Friday, August 16, 2019

Why I no Longer Reject Vatican II and the Traditional Catholic Priests or Receiving Sacraments from Them (On Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, Natural Family Planning, Una Cum etc.)

As for over the last two years, I have changed many of my old positions and do no longer adhere to the strict interpretation as expressed in many of our old articles. Now I follow the Doctors, Saints and Theologians of the Church, my conscience, and the teaching of St. Alphonsus, which teaches us that it is the law of conscience that determines whether an uncertain action is lawful or not. Therefore, if you feel good in your conscience about approaching this or that priest for Mass or the Sacraments (even a Vatican II priest) then you can do so. Therefore, if a position is uncertain or unclear to you (such as Baptism of Desire or Blood), do what you think is right according to your conscience. No one can force you to embrace an uncertain position under pain of sin, and therefore, do not worry about approaching a priest you feel good about approaching, if you feel you need to receive the consolations of Mass and the Sacraments from this priest.

Please read this article, which more fully explains the situation to another questioner:


Even though I said in this article (above) that the Vatican II priests are not validly ordained and hence not real priests, I in fact am not sure that this is the case anymore. Therefore, you may have a different opinion, or you may share this position. Many in the traditional camp have varied positions on this topic, and no one can force the other to accept his or her position under pain of sin. Therefore, follow your conscience and do what you think is right.

So the the question as to where you should go to mass I answer: Go to any mass or priest that you feel good about approaching according to your conscience. If you feel it is right to go to this or that mass and receive the sacraments from this or that priest, then do so. Your conscience is clean, and that is all that matters.

I also do no longer adhere to the position that Vatican II or the Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists or various Traditionalists Groups and Peoples etc. are heretical or damned, or that the various teachings, Saints and adherents to Vatican II (and other canonized by Vatican II) such as Saint Mother Theresa or Saint Pope John Paul II was heretical or damned or not Catholic (or not the Pope) – or that they are unworthy of this title. Why have I changed position? That is simply because the law of conscience is true, and because damnation is something evil, and because Vatican II is more open to the law of conscience and universal salvation, whereas the pre-Vatican II Church was not.

For more information on this topic and why I have changed position, and why damnation is evil and why the Vatican II Church teaches something good with being more open to universal salvation and the law of conscience, see these posts (please see both of them, they are really important):

https://against-all-heresies-and-errors.blogspot.com/2019/05/q-why-damnation-and-eternal-torments-is-evil.html

Simply said, salvation for everyone is something infinitely desirable and endlessly good, whereas eternal damnation in torments and fire is the most evil thing that could ever be imagined, and it is stupid to believe (and just silently accept) that our fellow human beings must be damned simply because they held a different faith, or simply because God wills it, or only because they failed in their life. That is why I admire Vatican II now, since they have distanced themselves from repressing and evil teachings like an eternal Hell with torments and fire for our fellow human brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, children and neighbours! and now, they (the Church), instead of focusing on unforgiveness and damnation, the Catholic Church (which is the Church of God) focuses on forgiveness, hope and salvation for everyone – which is an eternal true and endlessly good doctrine, since it follows true justice and our conscience which wills eternal good towards everyone (even ones enemies, that they may become good so that we may be able to love each other and become best friends), and not only towards ones own.

Concerning our "Various Traditional Catholic Issues and Groups Exposed" topic. This was the expression of my old beliefs, but is also the still current beliefs of my other old co-worker (or co-owner of the websites) that I have come to distance myself from. Even though the owner of the "prophecyfilm12" mail address still espouses those same views (the strict and old) I do not, and I would tell you that they (the Traditional and Vatican II Catholic groups and people we formerly condemned) are Catholics (i.e., those who believe in Baptism of Desire and Blood, NFP, Una Cum and Pope Francis etc.) and that they can be approached for the Sacraments and Mass if you feel good about doing so and you believe this is the right and Catholic choice.

One will simply not become a heretic for embracing (even obstinately) Baptism of Desire or Blood when Saints and even Popes and the Church tacitly approves of it and even formally approves of it in its teachings (such as in Code of Canon Laws and Catechisms and Theological Manuals and Books). So the Church teaches Baptism of Desire and Blood (but not perhaps dogmatically in the sense MHFM and others would like to have it), but we are heretics for believing in it? No, that is not true. If Pope Pius XII could believe in and teach Baptism of Desire and even NFP (which he did) then so can we. And it does not matter if we "know better" or have "been corrected" by others, such as by groups as ourselves or Most Holy Family Monastery, – for we are entitled to our own opinion on this matter if we desire to adhere to the teachings of the Saints and Pope Pius XII who all taught Baptism of Desire. Only when the Church has formally condemned Baptism of Desire and Blood or NFP (and such like controversial topics) and not given any more room for doubt, would it be unlawful to embrace those positions (unless, of course, you have a valid reason to doubt or deny those teachings, such as the teaching on Hell, which is an evil teaching and an evil thing). But has this happened? Has Popes really condemned Baptism of Desire or Natural Family Planning in name so that there are no arguments among Catholics about what is the truth? No, they have not! Why else all the arguments and differences in opinions? Popes such as Pius XII even spoke of BOD and NFP or Rhythm as Doctrine. So what does it tell us? That the Pope did not view the quotes as we (as in my old views) or MHFM does. It is easy to take a dogma or encyclical and just interpret it 100% strict and even dismiss all Saints and Theologians of the Church, but it is not wise to do so. When all the Theologians and Doctors of the Church teach Baptism of Desire and Blood, then we need to listen. If none of them interprets the dogmas as we or MHFM does, then we are free to accept their explanations and reject that of others. And it does not matter how "convincing" MHFM or anyone else is or however much they condemn you, – if you are uncertain (and you have a right to be and to remain uncertain, for the Church does not teach that you must accept the explanations of random people or be guilty of mortal sin) and if your conscience feel good about adhering to Baptism of Blood or Desire (both of which are doctrines which the Church approved theologians teaches), then you are free to adhere to their explanations. I suppose even you see the logic and reason in this position, i.e, that you are free to embrace the approved theologians' position on any topic that your conscience agrees with, and reject the position (or feel uncertain about without incurring sin) the position of non-approved sources, until the Church has formally and undeniably settled this matter.

If Thomas Aquinas (approved Saint and Doctor of the Church) could be saved believing in Baptism of Desire, then so can you, even if we or MHFM condemns you, since you are entitled to be unsure when the Church seems to contradict Herself by both teaching and condemning it, – if you now believe the doctrine could be condemned. Otherwise, the true explanation is that Baptism of Desire is not condemned, and that MHFM and others are over-interpreting the encyclicals and councils.

In conclusion: On topics that are uncertain and unsettled or sensitive (such as Mass or the Sacraments) follow your conscience and ask the advice of others, such as priests and friends, and do not only strictly follow the strict interpretations of online theologians (or the so-called "the only ones you can trust") that often over-interprets things and "only follow their own ways" to the rejection of everyone else, even if they are Popes, Priests, Monks, Approved Theologians, Catechisms or even Code of Canon Laws.

You have a right to be uncertain and to adhere to something that you believe is true (such as the approved sources). Therefore, do not worry about going to a specific Priest or Mass if you desire to do this, or to adhere to this or that teaching if you feel more comfortable in embracing it according to your beliefs and conscience. For if your conscience is clean on this topic, then you are acting right and even do a good thing, since you follow justice and honesty.

2 comments:

  1. https://www.bartleby.com/210/
    https://www.dhspriory.org/thomas/http://gardenofmary.com/library/sermons/sermons-of-st-alphonsus/

    ReplyDelete
  2. Saint Bridget of Sweden
    by Johannes Jorgensen (Danish)
    English translation: Ingeborg Lund
    Volumes 1-2. C. 1943.

    ReplyDelete