Friday, November 30, 2012

The Enemy Within

In today’s (November 30) episode of the Vortex, Michael Voris talks about “the devil inside” (video at the end of the post; full script here):

It’s never the enemy OUTSIDE the gates that brings your house crashing down. It’s lack of preparedness and living in a state of denial that is the real problem.

And such is the state of affairs today in large swaths of the Catholic world…

Voris points out that, judging by a lot of Catholic blogs and websites, “you’d walk away with the impression that what ails the Church today is Obama.” He adds:

One Catholic speaker is even giving a presentation in the upcoming weeks called something like Catholic surviving Obama. PLEASE! What a weird and meaningless topic. Catholics already had their chance to survive Obama: it was called “election night”. Too late. Fifty percent like him and voted for him. Case closed.

What Catholics need to survive is the enemy within the gates.

Like the soft heresy that is peddled non-stop because it’s rarely if ever challenged.

Like the near total lack of understanding what the Church actually is.

Like the continual downward spiral of Masses that look like little else than a warmed-over Protestant service, replete with abuses and not to mention the misguided theological emphasis at most of them.

Like the constant blurring of the lines between the ordained clergy and the laity.  

There is SO MUCH wrong in the Church that CAN be corrected and simply isn’t because…the men charged with correcting [the problems] refuse to [do so].

Why do they refuse to correct the problems? Voris has some thoughts – watch the video or read the script to see what they are. I want to focus on the part where he says

Listen to this communications we received a day or so ago. It sums it up pretty well.

"I would like a frank discussion from CMTV on how the catastrophic institutional failure of the Catholic Church before our very eyes since Vatican II squares with it being the One True Church under the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. Smiling at sodomy and officially-sponsored heresy like Fr. John Crossin's (Director of the USCCB's Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs) “Generations of Faith” mini-Assisi earlier this month in Washington, can't be shrugged off as a problem of dissident priests or theologians. In his keynote speech to Moslems, Hindus, and Sikhs he said that their conversation may lead Catholics to understand how their beliefs might be wrong. It's all proudly on the USCCB's website. I have four kids in their 20s who are struggling with the cognitive dissonance between the faith as carefully handed down by their parents and the reality they are finding on their own. I've lost one already, and it breaks my heart.”

Curious, I went to the USCCB website and found several links (here, here, and here) related to this. In fairness, I think we must acknowledge that Fr. Crossin did not actually say that Catholics might be led “to understand how their beliefs might be wrong”.  At least, I can’t find that statement. What he does say in the speech (and elsewhere) is this:

“Our conversation may even lead us to discover that we Catholics have been mistaken in our understanding of the beliefs of the Catholic Church.”

That’s a little different. Certainly, we can find many Catholics who are “mistaken” in their understandings of the beliefs of the Church – like why the Church teaches that artificial contraception is a moral evil, for instance. However, Fr. Crossin does not explain any further or give an example to illustrate what he means by his statement.

NONETHELESS…this really takes nothing away from the point of this episode of the Vortex. If you read the speeches at the link (Fr. Crossin gave “introductory remarks” and the keynote address was given by Auxiliary Bishop Barry Knestout), you will find a lot of “feel good” kind of talk. Well, I suppose that’s what the conference was about, in essence: feeling good and making inter-faith friends.

Maybe Fr. Crossin has made his own slight error in “understanding the beliefs of the Catholic Church”.  For instance, he might gain something by reading Monsignor Charles Pope’s recent blog post entitled “How Ignoring Two Little Words Has Devastated Evangelization”. I recommend reading the entire post, but I’ll cut to the chase as to what the two little words are. Msgr. Pope says (emphasis in original):

What are these words? Simply these:

“But often….”

Perhaps you are less than amazed and wonder what they could have to do with evangelization, let alone urgency. These words occur in a critical text of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium # 16, which is often misunderstood to teach that just about everyone will be saved, baptized or not. Yet these two little words (“But often”) and the three sentences that follow set forth a critical interpretive key that is often wholly ignored by many who hold an expansive and universalist notion of salvation.

[He inserts a section from paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium]

Clearly, the text expansively sets forth a case for God’s goodness and His desire to save all people. He will regard the good will of those who, through invincible ignorance, do not come to explicit confession of Jesus. And, presuming they are sincerely seeking God and striving to live according to the dictates of conscience, God can indeed save them.

But while such a scenario is certainly possible, we ought not presume it is widespread, or even necessarily common. And, the Lumen Gentium text does NOT in fact presume that.

And this is where our two little words are critical. For having set forth the possibility of salvation apart from explicit confession of Jesus and baptism, the text then states with proper and biblical sobriety:

BUT OFTEN men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.

Msgr. Pope's post includes a video of Dr. Ralph Martin commenting on this topic, and notes that the post is a summary of “a central point [Dr. Martin] makes in his important book: Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches.

(I’ve seen the book mentioned by others; seems like it might be worth reading!)

Perhaps I’m missing something. When we engage in “ecumenism”, does that mean we don’t preach the Gospel…you know, in order to be “nice”? Or should “ecumenism” and “evangelization” go hand-in-hand? Well, in the end, it’s all about salvation, right? I think we ought to be spreading the word to Catholics and non-Catholics (and even non-Christians!) that there is no salvation outside the Church. That IS what the Church teaches…isn’t it?

At any rate, while I’m sure Msgr. Pope doesn’t want to be set up in opposition to the USCCB, it certainly seems to me that he has a more authentic, Catholic view of the topic of evangelization than the USCCB does!

Once again, Michael Voris is right on target in the Vortex, as he concludes:

WHY WHY WHY won’t the bishops and the Catholic media talk about the REAL problem and, most importantly, DO SOMETHING about it – and stop, once and for all, talking about the economy and immigration and fiscal policy. No one is listening.

Obama isn’t the problem. He’s the proof and symptom of a Church membership and leadership that simply won’t face the reality, and in so doing has lost its way.
Faithful Catholics have simply got to step up and call it like it is.

Sometimes it seems like an effort in futility to keep “stepping up and calling it like it is”. But it is our duty.

And, of course, don’t forget to pray and fast, and give your alms to a truly Catholic cause.


  1. This was a really good one. He nails it. I forwarded this to several of my friends who don't usually watch ChurchMilitantTV.

  2. Yes another GREAT VORTEX.
    Michale Voris nails it , once again.
    PLEASE stop talking about Obama...
    What splendid advice.
    Let us turn our eyes and get on our knees and start making reparation and atonement for our own sins and the sins of the world .
    The Remnant is going to be .
    The Holy Catholic Church will become "small" and will we be standing with those who have said YES, to the complete TRUTH.
    I hope and pray your have answered YES.
    Are you on FIRE with the Holy Ghost and will you be HIS VOICE no matter what will cost you.
    You and I "might" not have to undergo RED martyrdom but we sure face the WHITE martyrdom , that is a promise . I am sure many of us have already experienced this from family and frineds who think we are NUT jobs and fanatics ...I sure have ! Let us rise to this call and challenge , becuase this is what we were made for : THE BATTLE . For the Love of God get your armor on and get ready : the Battle is upon us!

  3. Fr. George Butler , a favorite on EWTN : speaks on the Remnant that is coming upon this earth: He sharesthe following :
    Long before he was Pope , Benedict was a prophet who said:
    " The Church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning."
    Let us reflect and pray on this "small" and prepare ourselves for this : cling to Holy Mother Church and keep your eyes on the God and TRUST in Him ...He will see us through all this.

  4. Jay, do you mean Fr. George Rutler? I don't have a television so I don't watch EWTN. There may very well be a Fr. Butler on there.


  5. Lorraine, that was Jeanne's comment, so we'll wait and see if she can clarify.

  6. "...that there is no salvation outside the Church."

    Oh-oh, Dr. Jay. Now you've done it. To the Catechism:

    "Outside the Church there is no salvation"

    846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

    847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through *no fault of their own*, do not know Christ and his Church:

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

    848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the *obligation* and also *the sacred right* to *evangelize all men*." (stars added!)

    Continued next post...



  7. And this...


    1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

    1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

    1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

    1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

    1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

    CK here:

    A lot to chew on there, folks.

    Comments? ;)


    1. CK: There is nothing in this passage that contradicts traditional Church teaching, which has always been that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation. Yes, there may be exceptions through invincible ignorance--but that is the EXCEPTION and not the rule.

      Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, and therefore set forth no new teachings. The criticism of the passages you cite is not that they are in error, but rather that they are so ambiguous as to mislead readers into thinking the Church & the sacraments are no longer truly necessary for salvation. This has not been helped by modern theologians who seem to adhere to Rahner's notion of the "anonymous Christian" or von Balthasar's concept that hell is likely empty of human souls--both terribly mistaken notions that cause grave harm to souls.

      "For many are called, but few are chosen."--Matthew 22:14

    2. "Vatican II was not a dogmatic council"

      Then why are these documents from the Second Vatican Council called "Dogmatic"?:

      DEI VERBUM Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation

      LUMEN GENTIUM Dogmatic Constitution on the Church

      Nothing new, true. But why is that word used?


    3. CK that the documents re-state what is old in dogma is why they are dogmatic, as well as being important ones out of all the many which came partly a hierarchy of documents.


    4. Ah! Okay, gotcha SuperT. :)

      Many thanks.


  8. Dr. Ralph Martin will be on my radio show in February. His book "Will Many Be Saved?" is essential reading for modern Catholics, because he parses Lumen Gentium 16 and comes to the conclusion that NO, not many will be saved, and therefore our task to evangelize is more urgent than ever.

    Too many Catholics today have fallen prey to the mistaken notion that everyone or most will go to heaven, whereas NOTHING in Church teaching or tradition teaches that--including Vatican II. In fact, it is quite the opposite; there are dozens of quotes from the doctors & fathers indicating that VERY FEW will be saved. Dr. Martin (whose book has been praised by many well-known prelates) brings to light the urgent necessity of evangelism because more souls than ever are in danger of eternal separation from God, and we as Catholics, who have the light of Truth, MUST share that Truth with those who are lost.

  9. Okay Christine.

    Please help me out. What's "VERY FEW"?

    Does "Not many will be saved" also mean those of us who practice the faith regularly? (meaning receiving the sacraments as often as possible, praying the rosary with their families, utilizing sacramentals, encouraging and participating in devotions, catechizing and helping others know and learn the faith, meriting indulgences, etc., etc.)

    Quite frankly when I see posts like yours, or as we have seen recently at Fr. Z's and Tantamergo's, it makes me want to give up! (In other words, why bother? I am going to hell anyway, it seems.)

    Who then can be saved - even among those Catholics who are living and practicing the faith?

    I ask these questions not to "bust" on you. I am serious.

    I have a sensitive conscious and the last thing I want it to do is to slide into scrupulosity. :(

    I have read those "dozens of quotes from the doctors & fathers indicating that VERY FEW will be saved" - and, truthfully, they make me want to despair.

    May God have mercy on me and those in my charge. :(


    1. Thankfully, you have spiritual directors instead of liberal priests who talk people out of sin. I would say that the very few means out of all the people who have lived from Adam and Eve, there are few who are in heaven or will be. We cannot know for sure, but must work out our salvation to the best of our ability. Some of us, perhaps the younger ones, will be martyrs. Lucky them. We must take on the suffering God gives us and also take on more penances as needed. Fasting during Advent is a start. I do the Byzantine Fast of no meat on Monday, Wed, and Fri. and no dairy on Tues and Thurs. That can be a start.

      Making God the priority in one's life is the way to heaven. Pray and trust in God and also, do not forget your patron saints and your guardian angel, who are there to help you.

  10. CK, when I read posts like Tantamergo's on the difficulty of making it into Heaven, it just makes me want to purge my life of the sin all the more. I have a sensitive conscience, too, and my spiritual director helps me avoid scrupulosity.

  11. I'm confused. CK, are you disagreeing that "the Church is necessary for salvation"? It seems not, given what you have cited, which all still says the Church is necessary, but God can do as He wills with regards to individuals.

    As for baptism, and children who die without being baptized...well there's a can of worms for you. I've addressed that on this blog a few times. Of course we entrust them to the mercy of God, but we should also not talk about them automatically being in Heaven, because the truth is they are probably NOT. Which is not to say that they experience any pain or suffering - on the contrary, they experience happiness and know that God loves them, but can't experience the Beatific Vision. See Fr. Erlenbush at The New Theological Movement, too. doesn't seem like you and Christine really have a you? What am I missing?

    What I've heard is that Vatican II was not a dogmatic council, except for the documents that explicitly say they are "dogmatic". Not all of them make that claim.

    1. Dr. Boyd, you are correct on all points. The aborted baby issue is huge, but one cannot fall into heresy because of the desire for all those lost children. That is part of the horror of abortion-the denial of that child to see the Beatific Vision. As to CK, some may merit heaven through the merits of the Catholic Church but there is a problem with that. There is not a lot of merit in the Church right now with all those who have apostatized or who are heretics within the walls. We can merit grace for others. I pray for the souls in purgatory and give them my small merit.

      See my note above re: the title dogmatic

    2. No disagreement here, Dr. Jay. :)

      We *need* the Church to be saved.

      It seems I am confused about such posts that tend to downplay the Catechism or the documents of VII. That's all.

      I posted those citations from the Catechism for discussion. No disageement here, good sister/doctor. :)

      So, when I teach my adult catechism faith studies, is it or is it not okay to quote the Catechism which cited Vatican II? (ambiguous language notwithstanding, I understand all of that)

      Am I in the wrong doing so?


    3. CK of course you can use the documents, but you do not need to be confused. The CCC is a bit vague on the salvation issue, as some of my students pointed out. The footnotes are not always clear, either. But, if you know your stuff, you can explain any problems which may seen to present themselves.


    4. Okay, SuperT. Thank you all very much for weighing in on this.

      I have seen it get really ugly on other Catholic blogs about this topic. I appreciate being able to go *somewhere* to get feedback from other faithful Catholics about these things.

      You all must understand - I barley have a HS education - yet, I can read the Catechsim and many of the documents of the Church and have some semblence of understanding them.

      God is good.

      I just want to teach the truth to Catholics who have not been given it (as it is so well expounded upon on blogs like Dr. Jay's and SuperT's etc.).

      It seems to me (through many a trial and error) that's what the Holy Ghost wants me to do.

      God bless,

    5. Just be sure you know your Faith before getting into deep waters. The only two problems I have had with the CCC has been very good students pointing out what I have mentioned in the salvation question, and the "subsist in" section under the Creed and the Article 9, Paragraph 3. Some traddies get upset about that statement as written. I have no problem with it. The only other problems arose in the wording on homosexuality, but you can deal with that, I am sure. The liberals have trouble with that wording....

  12. By the way, you are now on my blog list. I do not want to stuff the combox, but I honestly do not think there is a chance of being too scrupulous in 2012. Most of us have consciences deadened by years of bad teaching and need to revitalize the traditional views of sin and punishment. I hardly think that anyone here is over-scrupulous. We must be realistic and objective about our own faults and sin. That is necessary for holiness. See my humble blog on the perfection series. The goal post is set very high and we can get the grace to meet it. We have all the sacraments, the rosary, and such good sites as this to help. If someone who has more cash than I do can buy me Ralph Martin's book, I would appreciate that for Christmas. God bless all here. (My family is all agnostic or atheist except for my A.P.s)

  13. CK, in my not-so-humble opinion, it is not wrong to teach out of the new CCC because it is after all official teaching. For myself, I think I would try to be aware of the pitfalls of ambiguous language, and maybe look at the "old" Catechism(s)for more forceful language.

    I think there are others much more knowledgeable than I am who are speaking out about the ambiguities and misinterpretations of VII - like Dr. Ralph Martin.

    Supertradmum - thanks for your comments! And thanks for adding me to your blog list - you are on mine now, too.


  14. Understood, dear Dr. Jay.

    Thank you. :)


  15. CK I find the Compendium of the CCC very helpful. Do you have one? If not, get one. I keep giving mine away to the younger ones.

  16. It is online...did not know that until just now.

  17. sorry, do not know why the spaces...

  18. Home now!

    Yes, SuperT, I have one of those compendiums (another great document from Rome that was DOA here in the states).

    At $15 a pop that is a lot to be giving away all of the time. :)

    Although, I always just chalk that up to tithing. LOL

    Thanks and God bless,

  19. I'll stick to trusting and believing in the Mercy of God. Like St. Therese once told one of the Carmelite nuns in the convent with her, "Sister, if you focus on the justice of God, that is what you will get."
    My conscience was formed before the VII revolution. It has not been deadened by the revolution either, but I have chosen to believe and trust in God's mercy rather than focus on His justice. I do, however, suffer from scuples and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It is my opinion that I suffer from scruples because of how I was trained.
    We lose nothing by trusting in God's Mercy, and I have found that those who focus on His justice, or who narrow the gate of Heaven to jansenist size, are usually very hardened souls.


  20. Good post, Lorraine. I too will trust in God's mercy.

    Good grief, I spelled conscience as "conscious" above. Sorry folks. Told you I barely passed HS. ;(


    1. CK, I've been making that same mistake lately and now I have forgotten which is which. So I am not sure I used the right "conscious"/"conscience".

  21. Dear CK - I've seen a lot worse spelling errors etc in the papers of college students. Your academic credentials matter little to me - or God, I would surmise! It's our spiritual life that's important! You're an asset to the comment section on this blog no matter what you did (or didn't do!) in high school!

    And I certainly wouldn't disagree with anyone about trusting in God's mercy. "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me" is my constant prayer.

  22. I wanted to add that it was my return to the "traditional movement" in 1988 that really narrowed me. It didn't take long before I was embracing Fr. Feeney's interpretation of "no salvation outside the Church". When someone handed me St. Faustina's Diary, I got halfway through it and literally tossed it in the garbage.

    It is not uncommon when people discover the old Mass to go quickly from one thing to another. This is why I have tried to caution people that it is a slippery slope. You become eager to embrace everything old without discretion.

    One day, maybe about eight years ago, I realized how diabolical it was to turn against the revelations of St. Faustina.

    Also, Our Lord will never ever fault us for trusting too much in His Mercy. St. Therese said that we can never trust too much in it.

    When we die, we will find out how all of this played out. I'd rather be on the side of Mercy than Justice.

  23. YES I did mean Fr. George Rutler ....thanks ladies.
    I am not a very good typist but I try!
    God Bless,


Please be courteous and concise.