Renowned Catholic philosopher: “Francis’ AL is a ticking theological atomic bomb capable of destroying all Catholic moral teaching.” His bishop: “I dismiss you from the university”!

Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Archbishop Fernández and Seifert

Dr. Josef Seifert, a renowned Catholic philosopher, has been removed from a Catholic university in Spain by a local archbishop after publishing a critique of “Pope” Francis’ scandalous “Exhortation” Amoris Laetitia. 

Seifert was removed last week from his post at the International Academy of Philosophy in Granada by Archbishop Javier Martínez Fernández.

In an article published online last month, Seifert called Francis’ scandalous Amoris Laetitia a ticking “theological atomic bomb” that has the capacity to destroy all Catholic moral teaching. If Francis believes that adultery—to quote the exhortation—“is what God himself is asking” of couples in “irregular” situations, he argues, then there is nothing stopping any other intrinsically evil acts from eventually being justified.

He writes, in his article: Does pure Logic threaten to destroy the entire moral Doctrine of the Catholic Church?:

“If this is truly what AL affirms, all alarm over AL’s direct affirmations regarding matters of changes of sacramental discipline refer only to the peak of an iceberg, to the weak beginning of an avalanche, or to the first few buildings destroyed by a moral theological atomic bomb that threatens to tear down the whole moral edifice of the Ten Commandments and of Catholic moral teaching.”  

Fernández, Seifert’s scandalous bishop, reacted by dismissing him from the university. Fernández related in an August 31 public statement that Seifert’s removal was spurred precisely by his recent article, which he said “damages the communion of the Church, confuses the faith of the faithful, and sows distrust in the successor of Peter, which, in the end, does not serve the truth of faith, but, rather, the interests of the world.”

He said while Seifert was removed from his teaching duties last year after his “first critical writing” on the “exhortation”, he is now being entirely dismissed from the university. 

Hear him:

“And right now, concurring with the precise and fuller reasons for it, his retirement from the above-mentioned International Academy of Philosophy is now being processed.”

Last October, the scandalous archbishop stated that his archdiocese would adopt the Buenos Aires interpretation of Amoris Laetitia, endorsed by anti-Pope Francis, that allows Holy Communion to be given to couples living in habitual adultery.

Seifert’s article:

Does pure logic threaten to destroy the entire moral doctrine of the Catholic Church?

Josef Seifert

August 5, 2017

The question in the title of this paper is addressed to Pope Francis and to all Catholic cardinals, bishops, philosophers and theologians. It deals with a dubium about a purely logical consequence of an affirmation in Amoris Laetitia, and ends with a plea to Pope Francis to retract at least one affirmation of AL, if the title question of this little essay has to be answered in the affirmative, and if indeed from this one affirmation in AL alone pure logic, using evident premises, can deduce the destruction of the entire Catholic moral teaching. In a Socratic style, the paper leaves it up to Pope Francis and other readers to answer the title question and to act upon their own answer.

Amoris Laetitia has no doubt created much uncertainty and evoked conflicting interpretations throughout the Catholic World. I do not wish to present this entire controversy here nor to repeat – or develop further – the position I have defended on this matter in previous articles (See Josef Seifert, “Amoris Laetitia. Joy, Sadness and Hopes”) I might still do this in a reply to some critical comments I have received from my personal friend Buttiglione, with whom I agree on almost all other philosophical matters, and others. 

There is a single affirmation in AL, however, that has nothing to do with a recognition of the rights of subjective conscience, by reference to which Rocco Buttiglione seeks to demonstrate the full harmony between the moral magisterium of John Paul II and Pope Francis, against Robert Spaemann’s and other assertions of a clear break between them. Buttiglione argues that, regarding their contrary teaching on sacramental discipline, Pope John Paul II is correct if one considers only the objective content of human acts, while Pope Francis is right when one accords, after due discernment, to subjective factors and missing conditions of mortal sin (deficient knowledge and weakness of free will) their proper role and recognition.

The assertion of AL I wish to investigate here, however, does not invoke subjective conscience at all, but claims a totally objective divine will for us to commit, in certain situations, acts that are intrinsically wrong, and have always been considered such by the Church. Since God can certainly not have a lack of ethical knowledge, an “erring conscience,” or a weakness of free will, this text does not “defend the rights of human subjectivity,” as Buttiglione claims, but appears to affirm clearly that these intrinsically disordered and objectively gravely sinful acts, as Buttiglione admits, can be permitted, or can even objectively be commanded, by God. If this is truly what AL affirms, all alarm over AL’s direct affirmations, regarding matters of changes of sacramental discipline (admitting, after due discernment, adulterers, active homosexuals, and other couples in similar situations to the sacraments of confession and eucharist, and, logically, also of baptism, confirmation, and matrimony, without their willingness to change their lives and to live in total sexual abstinence, which Pope John Paul II demanded in Familiaris Consortio from couples in such “irregular situations”), refer only to the peak of an iceberg, to the weak beginning of an avalanche, or to the first few buildings destroyed by a moral theological atomic bomb that threatens to tear down the whole moral edifice of the 10 commandments and of Catholic Moral Teaching. 

In the present paper, however, I will not claim that this is the case. On the contrary, I will leave it entirely to the Pope or to any reader to answer the question whether or not there is at least one affirmation in Amoris Laetitia that has the logical consequence of destroying the entire Catholic moral teaching. And I must admit that what I read about a commission convened in order to “re-examine” Humanae Vitae, an Encyclical that put, like later Veritatis Splendor, a definitive end to decades of ethical and moral theological debates, has made this title question of my essay a matter of extreme concern to me.

Let us read the decisive text (AL 303), which is being applied by Pope Francis to the case of adulterous or otherwise “irregular couples” who decide not to follow the demand addressed in the Encyclical Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II to such “irregular couples”. Pope John Paul II tells these couples to either separate entirely or, if this is impossible, to abstain entirely from sexual relations. Pope Francis states, however:

Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God (Relatio Finalis 2015, 85) and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal (AL 303).

From the previous as well as from the later context it is clear that this “will of God” here refers to continuing to live in what constitutes objectively a grave sin. Cf., for example, AL 298, Footnote 329:

“In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’.” 

In Gaudium et Spes, 51, from which the last quote is taken, the thought is taken as an invalid objection against the moral demand never to commit adultery or an act of contraception. In AL it is understood in the sense explained above, as a justification, even known to correspond to the objective will of God, to continue to commit objectively speaking grave sins.  

In other words, besides calling an objective state of grave sin, euphemistically, “not yet fully the objective ideal,” AL says that we can know with “a certain moral security” that God himself asks us to continue to commit intrinsically wrong acts, such as adultery or active homosexuality. I ask: Can pure Logic fail to ask us under this assumption:

If only one case of an intrinsically immoral act can be permitted and even willed by God, must this not apply to all acts considered ‘intrinsically wrong’? If it is true that God can want an adulterous couple to live in adultery, should then not also the commandment ‘Do not commit adultery!’ be reformulated: ‘If in your situation adultery is not the lesser evil, do not commit it! If it is, continue living it!’?

Must then not also the other 9 commandments, Humanae Vitae, Evangelium Vitae, and all past and present or future Church documents, dogmas, or councils that teach the existence of intrinsically wrong acts, fall? Is it then not any more intrinsically wrong to use contraceptives and is not Humanae Vitae in error that states unambigously that it can never happen that contraception in any situation is morally justified, let alone commanded by God?

Must then not, to begin with, the new commission on Humanae Vitae Pope Francis instituted, conclude that using contraception can in some situations be good or even obligatory and willed by God? Can then not also abortions, as Mons. Fisichella, then President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, claimed, be justified in some cases and ‘be what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal’?

Must then not from pure logic euthanasia, suicide, or assistance to it, lies, thefts, perjuries, negations or betrayals of Christ, like that of St. Peter, or murder, under some circumstances and after proper “discernment,” be good and praiseworthy because of the complexity of a concrete situation (or because of a lack of ethical knowledge or strength of will)? Can then not God also demand that a Sicilian, who feels obligated to extinguish the innocent family members of a family, whose head has murdered a member of his own family and whose brother would murder four families if he does not kill one, go ahead with his murder, because his act is, under his conditions “what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal”? Does not pure logic demand that we draw this consequence from this proposition of Pope Francis?

However, if the title question of this paper must be answered in the affirmative, as I personally believe to be the case, the purely logical consequence of that one assertion of Amoris Laetitia seems to destroy the entire moral teaching of the Church. Should it not, therefore, be withdrawn and condemned by Pope Francis himself, who no doubt abhors such a consequence, which, if the title question needs to be answered affirmatively, iron and cool logic cannot fail to draw from the cited assertion of Pope Francis?

Thus I wish to plead with our supreme spiritual Father on Earth, the “sweet Christ on earth,” as Saint Catherine of Siena called one of the Popes, under whose reign she lived, while she criticized him fiercely (if Pope Francis agrees with this logical conclusion, and answers the title question of this essay in the affirmative) to please retract the mentioned affirmation. If its logical consequences lead with iron stringency to nothing less than to a total destruction of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, should the “sweet Christ on Earth” not retract an affirmation of his own? If the mentioned thesis leads with cogent logical consequence to the rejection of there being any acts that must be considered intrinsically morally wrong, under any circumstances and in all situations, and if this assertion will tear down, after Familiaris Consortio and Veritatis Splendor, likewise Humanae Vitae and many other solemn Church teachings, should it not be revoked? Are there not evidently such acts that are always intrinsically wrong, as there are other acts, which are always intrinsically good, justified, or willed by God? (See John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor. See also Josef Seifert, “The Splendor of Truth and Intrinsically Immoral Acts: A Philosophical Defense of the Rejection of Proportionalism and Consequentialism in ‘Veritatis Splendor’.” In: Studia Philosophiae Christianae UKSW 51 (2015) 2, 27-67. “The Splendor of Truth and Intrinsically Immoral Acts II: A Philosophical Defense of the Rejection of Proportionalism and Consequentialism in ‘Veritatis Splendor’.” In: Studia Philosophiae Christianae UKSW 51 (2015) 3, 7-37.) And should not every Cardinal and Bishop, every priest, monk or consecrated Virgin, and every layperson in the Church, take a most vivid interest in this and subscribe this passionate plea of a a humble layperson, a simple Professor of Philosophy and, among other subjects, of logic?

Another Dubia Cardinal, Carlo Caffarra, Dies at 79!

Caffarra

Roughly two months ago, in the report Cardinal Meisner, one of the Dubia Cardinals, passes on while still awaiting Francis' response, I wrote:

“It should be noted that a lot of good people—defenders of the Faith—have been dying since Francis’ emergence. Fr. Nicholas Gruner, Our Lady’s Loyal Ambassador, died in 2015; the great Italian Cardinal, Giacomo Biffi, died in July 2015; Fr. Gabriel Amorth, the world’s most famous exorcist who told Fr. Gruner in March 2015 that “unless the consecration of Russia is done—as Our Lady asked—by the end of October, 2015, the dark prophecies of Fatima may well come to pass any day after that.”, died in September, 2016; Mr. John Vennari, Fr. Gruner’s co-worker, died in April this year—just to name those I can easily remember.”

Now, once again, another Dubia Cardinal, Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, has passed on! Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register  reports:

           

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra Dies at 79 

Widely thought to be the Church’s leading expert on marriage and the family and one of the four ‘dubia’ cardinals, the Italian cardinal passed away this morning after a long illness.

Edward Pentin

Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, the archbishop emeritus of Bologna and one of the original four cardinals to sign the dubia sent to Pope Francis, has died suddenly at the age of 79.

The cardinal, who led the diocese of Bologna for nearly 12 years from late 2003 until October 2015, passed away this morning after a long illness, according to the Italian bishops' newspaper, Avvenire.  The sound of the bells in the Bologna archdiocese announced news of the cardinal's death. 

Arguably the Church’s leading expert on marriage and the family for decades, Pope John Paul II gave Cardinal Caffarra the mandate to found the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in 1981. 

Benedict XVI elevated him to cardinal in 2006, and together with Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke and Joachim Meisner (who died in July), he signed the dubia— five straight-forward questions put to Pope Francis last September aimed at clarifying parts of his apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

Both he and Cardinal Meisner died without receiving an acknowledgement or any form of reply to the dubia. His letter to Francis on behalf of the four cardinals requesting an audience also received no reply. 

Born in Samboseto di Busseto, in the province of Parma but in the diocese of Fidenza, Cardinal Caffarra was ordained priest in 1961, specialized in canon law and moral theology before focusing on exploring themes of marriage, family and human procreation in the 1970s.

He stressed he was driven to devote his time to this area due to requests made "by many married and engaged couples who wanted to be introduced to the great Christian view of marriage” in the years of discussion that followed the publication of Paul VI's encyclical, Humanae Vitae. 

He held various august positions associated with marriage and family, teaching medical ethics, especially its theological and anthropological aspects, and serving as a member of the International Theological Commission, a position he held for two successive five-year periods. 

Author of books on fundamental moral theology and numerous articles, later translated into major languages, he wrote a carefully annotated edition of all John Paul II’s catecheses on human love.

In 1980, John Paul II nominated him as an expert at the Synod of Bishops on marriage and family, which led to John Paul’s apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio. He served as dean of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute from 1981 until 1995, and was a consultant for five years to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith led by the then-Prefect (and future Pope) Joseph Ratzinger. 

At the same time he taught courses and lectures at various foreign universities: from Chile to Sydney, from Navarra to Madrid, and oversaw the expansion of the John Paul II Institute internationally.

He succeeded Cardinal Giacomo Biffi as Archbishop of Bologna, and retired at the age of 77. He continued to be a member of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura and was made an honorary member of the Pontifical Academy for Life in June.

Pope Francis personally chose him to take part in the two synods on the family, in 2014 and 2015.

But he died disturbed by the aftermath of Amoris Laetitia and the disparate interpretations of the document by bishops around the world. “Only a blind man could deny there’s great confusion, uncertainty and insecurity in the Church,” he said in a recent interview. He was particularly vexed by the confusion felt among priests which he said was immense.

In one of his last talks on the state of marriage and family in the West today, Cardinal Caffarra said Satan is hurling at God “the ultimate and terrible challenge,” to show he is capable of constructing an “anti-creation” that mankind will be deceived into thinking is better than what God has created.

He warned that societies elevating abortion to a “subjective right” and equating a homosexual relationship to marriage represented the destruction of “two pillars of creation.”

In supplementary remarks, he recalled a letter he received from Sister Lucia when he was facing trials in establishing the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family.

He said he would “never forget” the last words of her letter, “words that are engraved in my heart,” in which Sister Lucia wrote “there will come a time when the decisive confrontation between the Kingdom of God and Satan will take place over marriage and the family.”

He said she underscored that those who are going to work for marriage and the family “will undergo trials and tribulations” but added: “Do not fear, Our Lady has already crushed his head.”

Cardinal Caffarra told the conference that his talk was “based on these words of Sister Lucia, and therefore on the conviction that what Sister Lucia said in those days are being fulfilled in these days of ours.”

***

The cardinal gave one of his last interviews in May this year, in which he told the Register why education is the key to protecting life, marriage and the family. See the interview here. 

In January, he gave an interview to Italy's Il Foglio newspaper in which he explained why he and the other three 'dubia' cardinals consider clarification of Amoris Laetitia to be so vital. See the full interview on Catholic World Report here, and my summary of the interview here. 

Cardinal Caffarra was a firm opponent of same-sex 'marriage'. In 2010, he issued this doctrinal note warning legalization of it would be "devastating" for society, and that Catholic politicians who support such legislation can no longer call themselves Catholic.

Re: The Heresy of Rapture: Debunking a Common Heresy Among Protestants!

by Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

"...if we take the Bible, according to the tenets of agnosticism, to be a human work, made by men for men, but allowing the theologian to proclaim that it is divine by immanence, what room is there left in it for inspiration?" (Pope St. Pius X)

Mr. Malachy Mary Igwilo, in trying to counter the Protestants—perhaps with some good intentions but in his usual false zeal—writes, in the article, “The Heresy of Rapture: Debunking a common heresy among Protestants!”:

“...we must be aware that there are many different forms of writing in Holy Scripture. These are called literary genres. They are easily understood when they are read within the culture of the time. The cause of the confusion is when we take a genre of a different culture from another time and place it within the same context of the present culture.

“Apocalyptic writing such as the books of Daniel and Revelation is one literary genre common among the ancient Semites. It is filled with strange illusions, bizarre images and numbers that have symbolic meaning.

“There are other genres used in Scripture such as the parable, the allegory, and the historical novel. In each literary form, the writer presents but not necessarily asserts the message of God. It is what the writer meant to assert that we must find out. With this in mind, Holy Scripture should be read within the historic context and living Tradition of the Church.” (See: The Heresy of Rapture: Debunking a common heresy among Protestants!)

Put simply, these statements, too diabolical, represent modernism in its purest form!—which Pope Pius X vehemently condemned in his Pascendi Dominici Gregis (September 8,  1907).  

This error—that the Holy Scripture must be read “within the culture of the time”—has been pointed out by me in the article, Francis and his gang of heretics pushing for women ordination, which reads:

...the reason why it is very difficult for people to understand the Bible in today’s world (I mean those who depend on church leaders for correct interpretation) is because the majority of contemporary Scripture scholars and theologians—as well as the church leaders themselves—have actually discarded the Bible. They do this systematically by treating the various books that make up the Bible as separate books, and holding the view that each of these books should be studied according to their writers’ “cultural contexts”! So the idea of an inspiration from God the Holy Spirit is simply discarded. The result is that today everything in theology becomes subjective. The Bible, like other (secular) literature, or other "holy books" of other religions such as the Koran, is understood as a record of human “religious experience” and as such it can hardly claim uniqueness but must be put alongside these other literatures which testify to “similar” experiences of what one may call the religious dimension of human life. Thus what we call Catholic Christianity now becomes one of the many varieties of religious experience and its truth-claims are set aside on the ground that they arise out of particular “cultural contexts”! Hence the reason why ALL Vatican II popes simply scorn the idea of extra ecclesiam nulla sallus—outside the Church there is no salvation—teaching unambiguously that there is indeed salvation in non-Catholic religions. (Note: what this shows clearly is that they reject some teachings of the Bible since the Bible makes it clear that no one can be saved outside the Church). Then of course, no time here to talk about the numerous FALSE Bibles used by Novus Ordo priests!

When we turn to the early Church—particularly to a great Scripture scholar like St. Augustine—we see the stark difference. In his work De Consensu Evangelistarum St. Augustine writes (referring to the Bible):

                   

“What are we therefore to understand except that these things were done under the hidden direction of the Providence of God, by which the minds of the evangelists were governed?...The memory of the sacred writer is itself directed by the Holy Spirit...Thus the Lord himself determined that such and such be written...All our holy prophets, therefore, manifest a wonderful assent among each other, because they are spoken by the one and same Spirit. ...And hence without hesitation or doubt everything is to be accepted which the Holy Spirit spoke through them. ...This is therefore especially to be understood concerning the holy prophets, and especially to be taught, that we should receive the books of all of them as one single book, in which no fundamental disunity or disagreement is to be found, and in which a greater consistency of truth is present, than we grant in the books composed even by the most learned of men. Hence whatever argument unbelievers or unlearned men seek from this source of disagreement or inconsistency, as if to show the disharmony of the holy Gospels, ought to be taken by the faithful and learned men as an opportunity to show the unity of the Sacred Scriptures, even including the prophets of the Old Testament”. (De Cons. Ev., III, 7 (30); P.L. 34, 1175-76).

Here St. Augustine—quite contrary to the attitude of many modern theologians and “Scripture Scholars”—tells us that both the Old and New Testaments convey one intelligible message to the mind of man; this unity of the two Testaments provides the fundamental succession in human affairs, the New Testament succeeding the Old, which gives St. Augustine the basis for the understanding of human history. In St. Augustine’s time the Bible was read and understood in the context of the church’s prayers and songs, its teachings and beliefs, and its disciplines and habits. Now it’s quite the opposite! As one anonymous writer, commenting on St. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana, puts it—contrasting St. Augustine with modern “theologians”, “scripture scholars” and church leaders: “Augustine’s view gives much more emphasis to the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit to every word, every ‘jot and title,’ of the Old and New Testaments than most historical critics.”

He continues:

“Augustine viewed the Bible as a single communication from God, not a collection of separate Holy books. If the Bible is the revealed Word of God, then every word of the Bible is part of that revelation. Even his outlandish allegories pointed to his stance that there were no throwaway lines in Scripture. Every single word in every single sentence was put there by the Holy Spirit for a reason, to reveal on at least one level---and possibly many others---the Creator’s will for his people. Therefore, the whole of Scripture should be read thoroughly. Augustine himself only began serious study of the Bible after his thirtieth birthday, yet by the time he became a bishop in his early forties he could quote from memory virtually every book of Scripture. He didn’t memorize the entire canon. But he had no trouble memorizing those things he found significant.”

Again, he writes:

“De Doctrina Christiana (Augustines’s great work) describes Scripture as “a narrative of the past, a prophesy of the future, and a description of the present.” There’s no room to leave any of it out.

“Of course, this clashes with the current historical critical ways to interpret the Bible. Modern commentators try to reconstruct the train of the writer’s thought---what was he saying to his particular historical reader at that particular historical moment in time?---without much comparison to other biblical texts and maybe even less reflection on related biblical topics. Augustine, though, maintains the thread of every word of every verse he’s studying with that passage’s relationship to a broad view of the Old and New Testaments. The Old points to the New while the New reveals the Old.

“This view of Scripture also makes it difficult to interpret the Bible in light of current cultural or social trends or practices. It seems very easy for us to pick and choose what we believe in the Bible is  imperative for God’s  children today and  what was only figurative speech or a cultural reference to Roman Empire society in the first century. The decisions we make on adultery, fasting, modesty, or women’s roles in the church don’t necessarily come from Scripture. They come first from what our culture deems acceptable and comfortable, and then that viewpoint is read back into our interpretation.”

He then quotes St. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana (Book III, chapter 15), where the Saint states:

‘As men are prone to estimate sins not by reference to their inherent sinfulness, but rather by reference to their own customs, it frequently happens that a man will think blameable nothing except what the men of his own country and time are accustomed to condemn, and nothing worthy of approval except what is sanctioned by the custom of his companions. And thus it comes to pass that if Scripture either enjoins what is opposed to the custom of the hearers, or condemns what is not so opposed, and if at the same time the authority of the Word has a hold upon their minds, they think that expression is figurative.’

“It’s why you never hear sermons against “mixed-bathing” in Florida,” says the writer, “or against cigarettes in North Carolina...”

And I add: It is also the reason why we observe today that there is no longer any dress code for women in the Catholic Church. Apart from putting on men’s clothes like trousers (condemned by God in Deuteronomy 22: 5: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God") women of this era can, in fact, even come to church naked and receive the priest’s blessing even though St. Paul clearly stated: “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness.” (1 Tim. 2:9-11; see the article: What’s wrong with women wearing trousers?). 

It is the reason why we observe that the Vatican and the majority of Vatican II church leaders (and even some so-called “traditionalists”) are encouraging women to come to church with their hairs uncovered—even though this is clearly condemned in the Bible, as St. Paul states, “You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered?” (See 1 Cor. 11: 2-16). (See: WHY WOMEN ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO WEAR HEAD COVERINGS DURING NOVUS ORDO MASSES!). 

And finally, it is the reason why we see “Pope” Francis and many of the clergy today clamouring for women priests even though St. Paul stated clearly in his First Letter to Timothy, “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” (1 Tim. 2:12). And in his First Letter to the Corinthians: “As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?...If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognise this, he is not recognised.” (1 Cor. 14:33-37).

Of course, the Modernists despise Church Fathers such as St. Augustine with passion! So they don’t believe all I have just quoted. As Pope Pius X points out in paragraph 42 of his Pascendi, “The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon Tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived.”

As for the Modernists’ treatment of Holy Scriptures—represented by Igwilo above—the Pope points them out in paragraphs 22 and 34. In paragraph 22 (entitled, “The Holy Scriptures”) he writes:

“We have already touched upon the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of the Modernists they may be rightly described as a collection of experiences, not indeed of the kind that may come to anybody, but those extraordinary and striking ones which have happened in any religion. And this is precisely what they teach about our books of the Old and New Testament. But to suit their own theories they note with remarkable ingenuity that, although experience is something belonging to the present, still it may derive its material from the past and the future alike, inasmuch as the believer by memory lives the past over again after the manner of the present, and lives the future already by anticipation. This explains how it is that the historical and apocalyptical books are included among the Sacred Writings. God does indeed speak in these books - through the medium of the believer, but only, according to Modernistic theology, by vital immanence and permanence. Do we inquire concerning inspiration? Inspiration, they reply, is distinguished only by its vehemence from that impulse which stimulates the believer to reveal the faith that is in him by words or writing. It is something like what happens in poetical inspiration, of which it has been said: There is God in us, and when he stirreth he sets us afire. And it is precisely in this sense that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books. The Modernists affirm, too, that there is nothing in these books which is not inspired. In this respect some might be disposed to consider them as more orthodox than certain other moderns who somewhat restrict inspiration, as, for instance, in what have been put forward as tacit citations. But it is all mere juggling of words. For if we take the Bible, according to the tenets of agnosticism, to be a human work, made by men for men, but allowing the theologian to proclaim that it is divine by immanence, what room is there left in it for inspiration? General inspiration in the Modernist sense it is easy to find, but of inspiration in the Catholic sense there is not a trace.”

In Paragraph 34 (entitled, “How the Bible is Dealt With”) he writes:

“The result of this dismembering of the Sacred Books and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming commonly that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed by additions to a primitive brief narration - by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretation, by transitions, by joining different passages together. This means, briefly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of them. Indeed this history they do actually write, and with such an easy security that one might believe them to have with their own eyes seen the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labour to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, and adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their decision as to whether a thing is out of place or not. Judge if you can how men with such a system are fitted for practising this kind of criticism. To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately, these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for their guide and rule, - a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves.

“We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come internal and textual criticism. And since it is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its virtue to secondary causes, it is quite clear that the criticism We are concerned with is an agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism. Hence anybody who embraces it and employs it, makes profession thereby of the errors contained in it, and places himself in opposition to Catholic faith. This being so, one cannot but be greatly surprised by the consideration which is attached to it by certain Catholics. Two causes may be assigned for this: first, the close alliance, independent of all differences of nationality or religion, which the historians and critics of this school have formed among themselves; second, the boundless effrontery of these men. Let one of them but open his mouth and the others applaud him in chorus, proclaiming that science has made another step forward; let an outsider but hint at a desire to inspect the new discovery with his own eyes, and they are on him in a body; deny it - and you are an ignoramus; embrace it and defend it - and there is no praise too warm for you. In this way they win over any who, did they but realise what they are doing, would shrink back with horror. The impudence and the domineering of some, and the thoughtlessness and imprudence of others, have combined to generate a pestilence in the air which penetrates everywhere and spreads the contagion. ...”

The entire Encyclical should be read here.

Of course, Mr. Igwilo is not a Modernist. But alas! False zeal has driven him to their very embrace! And he does this even unconsciously! Heretics often say things they are completely ignorant of as if they know them perfectly well—Mr. Igwilo has the exact quality! Imagine his diabolical audacity and sheer idiocy in declaring that “the books of Daniel and Revelation is (sic) one literary genre common among the ancient Semites. It is filled with strange illusions, bizarre images”, and that “There are other genres used in Scripture such as the parable, the allegory, and the historical novel. In each literary form, the writer presents but not necessarily asserts the message of God. It is what the writer meant to assert that we must find out. With this in mind, Holy Scripture should be read within the historic context...”!

Pope Pius X responds:

“...if we take the Bible, according to the tenets of agnosticism, to be a human work, made by men for men, but allowing the theologian to proclaim that it is divine by immanence, what room is there left in it for inspiration? General inspiration in the Modernist sense it is easy to find, but of inspiration in the Catholic sense there is not a trace.”

Again, a great saint like Augustine tells us that the entire Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, is simply one book, written by God Himself. But Igwilo isolates the Book of Daniel and the Revelation from the rest of the Bible because—according to him—they have “one literary genre common among the ancient Semites” and therefore they are “ filled with strange illusions, bizarre images...”

In case you don’t know what illusion is, it means “(1): the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled (2): an instance of such deception 2 a (1): a misleading image presented to the vision (2): something that deceives or misleads intellectually.” And bizarre means “odd, extravagant, outrageously or whimsically strange.”

Here then, Igwilo tells his readers that these Books—Daniel and Revelation—belong to the ancient Semites and therefore their writing can be deceptive—for “the writer presents but not necessarily asserts the message of God”!

Pope Pius X responds:

“To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men.”

Notice that the man, certainly possessed by the devil, says all these things simply because he is anti-revelation—which the two books, Daniel and Revelation, are all about. What he says here is just a similar poison he vomited sometime last year against Private Revelations which he simply hates with diabolical passion—attributing some messages of Our Lord Jesus Christ and Our Lady to the work of the devil! (See: Re: Flee from ALL Novus Ordo Apparitions).

In paragraph 6 of his Pascendi, Pope Pius X quotes the First Vatican Council which says:

"If anyone says that it is not possible or not expedient that man be taught, through the medium of Divine Revelation, about God and the worship to be paid Him, let him be anathema." Again, "If anyone says that Divine Revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men should be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal experience or by private inspiration, let him be anathema."  

In De Civitate Dei Contra Paganos, St. Augustine quotes the Book of Daniel, which undoubtedly also talks about the time we are living now:

“...about the fourth beast, which was different from every other beast, far more terrible, with iron teeth and bronze claws, chewing and crushing to pieces and trampling underfoot what remained. And I asked about the ten horns on his head, and about the other horn which came up and struck down three of the former horns; this horn had eyes and a mouth uttering great boasts, and it looked bigger than the rest of them. I watched it making war on the saints, and getting the better of them, until the Ancient One came and gave the kingdom to the saints of the Most High, when the time came for the saints to take possession of the kingdom.”

Augustine writes: “This, says Daniel, is the question he asked. And he goes on to give the reply he received. ‘Then he said’ (that is, the man questioning gave this reply),

“The fourth beast is the fourth kingdom which will be on the earth. It will prevail over all kingdoms: and it will devour the whole earth, and trample on it and destroy it. And the ten horns: ten kings will arise. And after them will arise another who will surpass in wickedness all who preceded him. He will humble three kings, and will speak insulting words against the Most High, and will conceive the notion of changing times and laws. And power will be given into his hand for a time and times and half a time. Then a court will sit, and they will take away his sovereignty, to be destroyed and finally brought to nothing. Then the kingdom and the power and the might of all the kings under the whole heaven will be given to the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all principalities will serve and obey him.” (Daniel 7: 23-28)

According to St. Augustine, some commentators, including great St. Jerome, have interpreted those four kingdoms as the Assyrians, the Persians, the Macedonians, and the Romans. “Yet”, Augustine writes, “anyone who reads the passage in Daniel, even if half-asleep, cannot conceivably doubt that the reign of Antichrist is to be endured, if only for a brief space of time, with its bitter savagery against the Church, until by the final judgement of God the saints receive their everlasting kingdom.” (De Civitate Dei, XX, 23).

There is no doubt that the Book of Daniel, which talks about “a king” that will “conceive the notion of changing times and laws”, certainly has an important message for us at this time. In the message of Our Lord to Rev. Sister Hermana Guadalupe, where he vehemently condemns all the false bibles used today by the Protestants and Novus Ordo priests, and asks us to start searching for old editions such as Catholic Douay-Rheims version, we read:

“The Bible is a book that has caused much confusion, and has caused many difficulties for my children because they do not understand it. This book was written with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and it is the Word of God; in it there is everything that He has wanted my children to learn and know. It is full of difficulties, and teaches man that, in order to understand it, he must read it knelling down, and that is to say, with humility.

“Anyone who approaches the Holy Bible with only the desire to acquire more knowledge, to boast to his family and to his friends that he has read the Bible, will not obtain any fruit. Only those who approach this book with humility and simplicity and with the desire to know Me, to understand the life of his God and to understand His words, will obtain the fruits; because by knowing Him, they will love Him. Only those persons who approach this book in this way will find the wisdom which is hidden in it.

  

“My sons say that all of the prophecies have already been fulfilled, that everything has been fulfilled and that there is nothing new to see—but that is not true. Some of the prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled, but many more will be fulfilled in these last times. Your eyes will see that many prophecies that many believed to be dead and buried are not dead and buried, and it is precisely in these times that the prophecies will be fulfilled.

“Many say that the Bible is totally fulfilled, but I said in the Bible that I would come for a second time to this world, and this they do not want to accept, and they do not see that by doing this they are trying to stop the Word of the Lord. They do not study this book properly; however, the Bible shall be fulfilled.

“In past years, in other epochs, everybody believed that only the book of the Apocalypse was the one that was still pending to be fulfilled, but this is not true. The entire Bible has prophecies, from the beginning to the end, and they are going to be fulfilled in these times. All of the prophecies are stated there, but many shut their eyes and do not want to listen. They do not want to understand that this book is always up to date, that this book is for yesterday, today, tomorrow, and always, because it is the Word of the Lord and the Word of the Lord shall always be alive. ...I said in the Bible, ‘‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my Word will not pass away’’. Blessed are they who wash their garments in my blood, because I am the Beginning and the End, and you must be prepared to have the right to the Tree of Life, in order to be able to enter the Holy City that is already so very close to you.” (Our Lord’s Message to Rev. Sister Hermana Guadalupe: Guatemala, February 10, 1989).      

The truth is that the Protestants (heretics Igwilo tries to counter) are, in fact, by far better than him with respect to understanding the Bible—because, though massively in error, and ignorant, the majority of them have no doubt that the Bible as a whole is simply the word of God. Igwilo, on the contrary, says some parts of it are the words of men!

Those who communicate with this man should rescue him now before he sinks further!

Related: Re: Flee from ALL Novus Ordo Apparitions