Repair My Church

(Our Lord, in an apparition, to Saint Francis of Assisi).

©Prakash John Mascarenhas, 20th September 1996. Feast of Saint Eustacius and Companions, Martyrs.


See Corrections, Notes, Etc. | Responses | Revision.
The Faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is the 'Deposit of the Faith' received from the Apostles. This Deposit is made up of various doctrines, which form an integral whole, called the Catholic Faith, or the Deposit of the Faith.

This Deposit is also called Public Revelation, or that Message revealed by God and prescribed by Him as necessary to be believed by all men for their salvation. Other messages from God, not necessary to be generally believed by men for salvation, are Private Revelation. The denial of a teaching (doctrine) of the Church is called Heresy. Technically, a heresy is any idea that contradicts the Deposit of the Faith, even if only one particular doctrine is contradicted. When one believes in a heresy publicly or severely violates Church discipline or separates oneself from the Church in any manner (such as by joining a schismatic or heretic), one enters into Schism. Technically, schism is separation from the body of the Church.

These are some fundamental doctrines:
  1. The Doctrine of the UNITY of the Church:

    This Doctrine teaches that the Church is One, i.e. perfectly united in itself, and not including heretics and schismatics. Breakaway groups are not branches of the Church, but are as much strangers to it as those never its members.

    The Unity of the Church is an ACCOMPLISHED fact, uninterrupted from Christ and by Him guaranteed till His return.


  2. The Doctrine 'Error Has No Rights':

    Man is not free to worship as he likes. Man was made by God and God alone can prescribe the manner in which He may be worshipped.

    This Doctrine also permits, even enjoins, the legitimate Church the control, repression or destruction, according to necessity, of spurious churches.


  3. The Doctrine of the Finality of Public Revelation:

    Public Revelation has come to a full stop with the death of the last Apostle and cannot be added to, subtracted from, or otherwise amended.


  4. The Doctrine 'Outside the Church No Salvation':

    Men can have salvation only through Christ, which He administers only through His Church.


  5. The Doctrine of the INTEGRITY of Public Revelation:

    < -- End Page #1 & Begin Page #2 -- >

    Public Revelation is Integral or Indivisible. Therefore, if one rejects or amends, adds to or subtracts from, even only one doctrine of the Deposit of Faith, his personal belief loses its identity with the Faith, becoming a Heresy or false religion.


  6. The Doctrine of the Free Will of Men:

    Every man has been gifted by God with the faculty of Free Will, such that he may freely choose and act, whether according to God's Will or in opposition to it.
As the Doctrine of the Integrity of Public Revelation, i.e. of the Deposit of the Faith, teaches, one ceases to be a Catholic or Christian when one publicly contradicts even a single particular doctrine in any way.

It is therefore merely necessary to prove heresy in regards to one doctrine in order to prove that the subject (of investigation), as an individual or as a group, is in Heresy.

The Catholic Church, upt the end of the reign of Pope Pius XII in mid-October 1958, did not deviate in the least from the Apostolic Faith. However, under the leadership of Roncalli or John XXIII, in the form of the AGGIORNAMENTO OR 'Bringing Upto Date Movement', sweeping changes were brought about in these doctrines.
  1. Roncalli publicly taught, and his followers publicly teach, that the Unity of the Church is not an accomplished fact, but that it needs to be achieved, and that by some sort of merger, or, as they say, RE-INTEGRATION, of the various 'Christian' bodies.

    This teaching denies the Doctrine of the Unity of the Church.


  2. Roncalli's followers publicly teach that man is free to believe and worship as he likes, and that the Doctrine 'Error has no Rights' is wrong and that they have abrogated it. They teach that the various religions have equal rights to libverty in the eyes of governments, and that political states must be neutral, treating all religions equally.


  3. Roncalli's followers publicly teach that men may gain salvation through the practice of any religion whatsoever, not only through our so-called 'fellow-Christian' churches or sects, but even through the various paganisms, or the falsely so-called Judaism and Islam.

    Consequently, they teach that conversions from these heresies to Christianity are not necessary and that their adherents can gain salvation by consciently practising their heresies.


    4. < -- End Page #2 & Begin Page #3 -- >

  4. When challenged on their public contradiction of Apostolic Doctrines, the Roncallites claim the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the exercise of Papal Infallibility as their authority for changing doctrines.

    But the General Council of the Vatican, 1869-70, which defined Papal Infallibility, taught that "... the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by His Revelation, but rather, that with His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the Revelation or Deposit of Faith that was handed down through the Apostles."

    Thus the Roncallites, adding to their heresies, publicly deny the Doctrine of the Finality of Public Revelation by claiming that the 'Vatican-II General Council' and the 'Popes' who authorised it, received and promulgated new Revelations - Public Revelations - which amend the Deposit of Faith.

    Further, they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, when they make Him the author of their heresies. They make God, who is Unchanging, a liar, when they claim that He gave them this new gospel, which contradicts the gospel He first gave us. Also, they leave themselves without any locus standi, since, if the old gospel was defective, what guarantee have they that their new gospel is not? But their gospel gives them no comfort here, while the Gospel of Christ gives us an unimpeccable guarantee of inerrancy.
To sum up our indictment of the Roncallites: it is sufficient to prove heresy with regards to one particular doctrine to prove that the subject is in heresy, and therefore, in schism. Here, we have convicted the Roncallites of heresy on four separate counts. Therefore, one is forced to conclude that Roncalli and his followers, the 'Vatican-II General Council,' and Roncalli's successors - John Montini, Albian Luciani and Charles Wojtyla, under the names, Paul VI, John-Paul I and John-Paul II, are in heresy and schism, together with all those who accept and follow them.

Is this possible? Can popes become heretics? The teaching of the Church from the beginning to our day, of the great Doctors and Popes, say yes! In essence, the matter is simple. As Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy points out in his book, The Destruction of Christian Tradition, popes, even after assuming office, retain their FREE WILL, and are therefore fully capable of sinning, even upto denying the doctrines of the Church, becoming heretics. Now a heretic is, by definition, a non-Catholic, i.e. not a member of the Church, and since the offices of the Church can be held only by members, an office-holder who becomes a public heretic automatically loses office. The public adoption of heresy results in automatic schism from the Church and an implicit abdication of office. The election of one who publicly professes heresy, to any office is null and void; the public adoption of the profession of heresy by an office holder removes him from office.

< -- End Page #3 & Begin Page #4 -- >

But how can popes, who have the charism of infallibility, fall into heresy? They can, since infallibility does not protect them from falling into error and heresy. There is popular confusion between (Papal) Infallibility and Indefectibility. Popes, when they are in the good standing of the Faith, solemnly teach a particular doctrine or an aspect of it, whcih doctrine or aspect is not an innovation, but implicit in Public Revelation, supported by the tradition of the Church, then and only then does infallibility apply. Infallibility admits that popes can err when the subject matter is not in their competence, (i.e. not pertaining to faith, morality or involved discipline), or when they have not studied the subject thoroughly, etc. Indefectibility, on the other hand, says that a particular person or group cannot defect from the Faith. By definition, only the Church in general and the local Roman Church in particular, possesses indefectibility, but not individuals. To attribute indefectibility to any individual is to deny the doctrine of Free Will, and thus to fall into heresy.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, "An exceptional situation might arise were a pope to become a public heretic, i.e. were he publicly and officially to teach some doctrine clerarly oposed to what has been defined as de fide catholica. But in this case some theologians hold that no formal sentence of deposition would be required, as, by becoming a public heretic, the pope would ipso facto cease to be pope."

Taking all of this, we conclude that the Roncallites, with their 'popes' are outside the Church and constitute a heretical sect. As such, we are strictly bound to reject them.

Having disposed of the Roncallites and their sect, we turn to the business of discovering where the true Church is.

The Catholic Resistance has grativated around a number of schools: the Phalangist, the Cassiacanist (Cassiciacanist), the Lefebrist (Lefebvrist), the Sede-Vacantist, etc. In addition, there are claimants to the papacy in Lyons and Seville, France and Spain respectively.

The Phalangists are led by the Abbe George of Nantes who teaches that there exists two Churches within the Church governed by 'John-Paul II': the Catholic Church and the Roman Modernist sect of the Roncallites themselves.

This is also the teaching of Michael Davies, an apologist of the so-called 'conservatives' obedient to 'John-Paul II', an of the Lefebrists. In his book, Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, he tells us that "There are two Churches under Paul VI. Not to see that there are two, or not to see that they are strangers, the one to the other, or not to see that Paul VI, thus far, is presiding over both, partakes of blindness, in some cases, perhaps, invincible blindness."

But it is obvious to any right thinking Catholic that this teaching is repugnant to Catholicism and besides, utterly impossible. Can the Church of God be taken hostage by His enemies? To say so is to say that God has been mocked, defeated.

< -- End Page #4 & Begin Page #5 -- >

Besides, Nantes and Davies would blemish the unblemishable Bride of Christ by making her co-habit with Antichrist. What fellowship can light have with darkness? Can Christ and Belial abide in the same House? No! Besides, this teaching is also rudiculous. In the Church led by Charles Wojtyla (the antipope John-Paul II), we know who represents Belial, but who represents Christ? No one!

The Cassiacanists follow the teachings of the Abbe Guerard des Lauriers, the Cassiacum Thesis (Formaliter Materiliter Argument), which teachest that the Roncallite pope, though become a public heretic, remains formally pope (but not materially), until formally deposed. Such a deposition, teaches Des Lauriers, can, by the definition of Catholic theology, be given only by the Roncallite pope himself or by a future successor.

This is a rudiculous - and impossible proposition. No Roncallite antipope is likely to depose himself or his predecessor - to do so would be to cut the ground from under his own feet! Depending on a solution for our difficulties by resorting to the Cassiacum Thesis once again merely makes Catholics hostage to the tender mercies of the Roncallite heretics, and God is again to be mocked by his enemies. That what Des Lauriers asks for is impossible is supported by an earlier theologian, the canonist Mathew Conte a Coronata: "If the Roman Pontiff were to profess heresy, before any condemnatory sentence, WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE ANYWAY, he would lose his authority."

The Lefebrists follow the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. They accept Charles Wojtyla (John-Paul II) as legitimate pope, despite themselves exposing his heresies. They are, thus, SCHISMATICS and HERETICS. Schismatics because they publicly acknowledge a proven heretic as their pope or head, heretics because they implicitly teach the heresy of Papal Indefectibility (Note: By error, the text had the word "Infallibility" here, instead of "Indefectibility"), i.e., the pope cannot defect from the Faith.

In addition, there are two sects based respectively at Lyons, France and at Seville, Spain. Both claim to be the true Church. Both claim to have changed the name of the Church, the Renovated Church of Christ and the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Palmarian Church, respectively. Both are led by putative popes who claim to have been so constituted by Christ himself in private revelations. The later sect also claims that the papal seat has been permanently shifted from Rome.

The very fact that they have claimed to have changed the name of the Church is sufficient to reject them.

It is a doctrine of the Faith that the papal seat is permanently fixed at Rome, until the Return of Christ. To deny this is to depart from the Faith.

Aside from these defects, to accept the claim of either putative pope, it is necessary for all men to accept their putative private revelation as part of Public Revelation, which is impossible for Catholics. Acceptance of these popes, then, makes one a heretic, one who adds to Public Revelation.

< -- End Page #5 & Begin Page #6 -- >

Sede-Vacantists are those who believe that with the public defection of the Roncallite popes from the faith, the papacy has been rendered vacant. This is supported by the application of the Doctrine of Free Will, the Tradition of the Church and the application of Common Sense. However, while it is clear that the Roncallite popes, really antipopes, are non-entities to the Church, it is not possible to affirm, without investigating the matter, that the papacy is presently vacant. Except for some minor groups of the Resistance, the idea of organizing an election to fill this vacancy evokes strong hostility. Yet if a group had gone ahead and done so, fulfilling ll the necessary conditions, the putative pope resulting would be the true and legitimate Pope, to whom all those who wish to be called Catholic and Christian must submit. To refuse would be to enter SCHISM.

Sede-Vacantists are those who believe that there is no pope at this time. Opposed to them are those, like myself, who believe in atleast the possibliity of a true pope already existing. Such a thing is not an impossibility. Knowing the necessity of having a pope, and knowing the procedures of electing one in the pesent circumstances, it is quite possible that a small group may have summoned a General Council and proceeded with the election of a pope. Given the formidable opposition iwthin the ranks of the Resistance ot such ideas, it is possible that such a group had only been met with scorn and despisement, and that a cloak of silence was thrown over them. Nevertheless, if they had fulfilled all the necessary conditions, and thus elected a certainly valid pope, all Catholics are absolutely bound to accept and submit to him. Those who refuse, then are reduced to mere Schismatics. Any attempt to elect another pope, or line of popes, will then be entirely null and void. However, one of the most necessary condition of this Council, is that the Convenors notify all Catholics (but not members of the Roncallite sect), inviting all those eligible to participate, giving a reasonable venue - one that is reasobably accessible ato all thsoe eligible to participate.

Despite the great distate of some for the haste with which the little people, of childlike faith, wish to go about electing a pope, there are very good reasons for haste. The election of an indubitably legitimate pope is not an optional matter, to be undertaken at one's leisure, but is a matter of great urgency, on which the salvation of souls depends. The Pope is the lynchpin of the Church, its supreme temporal lawgiver and authority. His continual presence is essential. The Church can, and has, managed with short absences, but cannot manage with long ones. Also, as the Faith teaches us, God is NOT going to come deown and so this for us. If God dis so, He would be amending Public Revelation, which He cannot and will not do. But God has made himself a hostage to us of His Love. Men, not God, have to go about the task of electing the pope, and God will assist us. But those failing in their duty, or worse, hindering those who seek to fulfill theirs', shall know His vengeance.

< -- End Page #6 & Begin Page #7 -- >

There is reputed to be a group of ultra Sede-Vacantists, which group teaches that the papacy has lapsed. If there is indeed such a group, they are in heresy, for according to the promise of Christ, the Papacy is to continue uninterrupted till His Return. To teach the lapse of the Papacy is to teach the failure of Christ, which is to teach that He is not God. Such a proposition is excluded by Catholicism.

It is not for nothing that the differences between the various schools of the Resistance resolve themselves around the question of the Papacy. The Pope is the Lynchpin of the Church and it cannot survive in the continued absence of one. Sede-Vacantists are right in rejecting the Roncallite pretenders. However the matter cannot rest there. Cathoics have the right to have their salvation secured, and this depends on the want of a pope being supplied. We are obliged to study how the situation may be remedied.

One thing ruled out by the teaching of the Apostles, is a supernatural intervention by God. God has given us in Public Revelation sufficient means to remedy all dificulties the Church may encounter betwen its' founding and Christ's Return. God has taught us that Public Revelation is final and will not be added to, unti the return of Christ. Therefore, apparent divine interventions are to be rejected as false. But if God is not going to directly intvervene, He nevertheless expects His people to do what is necessary in the light of Public Revelation.

It is necessary to understand that this task is not optional, but is obligatory. All men are obliged to do all they can for the salvation of souls, and the Church is the greatest requirement towards this end. The continuance of the Church can never be in jeopardy, for it has God for its Guarantor and Sustainer, but those who fail in their obligation towards this end shall account to Him. In the end, God will find the men to do the task.

THE INDEFECTIBILITY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH

While defining the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, the General Council fo the Vatican (1869-70) incidentally reiterated the doctrine that the particular local Church of Rome, alone of all particular local churches, possesses indefectibility.

Indefectibility belongs to the Church in general, not to local churches, except the Roman Church, which, alone among the local churches, possesses indefectibility. This is the ancient doctrine of the Church. This also stands to reason. WHILE ANY PARTICULAR LOCAL CHURCH CAN BE ENTIRELY EXTINGUISHED BY HERESY AND SCHISM, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME, THE HEAD OF WHICH IS ALSO THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH GENERAL, BE SO EXTINGUISHED.

It is necessary to understand the implication of this doctrine at this time, its applications in the present circumstances. The Roman Church is the pivot of the entire Church. The faith of the Roman Church is the norm for the faith of the entire Church. God has guaranteed that the Roman Church will not fail, a guarantee valid until the Second Coming.

< -- End Page #7 & Begin Page #8 -- >

Knowing that the Roman Church is Indefectible, where can we find it? We have in Rome the MODERNIST ANTICHURCH led by the Antichrist Charles Wojtyla. We know nothing of the faithful Church, its location and composition. Yet we know, on the assurance of God, that it exists. We are to believ it on faith, even though we cannot see it yet. It is our duty to find it and join it.
LET US RETURN to study the situation the General Church finds itself in. It apparently lacks a head, and it has apparently been derived of all its bishops. SOme, such as the Palmarians and Cassiacanists, have sought to remdy this by having bishops ordained by dissident bishops of the Antichurch, btu such a solution is unacceptable. The ordaining bishops did not permanently disengaged from the Antichurch, and were ideologically confused. It is hardly possible to accept them as Catholics. One may as well accept ordinations from the Bishops Vagrantes, or from the Ultrajectines, Jacobites or Byzantines. Also, such a procedure does nto ensure the continuance of the fulness of the Apostolic succession. What, then, is the solution?

In Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy's book, The Post-Conciliar Rite of Holy Orders, we find a solution. According to this work, (but not the teaching of the doctor), the difference bewteen priests and bishops is basically juridicial. That is, both partake of the same sacrament, Holy Orders, so that the priest receives the very same powers that the bishop receives. The differnce is that the priest is jurisdicially restricted from exercising some of the powers received. In St. Jerome's time, the priest had his powers restricted immediately after ordination. Later, this rite (of restricting) came to be understood, and therefore, not performed. (See Annexure).

Concluding from the above, it is very evident that this restriction is imposed and sustained by Eclessial Law and not by Divine Law. Therefore, in a situation where all the bishops are lost, whether by mass defection or by being slain en masse, this restriction will cease to apply to the priests in the good standing of the Church, so that they become full fledged bishops. In this way the Apostolic Succession is preserved in all its fullness.

In the history of the Church, there have been many instances when mere priests had attempted to ordain priests and bishops, and very rightfully, the Church rejected these as null and void. Priests cannot normally ordain, the exercise of this sacerdotal power being denied them. On the other hand there have been instances when mere priests have been permitted to ordain.

The idea that priests at their ordinations receive the fulness of the sacerdotal order but have it restricted to the exercise of only those powers that the bishop allows them, is orthodox Catholic, with firm foundations in the traditions of the Church. The first step in restoring the normal government of the Church is for these emancipated bishops to assemble together in a General Council, and restore the constitutional order of the Church, that is, elect a certainl valid pope who will then allocate dioceses to these bishops.

< -- End Page #8 & Begin Page #9 -- >

What authority do we have to summon a General Council?

Once before, the Church had gone through a similiar situation, during the Great Western Schism. Immedately following the 'Babylonian Cpativity' at Avignon, the Church was split by the claims of three different putative popes. Members of the Church summoned a General Council at Constance, now in north-east Switzerland, which Council was not authorized by the pope. Such a Council is called acephalous, i.e., headless. (Later, a pope elected by this Council authorized it.)

In the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, we find this passage: "For the purpose of putting an end to the Great Western Schism and securing a certainly legitimate pope, the General Council of Constance deposed John XXIII, whose election was considered doubtful, the other probably legitimate claimant, Gregory XII, having resigned. This was what might be described as an extra-constitutional crisis; and, as the Church has the right in such circumstances to remove reasobable doubt and provide a pope whose claims would be indisputahle, even an acephalous council, supported by the body of bishops throughout the world, was competent to meet this altogether exceptional emergency." Those who have access to the works of the Church Fathers and of the great theologians will find them in agreement with the position of the Encyclopedia. The Chruch has aright to remove reasobable doubt, because it bears on the salvation of souls, and an acephalous council is competent to meet this situation.

The Church today faces a situation very similar to the one it faced during the Great Western Schism. Today, as then, the Church has the right to remedy this situation, this extra-constiutional crisis, by summoning an acephalous Council. This is the only course open to us.

An acephalous Council can provide further benefits: It can solve the difficulties of those who follow the Cassiacum Thesis by declaring th formal deposition of the Roncallite antipopes. It also ought to be acceptable to the Sede-Vacantists.

Teh practical difficulties before this Council are not to be underestimated. Aside from the obstacles that governments will cause, there will be formidable opposition from within the the ranks of the Resistance itself, with the idea of the Council being possibly denounced as an innovation and an excess. Nor will hte doctrine of the emancipation of priests engender less opposition. Nevertheless, the arguments in favour of both being conclusively credible, all unintelligent opposition must be disregarded. Further, we must consider the practicalities of the Council itself. Of those who are eligible to participate, there will be many opposed or who will succumb to pressure and refuse to participate. Nevertheless, the work of the Council must go ahead. It is also possible to foresee a rival Council being summoned by traitors and dupes sponsored by the enemies of the Church, with the intention of frustrating the work of the Council. In such a case, the first legitimate call is to be accepted.

< -- End Page #9 & Begin Page #10 -- >

However, before calling any such Council, we are obliged to investigate whether a General Council had already been convened at any time since 1957, and whether a doubtlessly valid Pope had already been elected. If this is so, our duty lies in submitting to him unconditionally, and there is no further need for a General Council. Given that this is not so, i.e. that there is no doubtlessly valid Pope extant, or that the election of any so elected was defective, we must press ahead. The putative, but defective popes so elected, are bound to submit and co-operate with the Council.

This Council concerns vitally the salvation of souls, and therefore no man can hold it hostage by refusing to participate in it. The teachings and acts of the Council will be binding on all who wish to remain in, or be a member of, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, the Ark of God, the Ark of Salvation, even if they had refused to accept, co-operate or participate in it, or they shall cease to have any part in the Church and shall become Schismatic.

At the time of St. Joan of Arc, God instructed her to lead the war of liberation against England's occuping armies, and have the Crown Prince installed King. The Crown Prince, although rightful heir to the throne, was confused and afraid, wherefore he delayed. Today, the Church, far more important an entity than France, is probably without its head, the Pope, and the project of supplying this want has many powerful enemies, both without and within. Nevertheless seeing how far more important the Church is compared to a mere country, being viatally necessary for the salvation of souls, we must count on God and go ahead. Therefore, taking all this into consideration, I hereby propose the convention of a General Council, probably the 21st, at an as yet undetermined location and at an as yet undetermined time, for the work of creating order out of the chaos that the Church finds itself in, for the work of electing a doubtlessly valid Pope and in general, to once again -

REPAIR THE CHURCH
Notes:

  1. The heresy promulgated by A.J. Roncalli is identical with the heresy of Modernism that was condemned and excommunicated by Pope Saint Pius the Xth in 1907. The following documents state the position of the Church on this heresy:
    1. Lamentabili Sane, Syllabus of Modernist Errors. 3rd July 1907.


    2. Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical on the Doctrines of the Modernists. 8th September 1907.


    3. Praestantia Scriptura, Pope St. Pius X, Motu Proprio. 18th November 1907. ["We declare and determine that if anyone, which may God forbid, should go forward so brazenly as to defend any proposition reprobated in either of these documents, by that fact itself, he incurs excommunication reserved to the Roman Pontiff."].


    4. A Catechism of Modernism, Rev. Fr. J.B. Lemuis, English translation, 1908, Society for the Propagation of the faith, Archdiocese of New York. Reprinted 1981 TAN Books & Publishers, Inc., P.O. Box 424, Rockford, Illinois. USA. 61105. A Question & Answer form of Pascendi Dominici Gregis.


      5. The first two documents are to be found in the book, All Things in Christ - Encyclicals of Pope St. Pius X, edited by Vincent Yzermans, 1954, Newman Press, Westminister, Maryland, USA, and reprinted by the Daughters of St. Paul, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 02130.
  2. For the Doctrine, Error Has No Rights, the book, El Liberalismo Es Pecado by Rev. Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, 1886, Barcelona, Spain, and translated as Liberalism Is A Sin, by Conde B. Pallen, 1899, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, Missouri, USA, and reprinted as What Is Liberalism? 1979 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc.


  3. For the Doctrine, Outsode The Church No Salvation, Rev. Fr. J. Bainvel, Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?, translated by Rev. Fr. J.L. Weidenhan, 1917, B. Herder Book Co. Reprinted 1979, TAN Books & Publishers.


  4. For General Teachings of the Church, The Church Teaches - Documents of the Church in English Translation, by the Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College, St. Mary's, Kansas, USA. 1955 B. Herder Book Co. Reprinted 1979, TAN Books & Publishers.


  5. In support of Roman Indefectibility, the following extracts from the First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, promulgated by the Vatican Council, 1869-70: In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy."

    "... so that here, where the faith can suffer no diminution..."

    "They fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by errors."     Text in above book: The Church Teaches.


  6. For those who still believe in the sect led by the Antipope 'John-Paul the 2nd, Rama Coomaraswamy's The Destruction of Christian Tradition


  7. Antichrist, see 1 John 2: 18-19


  8. Lastly, for general instruction on the Catholic Faith, I highly recommend the Radio Replies in three volumes (and its continuation, That Catholic Church) by the Rev. Frs. Leslie Rumble and Charles Carty, 1940, Radio Replies Press, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. Reprinted by TAN Books & Publishers.

    If I am a believer today, it is because of Frs. Rumble & Carty!
AD MAJOREM DEI GLORIAM!
©Prakash John Mascarenhas, 20th September 1996. St. Eustacius and Comp., Mm.
See Corrections, Notes, Etc. | Responses
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1