Rebuttal of Fr. Bento de Sousa

I have drawn up this text in rebuttal of Fr. Bento de Sousa, for Mr. John Meneses to use as a draft for his reply, drawing substantially on the writings of Raymond Taouk and also of Richard Ibranyi. I publish this text with the kind permission of Mr. Meneses

See also Discuss: Has Wojtyla's Church Fallen Away? — Lúcio
©Lúcio Mascarenhas, January 17, 2005.
Copyright Terms & Conditions | Home | Michaelinum.

Before investigating the statement of this man (Bento de Sousa), it is important to reiterate two basic Catholic principles that are relevant to the issues he raises:
  1. Catholic Doctrine cannot change in its essentials. That is, a particular aspect of the Faith formally expressed in one manner cannot be so changed as to give a meaning that is openly contradictory and without having first proven that the contradiction does not really exist! ["The (Catholic) faith grew through time but it was not so changed as to become another" — Vatican I Dz. 1800, 1818; also "It is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments" — Pope Saint Pius X, Ex quo nono.]


  2. Anyone who diverges from Catholic Doctrine in even one point has total ceased to be Catholic. [Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: "The Church has always regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own" and "Nothing is more dangerous than the heretics who, while conserving almost all the remainder of the Church's teaching intact, corrupt with a single word, like a drop of poison, the purity and simplicity of the faith which we have received through tradition from God and through the Apostles"]
Now, with regards to these two basic positions, we can consider the following quotes before proceeding any further:
  1. Fr. Hans Kung: "(Marcel) Lefebvre has every right to question the (Vatican II) Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom because Vatican II completely reversed Vatican I’s Position without explanation" —The National Catholic Reporter, October 21, 1977.


  2. "One could make an astonishing list for propositions taught yesterday, and the day before in Rome, as the only acceptable ones, and which were eliminated by the Conciliar Fathers" — Cardinal Suenens, interview I.C.I. May 15, 1969


  3. "The liturgical revolution is a mistake touching millions of Catholics at the very core of their religious belief. Let me only mention the sudden abolition and indeed, prohibition of the Latin Mass, the transposition of the officiating priest from the front to the back of the alter and the massive assault on a wide variety of forms of popular piety. If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been able to be advisor to the Church, he could hardly have done a better job" (Dr. Berger, Lutheran sociologist, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Feb, 1979).


  4. Doctrinal Changes in Canon Law (As written either by Richard Ibranyi or Raymond Taouk):
    1. Can. 844§4 allows the administration of penance, anointing of the sick and even Holy Communion to non-Catholics who manifest "Catholic faith" in these sacraments. This used to be considered a Mortal sin and was gravely forbidden [CIC (1917) c731§2] because it implicitly denies the dogma "Outside the Church, no salvation."


    2. Can. 1055§1 no longer defines marriage by its primary end, the procreation of Children, (Gen. 1:28) but mentions this only after a secondary end, the good of the spouses. Whence today's annulments fiasco: in the USA, for example, there were 338 annulments accorded in 1968; but there were 59,030 annulments accorded in 1992.


    3. Can. 336 codifies the collegiality of Vatican II: the "College of Bishops," a twentieth-century invention, is now made a permanent subject, together with the Pope, of supreme and full power over the Universal Church. A bishop, moreover, participates in this universal jurisdiction by the mere fact of his consecration (cf c375 §2). This collegiality tampers with the divine constitution of the Church, derogates from the Pope's powers and hampers his government of the Church (as well, indeed, as that of the Bishops in their dioceses.) "Episcopal Conferences" now assume authority, which thus becomes impersonal and unanswerable.


  5. Fr. William Jurgens: "At one point in the Church’s history, only a few years before Gregory Nazianz’s present preaching (+380 A.D.), perhaps the number of Catholic bishops in possession of sees, as opposed to Arian bishops in possession of sees, was no greater than something between 1% and 3% of the total. Had doctrine been determined by popularity, today we should all be deniers of Christ and opponents of the Spirit. …In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius."


  6. "The Church finds herself in an hour of anxiety, a disturbed period of self-criticism, or what would even better be called self-demolition [auto-destruction]. It is an interior upheaval, acute and complicated, which nobody expected after the Council. It is almost as if the Church were attacking itself. We looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the Council. But... one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself. — Paul VI, December 7, 1968, Address to the Lombard Seminary at Rome. [This was the Modernist Montini in his "Catholic" mode!]


  7. "We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, and confrontation.... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties. — Paul VI, June 29, 1972, Homily during the Mass for Sts. Peter & Paul, On the occasion of the ninth anniversary of his coronation in his response to Vatican II. [More "Catholic" mode!]


  8. "There is need to admit realistically and with a deep and sober sensibility that Christians today, for the most part, are dismayed, confused, perplexed and even frustrated; ideas conflicting with revealed and constantly taught Truth have been scattered by handfuls; true and real heresies in the sphere of dogma and morals have been spread, creating doubts, confusions, rebellions; the liturgy has been violated; immersed in intellectual and moral "relativism" and therefore in permissiveness, Christians have been allured by atheism, by agnosticism, by a vaguely moralistic enlightenment, by socialistic Christianity, without defined dogma and without objective morals" — John Paul II, L'Ossevatore Romano, Feb.7,1981. [And this is Wojie-boy in his "Catholic" mode!]


  9. Wojie-boy in Modernist mode: "Spouses be mutually subject to each other." The Bible says: "wives be subject to your husbands." JPII has also called for the "equality of spouses with regard to family rights." (The Remnant, June 15, 1998, 2539 Morrison Ave., St. Paul, MN), p. 4.)


  10. Wojie-boy in Modernist mode: In his 'encyclical' Ut Unum Sint in paragraph #47, "John-Paul II" calls non-Catholics who have died for their protestant faiths "witnesses." On June 14, 1994, he said in his address to his 'consistory': "There are so many martyrs in the non-Catholic Churches... too many to include in a contemporary perspective." (The Remnant, April 30, 1998, Vol. 31, #7, p. 9. 2539 Morrison Ave. St. Paul, MN)


  11. Even while a mere "Cardinal", Wojtyla taught:
    "The new conception of the idea of the people of God has replaced the old truth on the possibility of redemption outside the visible bounds of the Church. This premise shows the attitude of the Church towards the other religions, which is the basis for recognizing values which are spiritual, human and Christian at once, extending to religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism..."
    Taken from Fr. Malinski’s book, p. 189, Mon Ami, Karol Wojtyla. The book is an interview with "Cardinal" Wojtyla in Rome, in 1963. Published by Le Centurion 1980.
Now, let us proceed...

I wish you God's blessings in the New Year. Your Christmas card with the picture of Sr. Lucia caught my attention. I read the card and during my prayer I had a desire to write to you.

I am a diocesan priest and have served in various parishes for 44 years. I am on leave and staying at St. Pius X College, Goregaon.

Pope St. Pius X changed the sacramental life of the Church by encouraging the frequent Holy Communion and by permitting our little ones to receive Our Eucharistic Lord. But he was firm in condemning the heresy of modernism in his time. Christian Churches wanted to come under a common umbrella but without unity in faith and authority, so he warned the Catholic Church of the danger.

However in our time the ecumenical movement seeks the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ "that they may all be one, as You Father in Me and I in You." The scandal of division among us is serious sin.
The "ecumenical movement" merely pretends to seek the will of our Lord for unity. But Our Lord prayed for unity in the present time, that is, even as he founded the Church, and this Unity is guaranteed as an essential character of the Church which it is never capable of losing — not even when the Church has been reduced, in the last days, to a Remnant of a handful true believers!

What is the "scandal of division among us"? One needs to cultivate foolishness and anti-intellectualism in order to believe in this trash! It presupposes that unity can or has been lost; it presupposes that those who contemptuously and mendaciously departed from the Church in heresy and schism are nevertheless still Christians and that their going away has ruptured the unity of the Church which can only be restored by their agreeing to come together with those who remain with the True Faith uncorrupted by heresy! [See my rebuttal addressed to Victor de Melo on "Catholic Unity vs. the Ecumenist Heresy"]

I have found it helpful to read Sacramentum Mundi on Ecumenism and the commentary on the documents of Vatican II to understand the ecumenical movement.
Sacramentum Mundi is a work written by Karl Rahner who, it is acknowledged, even by the offical "Vatican II" church, to be a heretic!

It does not mean a reduced loyalty to the Catholic faith or that the Catholic Church seeks a compromise with other churches to achieve unity. It is a call to pray for unity, which is a gift of God, and to come together in dialogue to understand each other.
It precisely means, not "a reduced loyalty", but "a repudiated loyalty" to the Catholic Faith!

It precisely seeks a compromise on essential doctrinal questions.

It is not a "call to pray for unity" which is impossible anyway, and an insult to God, but it spiritual fornication!

One may have different opinions on practical applications, but the blanket statement in the Fatima Crusader about interfaith practices being grave sins is unwarranted.
On questions of salvation, "opinions" are not something to build up on, but it is what the apostates like, for it apparently exonerates them of their culpability! What the Fatima Crusader was stating is not an "opinion" but Orthodox and immutable Catholic Doctrine — that of the unlawfulness of violating the First Commandment, and prohibiting the Crime of "Communicatio in Sacris", which crime violates the First Commandment!

It is the will of Our Lord Jesus Chirst to pray and work for unity. I recall the touching remark of St. Augustine to those who had separated 'you are our brothers.'
There is nothing in the teachings of St. Augustine that supports praying together with heretics, schismatics, pagans and infidels. St. Augustine never prayed together with any of them himself, not even with the Manichaeans, to which sect he had formerly adhered!

Even the remark of the Patriarch of Lisbon at the Interfaith Seminar must be seen in its context. Sr. Lucia is not a teacher of the faith but an instrument of God called to share her vision which the teaching Church explains as a call for prayer and penance. Sr. Lucia shared her vision when she met the Pope; she has been a loyal daughter of Mother Mary and Mother Church.
See my note on Sr. Lucia dos Santos, and also Spirago-Clarke's "Divine Revelation".

The proposal to build a multi-religious shrine at Fatima has become a sore point. But as many Christians and non-Christians have a devotion to Mother Mary, it would be appropriate to give them some space to pray.
This is extraordinary: the pretension that heretics, schismatics and infidels "have a devotion to Mother Mary" is bad enough, but "it would be appropriate to give them some space to pray" is heresy worse confounded!

It is Catholic Doctrine that non-Catholics do not have a true and appropriate appreciation of God or His Saints, and even when ostensibly worshipping Him or His Saints, are committing idolatry [Catholic Encyclopedia, Article on Idolatry: "Idolatry etymologically denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God. St. Thomas (Summa Theol., II-II, q. xciv) treats of it as a species of the genus superstition, which is a vice opposed to the virtue of religion and consists in giving Divine honour (cultus) to things that are not God, or to God Himself in a wrong way." —(Emphasis added)].

But it is never permissible for Catholics to partake of these rites of the non-Catholics, leave alone facilitate them or even worse, permit these blasphemous and sacrilegous rites in Catholic Churches!

Nothing demonstrates how far the members of the "Vatican II" sect have departed from true Catholicism than this heresy!

We are Christians, the people of the Bible. And the Bible is all about the total incompatibility between the false, man-made 'gods' such as the various Baals, Moloch, Chemosh, Dagun, Astarte, etc., on the one part, and the True, Divinely revealed religion of the True God who gives His name as Elohim or Yahweh / Jehovah, on the other.

Yet, the "Ecumenist Movement" is, by its very nature and internal logic, incapable of keeping itself to those whom it pretends to be Christians together, but extends beyond to pretending a religious unity of all mankind, and therefore, even between those who worship Yahweh and those who worship the Baals, Moloch, Chemosh, Dagun, Astarte, etc.; thereby pretending to an essential unity between Christ and Belial, between Darkness and Light!

It is impossible and nothing more than a pure and unadulterated chicanery to pretend that it was unacceptable to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Canaanite pantheon and other pantheons condemned by the Bible, but that the Pantheons not named are legitimate! Yet this is exactly what the "Ecumenist Movement" implicitly pretends!

You have a different opinion and it will be appreciated if you would write to the secretariat and offer your suggestions.
Always these malefactors seek to reduce Orthodoxy to a mere opinion in the marketplace of mere opinions, and thus seek to flatter us into joining them in their orgies of spiritual fornication!

Perhaps we may write also to the "god" of the New Religion, the "god" of the "New Catholicism", Satan himself, and offer him our suggestions!

Let the prayer of Our Lord Jesus Christ be of paramount importance: that they may all be one, as You Father In Me and I in You. This month we have the Christian Unity Week to pray for unity.

May the Good Lord transform our hearts and make us instruments of peace and unity.
A false "peace" that is all sacrilege and blasphemy, and a false "unity" in ungodliness, by which one unerringly merits eternal damnation!

sd/-
Fr. Bento de Sousa
Lúcio Mascarenhas
St. Pius College
Aarey Road,
Goregaon East, Bombay. 400 063.
Phone: 2874 1217 / 2874 2957 / 2875 1084

6 Jan 2005

Dear Mr. John Menezes,

I wish you God's blessings in the New Year. Your Christmas card with the picture of Sr. Lucia caught my attention. I read the card and during my prayer I had a desire to write to you.

I am a diocesan priest and have served in various parishes for 44 years. I am on leave and staying at St. Pius X College, Goregaon.

Pope St. Pius X changed the sacramental life of the Church by encouraging the frequent Holy Communion and by permitting our little ones to receive Our Eucharistic Lord. But he was firm in condemning the heresy of modernism in his time. Christian Churches wanted to come under a common umbrella but without unity in faith and authority, so he warned the Catholic Church of the danger.

However in our time the ecumenical movement seeks the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ "that they may all be one, as You Father in Me and I in You." The scandal of division among us is serious sin. I have found it helpful to read Sacramentum Mundi on Ecumenism and the commentary on the documents of Vatican II to understand the ecumenical movement. It does not mean a reduced loyalty to the Catholic faith or that the Catholic Church seeks a compromise with other churches to achieve unity. It is a call to pray for unity, which is a gift of God, and to come together in dialogue to understand each other.

One may have different opinions on practical applications, but the blanket statement in the Fatima Crusader about interfaith practices being grave sins is unwarranted. It is the will of Our Lord Jesus Chirst to pray and work for unity. I recall the touching remark of St. Augustine to those who had separated 'you are our brothers.'

Even the remark of the Patriarch of Lisbon at the Interfaith Seminar must be seen in its context. Sr. Lucia is not a teacher of the faith but an instrument of God called to share her vision which the teaching Church explains as a call for prayer and penance. Sr. Lucia shared her vision when she met the Pope; she has been a loyal daughter of Mother Mary and Mother Church.

The proposal to build a multi-religious shrine at Fatima has become a sore point. But as many Christians and non-Christians have a devotion to Mother Mary, it would be appropriate to give them some space to pray. You have a different opinion and it will be appreciated if you would write to the secretariat and offer your suggestions.

Let the prayer of Our Lord Jesus Christ be of paramount importance: that they may all be one, as You Father In Me and I in You. This month we have the Christian Unity Week to pray for unity.

May the Good Lord transform our hearsts and make us instruments of peace and unity.

sd/-
Fr. Bento de Sousa

Appendix I: Spirago-Clarke — Divine Revelation

Spirago-Clarke: The Catechism Explained
Nihil Obstat: Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D., Censor Liborum.
Imprimatur: Patrick J. Hayes, D.D., Archbishop of New York. New York, May 7, 1927.

Copyright: 1899, 1921, 1928, Benziger Brothers, USA.

Divine Revelation
Page 80 fl.

If any one stands in a room behind a gauze curtain he perceives a those who are passing in the street, and they see him not. But if he makes himself known by speaking, the passers-by are able to recognize him. Such is our relation to God; He sees us, but conceals Himself from our eyes. Yet, He has in many ways made Himself known to men: to Abraham, to Moses in the burning bush, to the Israelites on Mount Sinai, etc.
  1. God has in His mercy in the course of ages often revealed himself to men. (Heb. i. 1-2).

    God has often communicated to men a knowledge of His perfections, His decrees, and His holy will. Such revelation is called supernatural, as opposed to the natural revelation of Himself that He makes through the external world.


  2. God's revelation to man is generally made in the following way: He speaks to individuals and orders them to communicate to their fellow-men the revelation made to them.

    Thus God spoke to Abraham, Noe, and Moses. He sent Noe to preach to sinful men before the Flood, He sent Moses to the Israelites when they were oppressed by Pharao. Sometimes God spoke to a number of men who were assembled together, as when He gave the law to the people on Mount Sinai, or when Our Lord was baptized by St. John and the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, a voice being heard from heaven: "This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased." Sometimes God revealed Himself through angels, as for instance to Tobias through the archangel Raphael. When God spoke to men, He took the visible form of a man or of an angel, or He spoke from a cloud (as on Sinai), or from a burning bush, as He did to Moses, or amid a bright light from heaven, as to St. Paul, or in the whispering of the wind, as He did to Elias, or by some interior illumination (Deut. ii. 6-8). Those to whom God revealed Himself, and who had to bear witness before others to the divine message, were called messengers from God, and often received from Him the power of working miracles and of prophecy, in proof of their divine mission. (Cf. the miracles of Moses before Pharao, of Elias, the apostles, etc.)


  3. Those who were specially intrusted with the communication to men of the divine revelation were the following: the patriarchs, the prophets, Jesus Christ the Son of God (Heb. i. 1), and His apostles.

    Revelation is to mankind in general what education is to individual men. Revelation corresponds to the needs of successive stages of human development, to the infancy, childhood, and youth of mankind. The patriarchs, who had more of the nature of children, needed less in the way of precepts, and God dealt with them in more familiar fashion; the people of Israel, in whom, as in the season of youth, self-will and sensuality were strong, had to be trained by strict laws and constant correction; but when mankind had arrived at the period of manhood, then God sent His Son and introduced the law of love (1 Cor. xiii. 11; Gal. iii. 24). Of all those who declared to men the divine revelation, the Son of God was pre-eminently the true witness. He says of Himself, "For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I should bear testimony to the truth" (John xviii. 37). He was of all witnesses the best, because He alone had seen God (John i. 18). The apostles also had to declare to men the divine revelation. They had to bear witness of what they had seen, and above all of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts x. 39). With the revelation given through Christ and His apostles, the revelation that was given for the instruction of all mankind was concluded.


  4. Even since the death of Our Lord and His Apostles God has often revealed Himself to men; yet these subsequent revelations are no continuation of the earlier revelation on which our faith rests.

    Instances of these subsequent revelations are the appearances of Our Lord to Blessed Margaret Mary, and of Our Lady at Lourdes. Such revelations must not be too lightly credited, as men are liable to be deceived; yet they must not be rejected without examination. Many of the saints have had such revelations, i.e., St. Francis of Assisi, to whom Our Lord appeared upon the cross, and St. Anthony of Padua, in whose arms the Child Jesus deigned to rest. These private revelations were more especially given to those who were striving after perfection, in order to encourage them to greater perfection still. Yet God sometimes revealed Himself to wicked men, i.e., to Baltassar in the handwriting on the wall (Dan. v. 5, seq.). Hence a private revelation given to any one is not necessarily a mark of holiness. These revelations, moreover, were no further continuation of the revelation intended for the instruction of the whole of mankind, which ended with the death of the last of the apostles; they are rather a confirmation of truths already revealed. Thus Our Lady, when she appeared at Lourdes, proclaimed herself the "Immaculate Conception," so confirming the dogma which Pius IX. had defined four years previously, and the countless miracles and cures that have taken place there have established the truth of the apparition. Yet it is always possible that the malice of the devil may introduce deceptions into private revelations. No one is therefore bound to give to them a firmer belief (even though they have in general been approved by the Church), than he would give to the assertions of an honest and trustworthy man.


  5. Revelation was necessary because, in consequence of original sin, man without revelation, has never had a correct knowledge of God and of His will; and also because it was necessary that man should be prepared for the coming of the Redeemer.

    The three Wise Men would never have found Christ if He had not revealed Himself to them by means of a star; so mankind would have lived far off from God, and would never have attained to a true knowledge of Him, if He had not revealed Himself to them. As the eye needs light to see things of sense, so human reason, which is the eye of the soul, needs revelation to perceive things divine (St. Augustine). Original sin and the indulgence of the sense had so dimmed human reason that it could no longer recognize God in His works (Wisd. ix. 16). This is proved by the history of paganism. The heathen worshipped countless deities, idols, beasts, and wicked men, and his worship was often immoral and horrible, as in the human sacrifices offered by him. The gods were often the patrons of vice. The greatest men among the heathens approved practices forbidden by the natural law. Thus Cicero approved of suicide, Plato of the exposing to death of those children who were weak or deformed. Their theories when good were at variance with their practice. Socrates denounced polytheism, but before his death told his disciples to sacrifice a cock to Esculapius. Many of the best of the heathens recognized and lamented their ignorance of God. Besides without a previous revelation the Saviour would have been neither known nor honoured as He ought to have been known and honoured; it was fitting that He should be announced beforehand, like a king coming to take possession of his kingdom. We ought indeed to be grateful to God that He has given us the light of revelation, just as a blind man is grateful to the physician who has restored his sight. Yet how many there are who wilfully shut their eyes to the light of revelation even now!

Appendix II:
Sister Lucia dos Santos and the Apparition of Our Lady at Fatima

Dear Xyz,

Lucia dos Santos was one of the three visionaries to whom Our Lady of the Rosary appeared at Fatima, Portugal, in order to give a message to the Portuguese and the world. Subsequently, after due investigation, the Apparition of Fatima was certified by the Church to have been a genuine one, as were La Salette, Lourdes, etc., previously.

However, it needs to be understood that such certification is always provided only for specific events and not for ongoing series of events. Certainly, the Church's certification of such apparition does not by any means mean that the visionaries would always have the approbation of the Church — or, what is more important, that they would continue to be genuine messengers of God.

This explanation was reiterated due to the crisis caused by Melanie Calvet, one of the visionaries of La Salette, who later came to adulterate her message with a lot of apocalyptic nonsense from dubious sources, including from such an "illustrious" source as Martin Luther, who, out of his immense hatred of God and His Church, "prophesised": "Rome will fall and become the Seat of the Antichrist." Melanie attempted to procure an Imprimatur for her heretical writings that contradicted the Vatican Council, 1870, and came after it, and despite failing to obtain one, she nevertheless published her writings, which together with those of her disciples, were put on the Index of Bad & Prohibited Books by the Church.

It is necessary to hold to the above Catholic understanding with regards to all approbated apparitions, and therefore also with Lucia dos Santos. We must reject all pretended prophesising except that which the Church had approbated originally, and we must further acknowledge that Lucia has departed from Catholic Unity into schism, at the very least, by adhering to a schismatic sect, that of the "Vatican II" Robber-Council, and of the apostate Roman Modernists.

Regards,

Lúcio

Appendix III: On Unity

Friday, April 26, 2002
To: Brother Victor David da Melo, Jesus For India (JFI) Ministry.
From: Lúcio Mascarenhas (formerly "Prakash").

Finding the True Church

We know how it is commanded us that in case some should not walk in obedience but persist in error and divisiveness, they should be rejected and considered as having lost their place or membership in the Community of the Faith. Now, without, at this moment, considering who is right and who is wrong, we must just take up this idea. During the intervening centuries of history, numerous individuals and groups have been disloyal and seceded or have been expelled from the Community. Nevertheless, by and large, these seceding sects would, naturally enough, insist that they ARE (or continue to be) Christians, whether exclusively or inclusively so. But from the above principle, we know that, despite their pretensions to the contrary, these are not Christians anymore, but in fact, as unto the heathen.

Now, that we have understood this point, I hope, and the logic of it is obvious to all sincere men, we can proceed to the crucial question: In the mismatch of numerous groups with conflicting claims, which exactly is that True Church which our Lord Jesus the Christ founded?

It is not unreasonable that the Omnipotent and Omniscient Lord foresaw this predicament and provided for its solution. And indeed when we turn to the Bible, we do find that it has been addressed.

Christ established His Church as a visible society, and He did not indiscriminately bestow His Authority to one and all of His disciples, but choose from among them a select group, the Apostles, upon whom, after He had familiarly trained them, He bestowed His Authority. Nevertheless, and in like manner, from among these twelve, He selected one to be the most pre-eminent and bestowed upon him special powers and authority above all the rest, even the other Apostles. This man was Simon BarJohn, whom our Lord renamed Kepha, which is to signify, a Rock. And He promised him, saying, "You are a Rock, and on this Rock I shall build my House and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I shall give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loosen on earth shall be loosened in heaven." And He, fulfilling His promise, after His resurrection, bestowed these powers on Kepha, saying, "Feed My sheep, feed My lambs, feed My sheep."

Nor were these powers extinguished by the death of Kepha, but continued to our day in his successors to our day, whom we call, Pope, in order to distinguish him from all others. And to be a Christian, therefore, is to acknowledge and obey him.

It is precisely that by refusing for various reasons to acknowledge one pope or the other and to obey them, that the sects separated themselves from the House of Christ. And in separating themselves from Kepha, they separated themselves from Christ.

Again, throughout history, these seceding sects have not remained static, but being riven by one controversy or the other, they have split or had persons going away from them to commence new sects. But because they did not of themselves, directly, separate themselves from the Community of the Faith, does not make them PART OF, or rather RESTORE them to, the Unity of the Faith, but they merely constitute new heresies and sects. And so, neither the members of the parent schismatic sect nor the members of the offsprung sect are Christians in the correct sense of that name, despite whatever protestations they may make. And the only way for them to become Christians again is for them to return to the bosom and unity of Holy Mother Church from which they had separated themselves.

But let us approach this problem once again and from a different angle.

Let us look at the problem without regarding the actual history of Christianity over the last two millennia.

We can safely assume that in time, following its foundation, various groups would split from the true Church which our Lord and Saviour established, guaranteed from failure or defection and mandated to all men as being the vehicle of salvation. Again, from within these various groups that would have split over time, other factions would arise, whether dissenting on matters of ideology or of discipline and form their own sects. Again, we can understand that these sects would rage against that ONE TRUE CHURCH, from which they departed, UNITING, at the least, in this OPPOSITION, and again, you would recognize that this ONE TRUE CHURCH, in fulfilment of its internal logic of BEING EXCLUSIVELY THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, would also exclude these various sects and 'churches'. You would, I presume, join me in rejecting these sects, whatever their claims, to being Christian, and, in obedience to the commandment of God, reject them as like unto the Heathens. So how does this theoretical scenario apply to the actual history of Christianity of the last two millennia?

We have numerous sects of varied ideological hues and ALLIED IN THEIR REJECTION of ONE BODY, THE CATHOLIC. There are lesser or greater differences between themselves, BUT THEY ARE ALL ONE IN HATING, BADWORDING, CONTEMNING, ETC THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. No other group, call it a sect, call it a Church, or whatever, attracts the universal hatred and venom of all the sects and 'churches' as does this one and only one of them, which they unite in excluding from their PRETENDED UNITY and which, for its part, excludes them all from the Kingdom of God, as it sees it! What does that tell you?
Lúcio Mascarenhas' Website: Home
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1