Catholic celebration is being planned for 2017, the fifth centenary of the Protestant Revolt. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (www.ecla.org) filed the following report from the Vatican on November 16, 2005:“Lutherans and Roman Catholics began planning for 2017 with recognition of their movement toward reconciliation during the past 500 years and with a renewed commitment to continue in that direction. 2017 will be the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, which traditionally began October 31, 1517, when Dr. Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany.”[9]

This report followed a meeting of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity held on November 7-8, 2005at the Vatican. The meeting was called a “Fourth Round” of dialogue, and a seven-member Lutheran delegation was warmly received by Pope Benedict XVI.

Here, the Pope praised the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Accord and urged further ecumenical dialogue. Yet tragically, this dialogue is not meant to convert non-Catholics to the one true Church of Christ, but to form a pan-Christian co-op of unity and peaceful coexistence. Anyone who believes otherwise ignores the statements of post-Conciliar Catholic leaders who have made clear that the goal of ecumenism is not a “return of dissidents to the one true Church of Christ.”[10] Today’s ecumenism is thus a betrayal of the authentic Catholic Magisterium on the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.

Saint Teresa of Avila, Doctor of the Church, called Lutheranism, "that wretched sect".
At the November Vatican meeting of Lutherans and Catholics, participants were heartened by Pope Benedict’s ecumenical encouragement. Plans are now underway for the “Fifth Round” of international dialogues, and also for organizing a commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation with international events.

The fourth round of talks took 10 years to develop the final document “The Apostolicity of the Church,” which will be issued in the fall of 2006, said the Rev. Ishmael Noko, LWF general secretary, Geneva. The conclusion of the fifth round, said the LWF, will probably coincide with the 500th anniversary in 2017.

Archbishop Brian Farrell, Secretary to the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said “Our idea is that the commission would take up at the beginning of its mandate a deep, profound study of what the Reformation meant and what it has meant down the centuries and what it actually means today for both of us.”

We have already seen what the Protestant Revolt has meant to Catholics: a massive attack on the faith so severe that the holiest Catholic commentators identify Luther and his revolt with apocalyptic pestilence.

Luther, the Man

Take for example what faithful Catholics have observed about Luther.
David Goldstein, the zealous Catholic convert from Judaism who was called “a 20th Century Saint Paul,” rightly remarked:“The father of the first Protestant Church [Luther] changed the 28th verse of the 3rd chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans to make it fit his doctrine that Christian faith minus Christian works is sufficient for salvation: ‘We hold that man is justified without works by the law of faith alone’. To one of his followers who complained that objection was being made to this perversion of the sacred text, Luther gave the cold comfort: ‘If any Papist annoys you with the word (alone) tell him straightway: Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing.’ (Amic. Discussion, I, 127).”[11]

Goldstein goes on to explain the brutality of the Lutheran revolt: “The soldiers of the princes slaughtered the peasants, pillaged the churches and prevented Catholic worship in public. In this way Lutheranism was made the doctrine of the first Protestant Church — the State Church of Germany (1520).”[12]

Goldstein further points out that Luther denied the binding force of the moral law: “We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (De Wette, IV, 188), and again, “If Moses should attempt to intimidate you with his stupid Ten Commandments, tell him right out: ‘Chase yourselves to the Jews’ (Works, Wittenberg, ed. V 1573).”[13]

Luther, an ordained priest and consecrated religious, wantonly broke his vow of celibacy to God, and married a nun, also under a vow of celibacy. Of Luther’s debased teachings, Goldstein observed: Luther’s writings regarding matters of sex are the opposite of things decent. Only in Socialist free-love writings have we seen commendation of them. There Luther’s lewd writings have won for him distinction as the ‘classic exponent’ of ‘healthful sensualism’ (Bebel, Woman, p. 78, NY, 1910). Too many times through the centuries, immoralities have disgraced the Christian ministry, but Luther has the unenviable distinction of having defended sex sins as ‘necessary’.”[14]

One of Luther’s ultimate disgraces was his giving permission to Phillip Land-grave of Hesse to have two wives at once. The license was signed by Luther, Melancthon, Bauer and five other Protestant preachers.[15]

Thus it is lunacy for our Church leaders to plan to celebrate the 500th anniversary of a man who spent his life debasing Christian revelation. Yet it is not surprising. We saw similar madness in 1983, when a high Catholic Churchmen praised Luther for his “deep religiousness,”[16] thus voicing unqualified public esteem for a man whose warped religious views led him to reject the true Church, deny his priesthood, and teach that the Mass was an abomination worse than the most loathsome brothel.[17]

Where There is No Hatred of Heresy, There is No Holiness

Forgotten in this ecumenical maelstrom is the fact that Protestantism is heresy, and heresy is a sin. In the objective order, it is a mortal sin against Faith that sends souls to hell for eternity. The revered Father Frederick Faber explained that heresy is “the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. ... It is the polluting of God’s truth, which is the worst of all impurities.”Thus, Father Faber observed, “where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness.”[18]

Likewise, Saint Alphonsus Liguori spoke of the duty to fight heresy because it kills our souls and the souls of others:“Heresy has been called a canker: ‘It spreadeth like a canker.’ (2 Tim. 2:17) As a canker infects the whole body, so heresy infects the whole soul — the mind, the heart, the intellect and the will. It is also called a plague; for it not only infects the one contaminated with it, but others who associate with him. Truly the spread of this plague in the world has injured the Church more than idolatry.”[19]

But for today’s Catholic leaders, the heresy of Protestantism is no longer a problem. Have these leaders no love of Catholic doctrine? If they did, they would publicly oppose the Protestant heresies that disfigure it. Have they no love of souls? If they did, they would not pretend that a Protestant can be saved by remaining in his own man-made religion that teems with errors against the express teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

None of this matters to ecumenists like the Vatican’s Bishop Brian Farrell who looks ahead misty-eyed to 2017, and requests profound study of “what the Reformation meant and what it has meant down the centuries and what it actually means today ...” Yet he need not embark on yet another profound study, since one of the greatest Popes in history made it clear what the Reformation means. Blessed Pope Pius IX rightly recognized Protestantism in all its forms as “a revolt against God, it being an attempt to substitute a human for a divine authority, a declaration of the creature’s independence from God.”[20]

This revolt against God has had profound consequences.

Consequences of the Lutheran Revolt

The great Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc points out that heresy does not only affect the individual, but has a negative social impact.[21] Belloc reminds us that man has to live and arrange his life according to a Creed, some system of beliefs. And if his creed be distorted away from the truth revealed by God, he will pattern his life accordingly. Thus when large masses of people fall into heresy, and live accordingly, it will change the entire structure of their society away from the Divine Program of Our Lord. It will create an environment that is not conducive to live the life of sanctifying grace, a society where evil is institutionalized.

For example, thanks to the Protestant heresy, we have legalized divorce in society. Thanks to the Anglicans at Lambert in the 1930s, we have legalized contraception.

Thanks to Protestantism in general, as the eminent Father Denis Fahey points out, we have the inordinate rise of the power of the State. This is because the Protestant does not look at his “church” as an authority established by Christ to teach and govern all men. According to the Protestant, Christ never founded such a Church. Thus, for the Protestant, the highest authority on earth is the State. This had the immediate result of increasing the power of princes and rulers in Protestant countries, which gave rise to State Absolutism, and even what was called “the Divine Right of Kings”.[22]

As the secular Kings and leaders gained temporal power due to Protestantism, the Social Kingship of Christ went into decline.

Protestantism: The Death Knell of Christendom

When we pray in the Our Father, “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven”, we pray for the establishment of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, wherein States, governments and social institutions base their laws of right and wrong on what the Gospel teaches is right and wrong and on what Our Lord’s Catholic Church teaches is right and wrong. This is what is called “Christendom”.

The organization of Europe in the 13th Century, despite its various defects due to human foibles, effected the concrete realization of this Divine Plan. Father writes, “The formal principles of ordered social government in the world, the supremacy of the Mystical Body, was grasped and, in the main, accepted.”

However, Father Fahey explains, “The Lutheran revolt, prepared by the cult of pagan antiquity at the Renaissance ... led to the rupture of that order.”[23]
This is the true legacy of Protestantism, the shattering of the Social Kingship of Christ.

First of all, Protestantism rejects the entire notion of a visible Church established by Christ to teach, govern, sanctify and offer worship to the Father in His name. For the Protestant, there is no visible Church, there is only the lone Protestant and his Bible. There is no external ecclesiastical authority that the Protestant must obey for salvation. If the individual Protestant disagrees with his minister’s interpretation of Scripture, he is free to adopt one of his own, and even start his own sect to propagate his Biblical elucidations.

This, in effect, is how all Protestant sects began. Thus, Protestants do not have a Divine Faith received from Heaven through a teaching Church established by Our Lord. Rather, Protestantism is simply rationalism. The individual decides for himself how he will interpret the Bible, or what denomination’s interpretation he fancies the most.

This necessarily leads to indefinite multiplication of sects. “Pushed to its ultimate conclusion,” notes Father Fahey, “this would give rise to as many churches as there are individuals.”[24] Protestantism, by its very nature, begets endless fragmentation. Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is Wisdom itself, would never establish such an unstable system.

This multiplication of sects so scandalized the learned English Protestant Dr. Walton that he applied Chapter 9 of the Apocalypse to Protestantism itself, thus, knowingly or not, agreeing with Catholic exegesis: “The bottomless pit seems to have been opened, from whence a smoke has arisen which has darkened the heavens and the stars, and locusts have come out with stings, a numerous race of sectaires and heretics, who have renewed all the ancient heresies, and invented many monstrous opinions of their own. These have filled our cities, villages, camps, houses, nay our pulpits, too, and lead the poor deluded people with them to the pit of perdition.”[25]

Father Müller, employing the words of Saint Paul, calls these human sects the “works of the flesh”. As such, they undergo the corruption of the flesh. One of the first consequences of the doctrine of private judgment — the individual deciding for himself how to interpret Scripture — is a kind of deification of man, which is the main tenet of Freemasonry: the autonomous man decides for himself all things without reference to a teaching Church operating in God’s name Father Fahey quotes the Protestant writer, Herman, who explains the humanistic manner in which Protestants believe:“It matters little that we [Protestants] are in agreement with Catholics about certain points of Christian doctrine. What is distasteful to us in the Catholic Church is not what Catholics believe, but above all, the way in which they believe. The great difference between Rome and ourselves is that we cannot brook a faith which is not an autonomous conviction.”[26]

Father Fahey thus observed, “the autonomous man, who decides on his own authority what he will accept of the Gospel God Himself came to deliver to us is already well on the way to self-deification.” And, as mentioned, the deification of Man is the foundation doctrine of Freemasonry.

There is no doubt that Freemasonry is the product of Protestantism. Father Michael Müller said as much with the statement: “The main spirit of Protestantism, then, has always been to declare every man independent of the divine authority of the Roman Catholic Church and to substitute for his divine authority a human authority.”[27] On the same point, we again quote Blessed Pope Pius IX who called Protestantism “a revolt against God, it being an attempt to substitute a human for a divine authority, a declaration of the creature’s independence from God.”[28]

In short, the French Revolution, that based itself on the Masonic deification of man, is the direct result of the Protestant Revolt. The godless secularism, religious indifferentism and moral license that spawned from the French Revolution can look to Protestantism as its true father.

This is the torrid legacy our churchmen will celebrate when they uncork their best champagne at the 2017 party. I wish I could be there when they toast the star that fell from Heaven, give three cheers to the darkened sun, and drink to the health of the smoke from the bottomless pit.

“That Wretched Sect”
Saint Teresa of Avila called Lutheranism “that wretched sect,”[29] and established her first Carmelite foundation of nuns at Avila to help “cure this terrible evil” by bringing “some comfort to our Lord.”

“Thus,” said Saint Teresa, “being all of us employed in interceding for the champions of the Church and the preachers and theologians who defend her, we might, to our utmost, aid this Lord of mine Who is attacked with such cruelty ...”30

One can only imagine how Saint Teresa of Avila would react to Catholics joining with Protestants to celebrate the fifth centenary of the Lutheran revolt. But who cares what Saint Teresa thinks. For ecumenical Catholics, dancing on the graves of the saints is a necessary ritual of their new religion.

Thanks to Robert Banaugh, a sometime contributer to this blog.
A religion begun in rationalization will rationalize anything, even abomination.


1. Father Herman Bernard Kramer, The Book of Destiny, (Originally published in 1955, republished by Tan Books, Rockford IL, 1975), p. 223. It is worth noting, that it took Father Kramer over 30 years to write this book. on the Apocalypse.
2. (Cor. a Lapide, p. 201, Note 1 ma), Ibid.
3. Ibid. pp. 223-4.
4. Kramer, p. 224.
5. Ibid., pp. 223-4.
6. The Douay-Rheims New Testament with a Comprehensive Catholic Commentary Compiled by Rev. Fr. Geo. Leo Haydock (Republished by Catholic Treasures, 1991), p. 1637.
7. Father Michael Müller,C.SS.R., The Catholic Dogma [New York: Ben-zinger Brothers, 1888], p. 35. The following quotes from Luther himself demonstrate Luther’s perverse doctrine: “God’s commandments are all equally impossible” (De Lib. Christ, t. ii., fol. 4). Ibid., p. 36.
8. Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, “The Council and Father Kung”, American Ecclesiastical Review, September, 1962.
9. On the web at: http://mail.wfn.org/ pipermail/wfn-editors_wfn.org/2005-November/003241.html
10. Cardinal Kasper, Prefect of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said, “Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a ‘return’, by which the others would be ‘converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned at Vatican II (Adisti, February 26, 2001). English translation quoted from “Where Have They Hidden the Body?”, by Christopher Ferrara. See also Iota Unum, chap. 35, where Professor Romano Amerio demonstrates that converting non-Catholics to the one true Church is not the aim of today’s practice of ecumenism. Most troubling of all is the statement from Pope Benedict XVI: “On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own Faith history. Absolutely not!” – Pope Benedict XVI’s Address to the Ecumenical Meeting: Cologne, August 19, 2005. (Posted on Vatican web page.)
11. David Goldstein, Campaigners for Christ Handbook, [Boston: Catholic Campaigners for Christ, 1931], p. 197-8.
12. Ibid., p. 197.
13. Ibid., p. 198.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., and also Fr. Müller, p. 37.
16. Sadly, it was Pope John Paul II who praised Luther for his “deep religiousness”. See “Pope Praises Luther in an Appeal For Unity on Protestant Anniversary”, New York Times, November 6, 1983.
17. Of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Luther said that no sin of immorality, nay not even “manslaughter, theft, murder and adultery is so harmful as this abomination of the Popish Mass.” He said further that he would have “rather kept a bawdy house or been a robber than to have blasphemed and traduced Christ for fifteen years by saying the Masses.” Luther, by Hartman Grisar, S.J. (English translation, Herder), Vol. 2, p. 166; Vol 4. p. 525
18. From Father Faber’s The Precious Blood.
19. St. Alphonsus Liguori, The History of Heresies, English translation taken from the No. 1-2, 2000 edition of Christ to the World (Rome) in its first installment of serializing the book.
20. Quoted from Müller, p. 43-4.
21. Consult Belloc’s The Great Heresies.
22. See Father Denis Fahey, C.S.S.p, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, [first published by Regina Publication in Dublin, 1935. Republished by Christian Book Club of America, 1987]. This theme is developed in Chapter III.
23. Ibid., p. 10.
24. Ibid., p. 12.
25. Quoted from Müller, p. 33.
26. Quoted from Fahey, p. 13.(emphasis added)
27. Müller, pp. 43-4.
28. Ibid.
29. Saint Teresa of Avila, The Way of Perfection, English Translation by the Benedictines of Stanbrook, [First published in 1911. Republished by Tan Books, 1997] p. 5.
30. Ibid., p. 6.

Reprinted from the July 2006 edition of
Catholic Family News
MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14216

CFN is published once a month (12 times per year)
Subscription: $28.00 a year.
Request sample copy


Fishwrap and excommunicated Australian are “shocked”

Fishwrap and excommunicated Australian are “shocked”

Posted on 25 September 2013 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Yesterday I wrote about the Australian now-former priest, Greg Reynolds, who received a decree of excommunication. The excommunication was issued under the aegis of Pope Francis.

This has sent liberals into a tail spin.

After all, isn’t Pope Francis supposed to be against rules? Isn’t he the most wonderfulest and bestest and fluffiest Pope ehvur? He’s so chill about, you know, like, stuff like … you know!

Today the Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter) is throwing a little nutty about the excommunication of former-Father Reynolds. Let’s call it The Melbourne Ultimatum.

Here is a sample of their angst.

First, they are all shocked!

Fr. Greg Reynolds of Melbourne, Australia, told NCR by email late Monday night his initial reaction was “shock” upon learning of his separation from the church. Australian media have reported he is the first member of the Melbourne archdiocese excommunicated and the first priest from the area laicized for reasons other than pedophilia. [Lesson: There are grave problems you can get yourself into - which can be censured even with excommunication - other than pedophilia. As a matter of fact, these other grave matters have been well-known for a long time. Then again, he said an illicit Mass during which the Eucharist was given to a DOG. Maybe that was it?]

The news came Sept. 18 through a canon lawyer for the Melbourne archdiocese, Fr. John Salvano, who invited Reynolds a few weeks earlier to meet “to discuss ‘some canonical issue,’ ” Reynolds said. The former priest said Salvano presented him the letter of excommunication and proceeded to read it to him, since Reynolds did not read Latin. [That didn't occur in a vacuum. In most cases people who are involved in these canonical procedures are advised along the way. But I am not privy to the back story here. It is hard for me to imagine that this came like a bolt from the blue.]

Part of the shock stemmed from uncertainty with who initiated the excommunication and laicization process. During the meeting, Salvano told Reynolds that while Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart previously considered beginning the laicization process, he had not gone forward with that plan. Instead, unknown people had contacted the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which requested Reynolds’ file from Hart. [I don't have any inside information about this, of course, but the CDF is able to initiate canonical processes on its own authority.]


Let’s go on to the core of the matter.


The letter, a copy of which NCR obtained and translated, accuses Reynolds of heresy (Canon 751) [What could that be? Reynolds asserts that the Church can and should ordain women. That is one point that could figure in that charge.] and determined he incurred latae sententiae excommunication for throwing away the consecrated host or retaining it “for a sacrilegious purpose” (Canon 1367). [He probably wasn't selling or giving the Eucharist to Satanists. However, if he, as a suspended priest without faculties, was illicitly celebrating Masses and then retaining and distributing the Eucharist to anyone at all, that could be a "sacrilegious purpose". ] It also referenced Canon 1369 (speaking publicly against church teaching) in its review of the case. [Just check the internet for stories about him and what he has said and written in public.]

“Pope Francis, Supreme Pontiff [He might refer to himself most often as "Bishop of Rome", but he remains also "Supreme Pontiff".] having heard the presentation of this Congregation concerning the grave reason for action … of [Fr. Greg Reynolds] of the Archdiocese of Melbourne, all the preceding actions to be taken having been followed, with a final and unappealable decision and subject to no recourse, has decreed dismissal from the clerical state is to be imposed on said priest for the good of the Church,” read the document, signed by Archbishop Gerhard Muller, prefect for the congregation, and his secretary, Jesuit Archbishop Luis Ladaria. [His dismissal is for the good of the Church, and the excommunication is for his own spiritual good. These actions had to undertaken for he purpose of the salvation of souls, to avoid scandal, etc.]


Skipping down:


Reynolds told NCR that while he knew the pope had reiterated that the door to women’s ordination was closed, he said his hope was that it didn’t mean the door was locked, “or maybe there is a way in through an open window.”

“I am very surprised that this order has come under his watch; it seems so inconsistent with everything else he has said and done,” he said. [That means that he hasn't been paying attention.]


So, Greg Reynolds joins fellow ex-priests such as Roy Bourgeois, who didn’t pay attention, who didn’t submit to the Church’s judgment concerning grave matters, and who decided to oppose the Church publicly and thus cause scandal.

This is sad. We should stop for a moment and say a prayer for him. We should then remind others who, like him, are sunk in error and defiance, that the possibility of censure awaits them as well.


Fishwrap and excommunicated Australian are “shocked”


Pope Francis excommunicated Melbourne Priest

Crdinal Pell recently said Pope Francis' popularity with the press was, "too good to last." That may come sooner than we all thought. This may send shock waves through the secular media and the dissenting wing of the Church who still don't understand Pope Francis, or that mercy and charity often involve discipline.

From The Age in Australia: (Edit - this is quoted text and I'm sure part of it is in error, in particular, when it suggests he was as disciplined for support for 'gays.'" One doesn't get disciplined for supporting people with SSA but that support does not include affirming people in engaging in any sexual activity outside the context of Sacramental Marriage. Google the Courage Apostolate to see how the Catholic Church supports people with SSA. I hope we will see a statement out of the Archdiocese of Melbourne, which I will share)

Dissident priest Greg Reynolds has been both defrocked and excommunicated over his support for women priests and gays - the first person ever excommunicated in Melbourne, he believes.

The order comes direct from the Vatican, not at the request of Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart, and apparently follows a secret denunciation in the best traditions of the inquisition, according to Father Reynolds.

The excommunication document - written in Latin and giving no reason - was dated May 31, meaning it comes under the authority of Pope Francis who made headlines on Thursday calling for a less rule-obsessed church.

Father Reynolds, who resigned as a parish priest in 2011 and last year founded Inclusive Catholics, said he had expected to be laicised (defrocked), but not excommunicated. But it would make no difference to his ministry.

One wonders if Mr. Reynolds was ever taught about the Church in the fisrt place.



Islam is not a Religion of Peace?

It is a religion of hate, here is another proof.



May 13, 1940 Churchill forms a new government, Holland collapses

Blood, toil, tears and sweat.

In the south of Fortress Holland [at the Island of Dordrecht] the German 9th Tank Division had reached and penetrated the Fortress. They would advance in the direction of the besieged city of Rotterdam.

In the heart of the Dutch outer-defences - at the Grebbeline - the Germans were about to launch the final push against the last remaining defences at the Grebbeberg. Another division-strength attack was planned at the small city of Scherpenzeel. Dutch defeat at either these locations would mean the collapse of the entire Grebbeline and force the Dutch to retreat onto the eastern-front of the Waterline. Although a certain level of defence could still be maintained thereafter, the loss of both the south front Fortress Holland and the Grebbeline were each to itself a near fatal blow to the Dutch defence-system and strategy. At the end of the fourth day the country would be mortally wounded ...

I detest any form of totalitarianism, especially Nazism



16x9 - Royal Secret: European Prince living in Canada

Very Interesting.

Thanks to Carmen.



Vatican uncovers 'first Western painting of Native Americans'

They have remained hidden for more than five centuries, but tiny figures of naked men wearing feathered head-dresses could be the first Western depiction of Native Americans, the Vatican claims.

The painting by Pinturicchio was finished just two years after Christopher Columbus first set foot in the New World Photo: Musei Vaticani By Nick Squires, Rome

The group of tiny figures was discovered during the restoration of a magnificent fresco, owned by the Vatican, which depicts Christ's Resurrection.

The painting, by the Renaissance master Pinturicchio, was finished in 1494, just two years after Christopher Columbus first set foot in the New World.

It has adorned the walls of the Borgia Apartments in the Vatican for 500 years but was only recently subjected to restoration work.

The naked men, who appear to be dancing, were spotted by a restorer, Maria Pustka, as she removed centuries of grime.

The figures, which appear just above the image of an open marble casket from which Christ has risen, had previously gone unnoticed.

The discovery was unveiled by Antonio Paolucci, the director of the Vatican Museums, in L'Osservatore Romano, the city state's daily newspaper.

Prof Paolucci suggests that the "nude men, who are decorated with feathers and seem to be dancing," were inspired by the descriptions of tribesmen that Columbus brought back from his travels.

Columbus's voyages across the Atlantic were commissioned by Spain, but Prof Paolucci said the Vatican would inevitably have heard of his discoveries, particularly given that the Pope at the time, Alexander VI, the notorious Rodrigo Borgia, was Spanish.

"The Borgia Pope was interested in the New World, as were the great chancelleries of Europe. It is hard to believe that the papal court, especially under a Spanish pope, would have remained in the dark about what Columbus encountered," Prof Paolucci said in the article.

Columbus described meeting tall, well-built natives whose bodies were daubed with red and black pigmentation and who gave him parrots as presents.

The explorer, who was from Genoa, made four journeys in total, all under the patronage of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain.

He set out on the first voyage in August 1492, with his first land fall in the New World believed to be an island in what is now the Bahamas.

He continued to modern-day Cuba and Hispaniola, all the time looking for gold. When he arrived back in Spain in March 1493, news of his discoveries became a sensation and spread through Europe.

He described his encounters in letters to Ferdinand and Isabella, and within months a copy of the letter, written in Latin, was circulating in Rome.

Pope Alexander VI soon found himself playing a pivotal role in the New World discoveries – he had to arbitrate between the competing claims of Spain and Portugal.

While Alexander deliberated on the division of spoils and issued papal bulls, Pinturicchio was busy decorating the Borgia Pope's apartments.

At a time when the Columbus's epic discoveries were so much a part of Vatican affairs, Prof Paolucci believes that it is no surprise that a reference to the New World features in the painting.

The mysterious figures remain unnoticed for so long because the Borgia Apartments were abandoned after the death of Alexander VI in 1503.

Subsequent Popes did not want to be associated with the notorious family of schemers and adulterers.

They were only reopened in 1889 by Leo XIII, and are now used to display a collection of religious art.

See that GOD uses every tool in his toolbox even the broken ones.


Pentagon May Court Martial Soldiers Who Share Christian Faith

The Pentagon has released a statement confirming that soldiers could be prosecuted for promoting their faith: "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”.

The statement, released to Fox News, follows a Breitbart News report on Obama administration Pentagon appointees meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein to develop court-martial procedures to punish Christians in the military who express or share their faith.

(From our earlier report: Weinstein is the head of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and says Christians--including chaplains--sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military are guilty of “treason,” and of committing an act of “spiritual rape” as serious a crime as “sexual assault.” He also asserted that Christians sharing their faith in the military are “enemies of the Constitution.”)

Being convicted in a court martial means that a soldier has committed a crime under federal military law. Punishment for a court martial can include imprisonment and being dishonorably discharged from the military.

So President Barack Obama’s civilian appointees who lead the Pentagon are confirming that the military will make it a crime--possibly resulting in imprisonment--for those in uniform to share their faith. This would include chaplains—military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith (mostly Christian pastors or priests, or Jewish rabbis)--whose duty since the founding of the U.S. military under George Washington is to teach their faith and minister to the spiritual needs of troops who come to them for counsel, instruction, or comfort.

This regulation would severely limit expressions of faith in the military, even on a one-to-one basis between close friends. It could also effectively abolish the position of chaplain in the military, as it would not allow chaplains (or any service members, for that matter), to say anything about their faith that others say led them to think they were being encouraged to make faith part of their life. It’s difficult to imagine how a member of the clergy could give spiritual counseling without saying anything that might be perceived in that fashion.

In response to the Pentagon’s plans, retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, who is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council (FRC), said on Fox & Friends Wednesday morning:

It’s a matter of what do they mean by "proselytizing." ...I think they’ve got their defintions a little confused. If you’re talking about coercion that’s one thing, but if you’re talking about the free exercise of our faith as individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, especially for the chaplains, they I think the worst thing we can do is stop the ability for a soldier to be able to exercise his faith.”

FRC has launched a petition here which has already collected over 60,000 signatures, calling on Secretary Hagel is stop working with Weinstein and his anti-Christian organization to develop military policy regarding religious faith.


The FRC petition has now exceeded more than 40,000 signatures at the time of this update.

Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is senior fellow for religious liberty with the Family Research Council and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law.

1793 all over again.



Catherine de Medici Signs the Edict of Amboise

Catherine de Medici Signs the Edict of Amboise
The civil war between Roman Catholics and Huguenots reached a brief peace on March 19th, 1563.

Lull in the fighting: Catherine de Medici stands outside her tent as the Peace of Amboise is agreed on the île de Boeuf, Orléans. A contemporary engraving.Tension in France between Roman Catholics and Calvinist Protestants, or Huguenots, mounted steadily during the 16th century. Both sides had their fanatics and there are no non-partisan accounts of what happened, but in 1560 a group of Huguenots planned to kidnap the 16-year old king, Francis II, at Amboise Castle near Tours, kill the Duc de Guise and the Cardinal of Lorraine, the Roman Catholic brothers who were effectively ruling France, and reorganise the country. The Guises discovered the plot and the rebels were defeated and butchered at Amboise. The torturings and hangings went on for a week and the bodies hung on the castle walls and on trees. It was suspected, though never proved, that the Prince de Condé, of the Bourbon family, had been behind the uprising.

Francis II died at the end of 1560. He was succeeded by his younger brother, Charles IX, and Catherine de Medici, the queen mother, took over as regent. In 1562, anxious not to drive the Huguenots to desperation and also to curb the power of the Guises, she issued the Edict of St-Germain, which allowed Protestant services to be held, though only in private and not in towns. A few weeks later, however, Huguenots worshipping in a barn outside a place called Vassy were massacred by the Duc de Guise and his men.

The result was civil war as Huguenot forces seized Orléans and other towns. The death of François de Guise, shot in the back by a Huguenot sympathiser while besieging Orléans early in 1563, seems to have come as a relief to Catherine. The murderer was executed by being torn apart by horses, but after conferring with the Prince de Condé, Catherine signed the Edict of Amboise, permitting private Protestant services in noble households and on the outskirts of certain towns.

To become law the edict had to be registered by the Parlement of Paris, which grudgingly did so only until Charles IX should achieve his majority, at 13. This was announced in August, when the edict came into force, bringing the first phase of the French wars of religion to an end. Peace would not last for long.

By Richard Cavendish

Published in History Today Volume: 63 Issue: 3 2013
Renaissance France

Thanks to History Today


So now washing the feet of the common man makes you a radical.

Defense Department classifies Catholics, evangelicals as extremists - Washington Times\

From Radical to martyrdom is one short drive.



These are things Catholics must NOT believe.


1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. -- Ibid.

3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. -- Ibid.

4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. -- Ibid. and Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, etc.

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. -- Ibid.
6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. -- Ibid.

7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.


8. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences. -- Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854.

9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object. -- Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, "Gravissimas inter," Dec. 11, 1862, and "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority. -- Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.

11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself. -- Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.

12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science. -- Ibid.

13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. -- Ibid.

14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation. -- Ibid.


15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.


Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, Encyclical "Noscitis et nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.


19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights. -- Allocution "Singulari quadam," Dec. 9, 1854, etc.

20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government. -- Allocution "Meminit unusquisque," Sept. 30, 1861.

21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, other temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority granted either explicitly or tacitly, which on that account is revocable by the civil authority whenever it thinks fit. -- Ibid.

26. The Church has no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Encyclical "Incredibili," Sept. 7, 1863.

27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

28. It is not lawful for bishops to publish even letters Apostolic without the permission of Government. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

29. Favours granted by the Roman pontiff ought to be considered null, unless they have been sought for through the civil government. -- Ibid.

30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

32. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government. -- Letter to the Bishop of Monreale "Singularis nobisque," Sept. 29, 1864.

33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions. -- Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, "Tuas libenter," Dec. 21, 1863.

34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

35. There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city. -- Ibid.

36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority car assume this principle as the basis of its acts. -- Ibid.

37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established. -- Allocution "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860.

38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.


39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.

41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of "exsequatur," but also that of appeal, called "appellatio ab abusu." -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851

42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails. -- Ibid.

43. The secular Dower has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest. -- Allocution "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860; Allocution "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850.

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them. -- Allocutions "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers. -- Allocutions "Quibus luctuosissimis," Sept. 5, 1851, and "In consistoriali," Nov. 1, 1850.

46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. -- Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, "Cum non sine," July 14, 1864.

48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. -- Ibid.
49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

52. Government can, by its own right, alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power. -- Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852; "Probe memineritis," Jan. 22, 1855; "Cum saepe," July 26, 1855.

54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.


56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.
57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority. -- Ibid.

58. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure. -- Ibid.; Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863.

59. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces. -- Ibid.

61. The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the sanctity of right. -- Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed. -- Allocution "Novos et ante," Sept. 28, 1860.

63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution "Quibusque vestrum," Oct. 4, 1847; "Noscitis et Nobiscum," Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter "Cum Catholica."
64. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country. -- Allocution "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849.


65. The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.
66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone. -- Ibid.

67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority. -- Ibid.; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

68. The Church has not the power of establishing diriment impediments of marriage, but such a power belongs to the civil authority by which existing impediments are to be removed. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

69. In the dark ages the Church began to establish diriment impediments, not by her own right, but by using a power borrowed from the State. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which anathematize those who dare to deny to the Church the right of establishing diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic or must be understood as referring to such borrowed power. -- Ibid.

71. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the Council of Trent, under pain of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law lays down another form, and declares that when this new form is used the marriage shall be valid.

72. Boniface VIII was the first who declared that the vow of chastity taken at ordination renders marriage void. -- Ibid.

73. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament, or that there is no contract if the sacrament be excluded. -- Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852; Allocutions "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852, "Multis gravibusque," Dec. 17, 1860.

74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9 1846; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851, "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.


75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided amongst themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power. -- "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church. -- Allocutions "Quibus quantisque," April 20, 1849, "Si semper antea," May 20, 1850.


77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation.... The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God's (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar's, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights....

. . . Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging.... Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous caverns, . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth. Things being thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world.

To the Archbishops and Bishops of Prussia concerning the situation of the Catholic Church faced with persecution by that Government....

But although they (the bishops resisting persecution) should be praised rather than pitied, the scorn of episcopal dignity, the violation of the liberty and the rights of the Church, the ill treatment which does not only oppress those dioceses, but also the others of the Kingdom of Prussia, demand that We, owing to the Apostolic office with which God has entrusted us in spite of Our insufficient merit, protest against laws which have produced such great evils and make one fear even greater ones; and as far as we are able to do so with the sacred authority of divine law, We vindicate for the Church the freedom which has been trodden underfoot with sacrilegious violence. That is why by this letter we intend to do Our duty by announcing openly to all those whom this matter concerns and to the whole Catholic world, that these laws are null and void because they are absolutely contrary to the divine constitution of the Church. In fact, with respect to matters which concern the holy ministry, Our Lord did not put the mighty of this century in charge, but Saint Peter, whom he entrusted not only with feeding his sheep, but also the goats; therefore no power in the world, however great it may be, can deprive of the pastoral office those whom the Holy Ghost has made Bishops in order to feed the Church of God.



War Plan Red

"The policy will be to prepare the provinces and territories of CRIMSON and RED to become states and territories of the BLUE union upon the declaration of peace."

War Plan Red

Joint Army and Navy Basic War Plan Red, also known as the Atlantic Strategic War Plan, was a war plan created by the United States investigating the measures required to fight a war with Great Britain (the "Red" forces)." War Plan Red discussed the potential for fighting a war with Britain and its Empire and outlined those steps necessary to defend the Atlantic coast. It further discussed fighting a two-front war with both Japan and the British Empire simultaneously (as envisioned in War Plan Red-Orange).

War Plan Red had been one of the United States greatest military secrets and was developed by the United States Army following the 1927 Geneva Naval Conference and approved in May 1930 by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy and updated in 1934–35. In 1939 on the outbreak of WW2 and Great Britain's fight against the Axis nations, a decision was taken that no further planning was required but that the plan be retained.[2] War Plan Red was not declassified until 1974.
The war plan outlined those actions that would be necessary to initiate war between Great Britain and the United States. The plan suggested that the British would initially have the upper hand by virtue of the strength of its navy. The plan further assumed that Britain would probably use its dominion in Canada as a springboard from which to initiate a retaliatory invasion of the United States. The assumption was taken that at first Britain would fight a defensive battle against invading American forces, but that the US would eventually defeat the British by blockading the United Kingdom and economically isolating it.


War Plan Red was one of a number of U.S. color-coded war plans developed by the U.S. after the First World War.

When War Plan Red was declassified in 1974, it caused a stir in American-Canadian relations because Canada, codenamed "Crimson" in the plan, was to have been the principal target of American forces.


The Maritimes in eastern Canada were the primary areas of strategic importance for the plan

War Plan Red first set out a description of Canada's geography, military resources, and transportation, and went on to evaluate a series of possible pre-emptive American campaigns to invade Canada in several areas and occupy key ports and railways before British troops could provide reinforcement to the Canadians - the assumption being that Britain would use Canada as a staging point. The idea was that the American attacks on Canada would prevent Britain from using Canadian resources, ports, or airbases.

A key move was a joint US army-navy attack to capture the port city of Halifax, cutting off the Canadians from their British allies. Their next objective was to "[s]eize Canadian Power Plants near Niagara Falls" (Carlson, 2005). This was to be followed by a full-scale invasion on three fronts: From Vermont to take Montreal and Quebec, from North Dakota to take over the railhead at Winnipeg, and from the Midwest to capture the strategic nickel mines of Ontario. In parallel, the U.S. Navy was to seize the Great Lakes and blockade Canada’s Atlantic and Pacific ports.

Zones of operation

The main zones of operation discussed in the plan are:
• Nova Scotia and New Brunswick:
o Occupying Halifax, following a poison gas first strike, would deny the British a major naval base and cut links between Britain and Canada.
o The plan considers several land and sea options for the attack and concludes that a landing at St. Margarets Bay, a then undeveloped bay near Halifax, would be superior to a direct assault via the longer overland route.
o Failing to take Halifax, the U.S. could occupy New Brunswick by land to cut Nova Scotia off from the rest of Canada at the key railway junction at Moncton.
• Quebec and the valley of the Saint Lawrence River:
o Occupying Montreal and Quebec City would cut the remainder of Canada off from the Eastern seaboard, preventing the movement of soldiers and resources in both directions.
o The routes from northern New York to Montreal and from Vermont to Quebec are both found satisfactory for an offensive, with Quebec being the more critical target.
• Ontario and the Great Lakes area:
o Occupying this region gains control of Toronto and most of Canada's industry, while also preventing Britain and Canada from using it for air or land attacks against the U.S. industrial heartland in the Midwest.
o The plan proposes simultaneous offensives from Buffalo across the Niagara River, from Detroit into Ontario, and from Sault Ste. Marie into Sudbury. Controlling the Great Lakes for U.S. transport is considered logistically necessary for a continued invasion.
• Winnipeg
o Winnipeg is a central nexus of the Canadian rail system for connecting the country.
o The plan sees no major obstacles to an offensive from Grand Forks, North Dakota, to Winnipeg.
• Vancouver and Victoria:
o Although Vancouver's distance from Europe reduces its importance, occupying it would deny Britain a naval base and cut Canada off from the Pacific Ocean.
o Vancouver could be easily attacked overland from Bellingham, Washington, and Vancouver Island could be attacked by sea from Port Angeles, Washington.
o The British Columbia port Prince Rupert has a rail connection to the rest of Canada, but a naval blockade is viewed as easy if Vancouver were taken.

No attacks outside Western Hemisphere

Unlike the Rainbow Five plan, War Plan Red did not envision striking outside the Western Hemisphere. The plan assumed that the British Empire would have a much larger army and slightly larger navy. Because of the Empire's historical strength, the United States had traditionally planned for a defensive war with the British. War Plan Red recommended continued use of this strategy even as American military might grew to match Britain's. Its authors saw conquering Canada as the best way to attack the British Empire and believed that doing so would cause Britain to negotiate for peace. A problem with the plan was that it did not discuss how to attack the Empire if Canada declared its neutrality, which the authors believed was likely. (The plan advised against accepting such a declaration without permission to occupy Canadian ports and some land until the war ended.)

Based on extensive war games conducted at the Naval War College, the plan rejected attacking British shipping or attempting to destroy the British fleet. The main American fleet would instead stay in the western North Atlantic to block British-Canadian traffic. The navy would wait for a good opportunity to engage the British fleet, and if successful would then attack British trade and colonies in the Western Hemisphere.

In 1935 War Plan Red was updated and specified which roads to use in the invasion. "The best practicable route to Vancouver is via Route 99" (Carlson, 2005). Further, in 1935 Americans planned to build three military airfields near the Canadian border and disguise them as civilian airports. "In February 1935, the War Department arranged a Congressional appropriation of $57 million to build three border air bases for the purposes of pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields" (Berlin Glasnost, 1992–2007). The airfields were to be kept secret, but their existence was accidentally published by the Government Printing Office and reported on the front page of the New York Times on May 1, 1935.

Interestingly, American war planners had no thoughts of returning captured British territory. "The policy will be to prepare the provinces and territories of CRIMSON and RED to become states and territories of the BLUE union upon the declaration of peace."

British strategy for war with America

The Royal Navy never prepared a formal plan for war with America during the first half of the 20th century. The government of David Lloyd George in 1919 restricted the navy from doing so to prevent it from using American naval growth to justify building more ships. Like their American counterparts, most Royal Navy officers viewed cooperation with the other nation as the best way to maintain world peace due to the shared culture, language, and goals, although Britons feared that British attempts to regulate trade during a war with another nation might force a war with the United States.

Royal Navy officers generally believed that if war did occur, they could transport an army to Canada if asked, but nonetheless saw it as impossible to defend against the much larger United States, so did not plan to do so, as Canada's loss would not be fatal to Britain. An invasion of the United States was unrealistic and a naval blockade was too slow. The navy could not use a defensive strategy of waiting for the American fleet to cross the Atlantic because Imperial trade was too vulnerable. The Royal Navy officers believed that the United Kingdom was so vulnerable to a blockade that, if a superior American fleet appeared near the British Isles, Britain would quickly surrender. The officers planned to, instead, attack the American fleet from a Western Hemisphere base, likely Bermuda, while other ships based in Canada and the West Indies would attack American shipping and protect Imperial trade. The navy would also bombard coastal bases and make small amphibious assaults. India and Australia would help capture Manila to prevent American attacks on British trade in Asia and perhaps a conquest of Hong Kong. The officers hoped that such acts would result in a stalemate making continued war unpopular in the United States, followed by a negotiated peace.

Canadian counterpart

Canadian military officer Lieutenant Colonel James "Buster" Sutherland Brown developed an earlier counterpart to War Plan Red called Defense Scheme No. 1 on April 12, 1921. Maintaining that the best defense was a good offense, "Buster" Brown planned for rapid deployment of flying columns to occupy Seattle, Great Falls, Minneapolis, and Albany. With no hope of holding these objectives, the idea was to divert American troops to the flanks and away from Canada, hopefully long enough for Imperial allies to arrive with reinforcements. Defence Scheme No. 1 was terminated by Chief of the General Staff Andrew McNaughton in 1928, two years prior to the approval of War Plan Red.

Thank God this never happened.