Thursday, July 30, 2009

Apostolic Succession

Are Priests successors of Apostles?

Absolutely. The Catholic faith is the only faith that can trace itself back to the time of the Apostles. Whereas the Greek word for priest is not used for the Apostles, we have priestly functions attached to their ministry work constantly. Furthermore, the Greek term for elder/presbyter, has priestly functions tied in with it throughout many passages in the New Testament. A particular passage of interest for us is Acts 1:20-26

We will examine the NASB rendering.

20"For it is written in the book of Psalms,





21"Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that (F)the Lord Jesus went in and out among us--

22(G)beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He (H)was taken up from us--one of these must become a (I)witness with us of His resurrection."

23So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and (J)Matthias.

24And they (K)prayed and said, "You, Lord, (L)who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen

25to occupy (M)this ministry and (N)apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place."

26And they (O)drew lots for them, and the lot fell to (P)Matthias; and he was added to (Q)the eleven apostles.

The Biblical Greek word for OFFICE is very important to our examination.

We find the word Episkopeyn from EPISKOPEE.

What Luke is focusing on, is the fact that the office will be occupied by another, continuing the succession. In this case, the prayer to GOD helps guide them in choose Matthias to fill the vacancy that Judas had left.

The prayer begins with the all important su. ku,rie


The band of Apostles knew that GOD had promised to not leave them. GOD had promised to remain with them forever. Therefore it was not inconceivable to call upon the LORD for this guidance in choosing a successor.


Thursday, July 23, 2009


Note:Nowhere at all am I promoting the idea that Limbo is NOT a possibility. Rather I am affirming that Limbo has never been Catholic dogma and we CAN and SHOULD have hope that babies that die without baptism can enter into the bosom of our merciful GOD and SAVIOR Jesus Christ!

Sedevacantism and LIMBO examined

For those that are not familiar with the MHFM, they are two Sedevacantist brothers that attempt to refute Catholicism and promote their brand of Sedevacantism when they can. What makes them unique is that they go to great lengths to try and refute anything the Pope comes out with and label it as a "manifest heresy". The MHFM lack any knowledge in the Biblical Languages and are not familiar with the languages that any of the Papal Encyclicals were originally written in. So, in other words, they add their own personal twist to the ENGLISH translations of various Biblical and Papal pieces.

The MHFM will not engage in a debate unless they handpick their opponent. Their only significant contribution to the Sedevacantist community is this silly compendium here. It contains loads of images that are presented to you as well as many articles to make you believe that the Vatican II church, as they call it, is riddled with heresy and demonism.

We can't be any more surprised, when we read their musings on Limbo, to find that this group have lost quite a few followers.

In this short examination, we will be examining the claims that the MHFM(we will refer to them as the Monastery from now on) makes and see if any of them hold water.

By now many of you have heard that, on Friday April 20, Benedict XVI approved the release of a new document on limbo. According to news reports, this document teaches that limbo (the highest part of Hell where those who die in original sin only go) doesn't exist. It concludes, therefore, that unbaptized infants go to Heaven. This document had been in the works for a long time; Benedict XVI officially approved its release on Friday. The implications of this blatantly heretical document are very significant, as I will discuss.

Limbo has never been an official part of Catholic dogma. Furthermore, to claim that Limbo is the highest part of Hell where one who still has the vestiges of original sin gets confined to, is also quite erroneous. None of this has ever been official Catholic dogma. EVER.

Now that Benedict XVI has publicly denied original sin and the necessity of Baptism, for them to maintain that this man is a Catholic, and not a public heretic, shows that they are public heretics who have completely severed themselves from the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. There is absolutely no excuse for them anymore when they assert that this man, who has just denied original sin, is not a public heretic.

Benedict nowhere denies original sin or the necessity of Baptism. The Monastery have no right to claim that a certain individual is a heretic based on their private interpretation on certain words that the individual has said. For instance, take these words from Benedict XVI, in his book 'IN THE BEGINNING..'

Benedict, then Ratzinger, says

"For this state of affairs theology has found the certainly mistakable and imprecise word 'original sin.'"

It is from this sentence that the Monastery has come to the Conclusion that the Holy Father denies the doctrine of Original Sin. The fact that the Pope finds the wording "original sin" to need further clarification for those in the field of Theology, nowhere is a denial of the reality of ORIGINAL sin.

Furthermore, quite recently in a GENERAL AUDIENCE, the Pope spoke on the clear Scriptural teaching on ORIGINAL SIN. He talked on the Sacred teaching that St. Paul presented us in his Epistle fo the Romans.

We can see that Benedict clearly believes in Original Sin. He says that those that would wish to eradicate such a doctrine then render the Redemption of Jesus and our Savior himself as void of a purpose.

Someone that says such things surely doesn't deny the doctrine of Original Sin.

It is baseless, silly theological musings like this that actually impress certain individuals. There are numerous people that are educated in matters of Theology, that upon reading a mere paragraph from the Monastery, are filled with laughter. But there are others that take their teachings quite seriously. For this, we must be clear and ready for a defense of our faith at all times.

In further commenting on Limbo, the Monastery quote the Council of Florence

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” (Denz. 712)

It would be fine to just quote the Council, but they also insist that "The Catholic Church teaches that aborted children and infants who die without baptism descend immediately into Hell, but that they do not suffer the fires of Hell. They go to a place in Hell called the limbo of the children. The most specific definition of the Church proving that there is no possible way for an infant to be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism is the following one from Pope Eugene IV."

As the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1910 explains :

"Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while from the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes.""

We must be clear. Florence is right in saying that because of danger of dying, babies should NOT have baptism delayed. But the Monastery is incorrect in claiming that any of these councils are defining Limbo dogmatically or claiming that there is no hope of salvation whatsoever for the souls of these children.

We must be clear in examining the following Council statements

The Council of Florence:

"But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains." (Denzinger 693)

The Second Council of Lyons:

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate punishments.” (Denzinger 464)

If an individual were to interpret the statements of these Councils in a literalist fashion we'd come to the conclusion that the souls of these infants are sent straight to HELL as is the plain reading of these statements. As the Church teaches to this day, there is HOPE that those that have departed this life without baptism may indeed be saved and come into the presence of GOD. Furthermore, the Council of Florence never declares whether those that depart in Original Sin ever see the Vision of GOD. It tells us that

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

A clear difference in those that die in MORTAL sin and those in ORIGINAL SIN.

Once again, the description is that of HELL, not LIMBO. We can interpret this as another form of HELL, such as a HELLISH TORMENT, or a torment of some kind. Regardless, since the Church has never DOGMATICALLY defined LIMBO, we can have faith that unbaptized infants DO have an opportunity to enter into the bosom of GOD.

This language is in accord with what the Council of Florence explains. It also teaches differing levels of heaven depending on the merits of the individual.

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

The Council of Florence is also accused of being contradicted by Vatican II since Florence tells us that Pagans, Jews, etc. cannot be saved if they do not enter the Catholic Church.

Florence's language is clearly abused over and over. Florence is referring to those that are fully aware of the Catholic faith as the faith that GOD left us. In such an instance, one truly is in mortal sin and cannot enter eternal salvation.

Florence is clear when it says that

Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

Notice the CLEAR terminology.


Those that are Christian should not practice rituals of a faith opposed to the faith that Jesus, our GOD, left us.

More statements that are similar to this are made by the Monastery.

What we can usually find are quotes such as these:

Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)

Again, nothing dogmatically affirming the existence of Limbo, rather REAFFIRMING the Catholic teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation.

The Monastery continue

Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.: “But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of eternal life, is quite idiotic… But those who defend this for them without rebirth seem to me to want to quash Baptism itself, when they preach that infants already have what is believed to be conferred on them only through Baptism.” (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 3: 2016.)

According to Papal teaching, Benedict XVI and his theological panel are “quite idiotic.” It’s accurate to say that Benedict XVI’s latest heresy obliterates original sin. If infants go to Heaven without Baptism, that means that all people are born in the state of grace. Therefore, there is no necessity to baptize infants, although the Vatican II sect still encourages it just as Protestant sects do. Like other Protestant sects, the Vatican II sect now considers Baptism to be a nice initiation rite which marks entrance into a community, but it’s neither necessary nor efficacious.

A clear reading of every single thing that is posted by the Monastery shows a deep shift in logic when compared to that of a rational thinker.
Due to the Monastery's personal interpretation of what THEY think Benedict believes, they say that he teaches that ALL people are BORN
in the state of grace. This flies in the face of Benedict's recent speech on how he believes that the doctrine of Original Sin is absolutely necessary to believe in the message of Jesus. But the Monastery are interested in shock Apologetics and cutting and pasting quotes and then injecting their own novel interpretation into them. The Monastery will have you believe that the current church is NOT the Church that Jesus Christ left us, and that the see of Peter is so empty it's as cold as ice from it's length of vacancy!

Remember, the Church is not saying now, nor has it EVER SAID, that BAPTISM IS NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Baptism IS necessary for salvation. The Church is merely stating that not all hope is lost for those that die without baptism. GOD is a GOD of LOVE and mercy, and we must also apply logic to our faith.

What will you believe? Will you choose to believe Jesus and his promise that he would not leave us orphans, and that the Spirit of Truth would remain with us till the very end? I believe Jesus 100 percent!


-William Albrecht

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Cardinal Cajetan and 8 Important Points

Who is Cardinal Cajetan?

In a nutshell(a REALLY tiny nutshell)

He's a Catholic cardinal that Protestants bring forth to try and prove that the Deuterocanon was not widely accepted by the Catholic Church till the Council of Trent. They point to his rejection of the Deuterocanon in support of the Protestant Canon.

Do Cardinal Cajetan and his views on the Canon support Protestantism?


Before we examine the 8 Important points, let's read a snippet of what Cajetan says on this topic below

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”

Now moving on to the 8 important points

Examining Cardinal Cajetan we read(sometimes our points on Cajetan will be DIRECT quotes from his commentary above!)

That the DEUTEROCANON are counted as APOCRYPHAL by ST. JEROME.

That is point number ONE

1.(the Deuterocanon)are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha

Point number two is that

2. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical.

So that leads to point number 3

Which according to Cajetan is that
3. The Deuterocanonical Books are deemed as CANONICAL by the SACRED COUNCILS of the Church. Meaning, the Councils of the Church that decided upon Sacred Scripture viewed these books as inspired by the Holy Spirit and as the WORD OF GOD. What is also clear is that the DOCTORS of the Church also viewed the Deuterocanon as CANONICAL.

Point number 4 is basically re-affirming what Cajetan says, but noting it carefully.

4. The Early Church, in the Doctors and the Councils viewed the Deuterocanon as SCRIPTURE and as part of the Canon of the Bible.

Moving on to point number 5. We must see the incredible level of authority that Cajetan has placed Jerome on. Jerome, for Cajetan, is the final word, and final statement on this issue, even though the Early Doctors and Councils viewed these books as Scripture, as Sacred Scripture.
So point number 5 is

5. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.

A clear examination is due. Cajetan serves as a great witness to the Catholic canon of Scripture because he sides with Jerome, who rejected the Deuterocanon for reasons that not even most PROTESTANTS would list as the reason to reject the Canon today. Not only does he side with Jerome, but he places Jerome above the early Sacred Councils and Doctors of the Church. Such a statement, if not ignorant, is at least stubborn.

6.(the Deuterocanon)are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.

Point number 6 is important because here Cajetan reaffirms his loyalty to Jerome on this issue. The Deuterocanon, for Cajetan are NOT canonical. That is, they are NOT to be a rule in dealing with matters within the Catholic faith.

This brings us to point number 7, which immediately follows what Cajetan said previously.

Cajetan now says

7. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose.

Previously Cajetan has said that these books were NOT canonical, yet now says they MAY BE CALLED CANONICAL because they can serve to edify the faithful. Therefore, Cajetan doesn't mind if they are called CANONICAL if we realize that they are good as helping out a Christian. He previously said they can't CONFIRM matters of faith, and now says they can help the practicing Christian.

Some have suggested Cajetan is using the term Canonical differently. Since no evidence has presented as such, nor has Cajetan ever said such, we will simply dismiss such a statement. In fact, we will remain neutral as to how he uses the term CANONICAL. It is simply not of importance for us in this issue at hand.

This moves us on to our Conclusion and to point number 8

8. Cajetan, no matter how he uses the term Canonical, let's us know that the EARLY CHURCH, the Early Christians, and the Early Councils viewed these books as SACRED SCRIPTURE and part of the Canon of Scripture. He then goes AGAINST the Early Church and the Early Councils and instead sides with Jerome.

We must remember, Cardinal Cajetan was NOT an Early Father, yet was a very intelligent and learned individual. He RECOGNIZES the Early Church's affirmation of the Deuterocanon as Scripture, but his insistence on following Jerome as his final word leads to his odd statements on the Canon.
In conclusion, Cajetan not only serves as a fantastic witness to the Catholic faith, but it is almost sad to see a Protestant bring him into the conversation to try and prove their point. It would be akin to a Catholic quoting an early Protestant that would say, "The Early Councils and the Early Doctors never believed in sola fide but Jerome does, so they must be subject to the correction of Jerome on this issue!"

We can only hope that this extremely weak argument is finally put to rest


Monday, July 13, 2009

Marian Dogmas!

Will be loads of fun! Turretinfan and I are currently debating all of the Marian Dogmas.

So far we've covered two debates. "Does the NT teach Veneration of Mary?" and "Mary: Mother of GOD?"

Below I will provide the link to the first debate. The second debate is still in the editing process.

For anyone that would wish to obtain a PDF collection of my notes for both debates, you can email me, or simply request it here.
There are quite a few things I didn't get to in each of the debates, and you might find something interesting in the notes.

Does the NEW TESTAMENT teach VENERATION of MARY? MP3 debate

Click that link(not right click), then you can download it from RAPIDSHARE.


Latria and Dulia-the Biblical Catholic Response

For those interested in the Latria/Dulia arguments that Protestants put forth and that Catholics come on the defensive against, this is a paper I wrote out a while back, after my appearance on the DL with Mr. James White.

Latria and Dulia: the Catholic response

For those interested in hearing what is probably the ONLY existing debate on this topic, you can click the link below to download the debate between myself and Turretinfan on this topic.

The Latria/Dulia Debate MP3


Israel Knohl, Gabriel's Revelation, and Christianity

For those unaware of "Gabriel's Revelation", the following links should help out!

Gabriel's Revelation

Here are the first two videos I made dealing with Israel Knohl and his claims.


Gabriel's Revelation: a Catholic Response


My second response to Knohl and a challenge

Since Israel Knohl's company finds it necessary to send me videos Israel does, and encourages me to search for someone "other" than Knohl to debate with, I suggest Mr. Knohl himself come out and defend his assertions.

Below is my latest video dealing with this.

I will have a full book review on Israel's new book out quite soon!


Friday, July 10, 2009

Today's Greek Word-PHARASAIOS-

NAB rendering:

Luke 5:33 And they said to him, "The disciples of John fast often and offer prayers, and the disciples of the Pharisees do the same; but yours eat and drink."

Today's Greek word is


This is the plural from PHARASAIOS

Pronounced FAR UH SIGH AHs

The Pharisees were the Jewish group that Jesus and Paul frequently spoke out against, as well as the explicit teachings of the Scriptures, due to the hypocritical ways of some from their flock.

Today's word is important because it helps highlight our Faith and to show us the great contrast of the Christians and those that were worldy. Frequently Christ spoke against becoming TOO much a part of the world. In context he didn't want anyone losing sight of the greater goal of loving GOD and serving GOD to their fullest. As such, the disciples fast very often and also pray always, whereas the Pharisees' disciples do the same, but instead of actually fasting they eat and they drink. We find this is another example of the fact that the Pharisees don't usually practice what they preach in the Scriptures.

-William Albrecht-