Sunday, July 20, 2014

Are you schismatic Roman Catholics?

When first coming into contact with the Old Roman Catholic Church many devout Catholics immediately inquire, "Are you schismatic Catholics?

Old Roman Catholicism is neither a sect nor schism as some of its self-constituted enemies may claim. Old Roman Catholics acknowledge the Bishop of Rome historically and spiritually as the Patriarch of the West and our priests pray for the Pope in the Canon of their Masses to express the desire for unity which should exist amongst all Western Catholics. A thorough reading of history clearly indicates that the Old Roman Catholics did nothing of a schismatic nature to warrant Pope Pius IX's uncanonical institution of a new hierarchy in the See of Utrecht in 1853, in opposition to the historic hierarchy of the existing Old Roman Catholic Church, which was an act in flagrant violation of the ancient historic canons of the undivided Church, nor had the Old Roman Catholics taught anything that had not always been considered to be totally Catholic in either Faith or practice.

 In 1145 Blessed Pope Eugene III granted to the Cathedral Chapter of Utrecht the right to elect successors to the See in times of vacancy. This meant that, unlike most other Sees in the Roman Catholic Church, the Cathedral Chapter of Utrecht could elect their own bishops without permission or approval from the Pope. This had been the universal practice in the early Church. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council (Canons 23 and 24) confirmed this privilege.

 Another significant right granted to the Church of The Netherlands was the privilege of hearing and adjudicating all of its canonical issues and matters within its own ecclesiastical courts without the necessity of referring them to Rome or any other court of canon law constituted outside of the Metropolitan See of Utrecht, either for an initial adjudication nor for any subsequent appeals. In 1520, Pope Leo X decreed in the papal bull Debitum Pastoralis that the Bishop of Utrecht, his successors, his clergy, and his laity should never be tried by an external tribunal of canon law. If any such proceedings did take place they were null and void. This extraordinary right had been granted by Pope Leo X at the request of Philip of Burgundy, who was the reigning prince-bishop of Utrecht at the time.

 In 1691, the Jesuits falsely accused Archbishop Peter Codde, the occupant of of the See of Utrecht, of favoring the so-called Jansenist heresy. We say so-called Jansenist heresy because no one has ever yet succeeded in finding the repudiated heretical statements, either in substance or in form, in The Augustinus of Bishop Cornelius Jansenius, where the Jesuits pretended to have discovered them. Archbishop Codde was ordered to stand trial in Rome despite the special privilege and Papal dispensation from such a trial (see above re: Debitum Pastoralis). Despite the Archbishop's proved innocence of heresy, the influence of the Jesuits was so great that they persuaded the Pope to issue a secret brief suspending and deposing Archbishop Codde. Neither the names of his accusers, nor the charges made against him, were ever made known to him, nor was he permitted to offer any defense, all of these actions being contrary to the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. This created a breach which was never healed, though Pope Clement XIV was favorably disposed towards the grievously wronged Church of Utrecht.

 We believe and maintain, as we have always done since 1691, that these irregular proceedings against the Church of Utrecht, based, as they were, upon charges which were proved at the time to have been groundless, were null and void and in direct contravention of the privileged rights of the See of Utrecht for immunity from prosecution outside her territory. Add to all of this the uncanonical actions of Pope Pius IX in 1853, again contravening the ancient historic canons, as well as the privilege granted the See of Utrecht in 1145 regarding the election and appointment of her own Bishops and despite the majority opinion of the vast number of Catholic canon lawyers and academics being in favor of the Church of Utrecht, the actions of the See of Rome can be viewed in no other light than to declare them unjust, uncanonical and utterly null and void. Thus it is that we have remained, and are still in actual technical canonical fact, and not according to any fanciful or far-fetched theory, part and parcel of the Roman Catholic Church, despite her refusal to acknowledge or honor our historic and proven position as true Roman Catholics.

Saturday, July 19, 2014


The mask is off. All pretense has been dropped, and the anti-Christian left's boundless depth of hatred for individual liberty, our First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is now on full display.

Addressing the high court's Hobby Lobby decision last Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., fumed, "We have so much to do this month, but the one thing we're going to do during this work period—sooner rather than later—is to ensure that women's lives are not determined by virtue of five white men."

To which Justice Clarence Thomas must have replied, "Say what, honky?"

"This Hobby Lobby decision is outrageous," continued Reid, "and we're going to do something about it."

Read the entire article by Matt Barber at this link:  Left Moves to Outlaw Christianity

Friday, July 04, 2014

Loving Liberty, Paying the Price

As we approach this momentous day in the history of our nation one is drawn back to the question. “How much are we willing to give up in our liberty just to go along with the flow?” In recent years we have seen the wholesale assault upon the foundation of the basic document that protects our rights as Americans. We now have an administration that blatantly rules by pen, phone or simply ignoring our laws to do as they alone choose to do.

The question that now presents itself is, are we to be much like
Esau going along with the present state of affairs, squandering our precious birthright for a mess of pottage thus gaining momentary relief and forfeiting forever everything precious. 

How long can this wholesale assault on the basic fabric of our nation continue before it implodes in to a state of anarchy?

In my reading we came across the piece by Shane Krauser that bears sharing.

Loving Liberty, Paying the Price
By Shane Krauser

Americans often cry out that America must be fixed. In making this claim, which is most assuredly true, we often forget that we created the problem, and, therefore, we must fix the problem. The only way we can even begin to think about repairing the maladies America faces is to come to grips with the fact that we must utilize the Constitution as our framework and guide to resolving nearly every issue. As uncomfortable as it may make some, this solution will require Americans to dive in, study, absorb, and incorporate the text of the Constitution and its corresponding principles into our minds and hearts. No more casting blame on the other guy, the other party, or the other branch of government. Resolving problems such as what we’re faced with don’t come overnight.

As I travel as the director of the American Academy for Constitutional Education, I am often astounded by the impression so many have that arguing the Constitution is an art. I suppose it shouldn’t bewilder me, for it is the profession of lawyers that have created this false image of resolving issues. The reality is that the application of the Constitution is really more of a science. It is the reason why the Academy often says that we are creating “constitutional technicians.” We are not creating “constitutional chefs”, “constitutional artists”, or even “constitutional beauticians”. The game changer consists of a strict application of the Constitution by the people themselves.

The goal is to illustrate that these problems we face as Americans can no longer be resolved on the basis of who yells the loudest or who has the most financial support. It is those very approaches and philosophies which we have allowed and have engaged in that have caused these issues to become such a festering sore on this great land. And, unfortunately, this approach almost always relegates the truth to an irrelevant status. The truth takes the back seat.

So, the invitation is to become one of the few sheepdogs in this country, a freedom-loving species that truly cares about liberty and the rule of law. We must learn to deal with the issues by asking the right questions of our representatives and of others who advocate any number of views. We must learn to first stand for the Constitution and not for necessarily ideas and policies we may think are good or bad. If the rule of law cannot and will not prevail in the minds of Americans, what good are ideas or policies that merely hinge on the whim of those in power? That approach is like a boat with no rudder and no sail and is not suitable for those who wish to be free.

Either the Constitution means what it says and is the ruling document or it is nothing more than a social icon that is not even worth the paper it is written on. You make the choice. However, if your choice is the former, you must remain true and strong in battle. If your answer is the latter, believe me, the sheepdogs are rallying and we will bring the fight. The sheepdogs will howl in the night warning the wolves, who would deprive the people of their freedom, that we are on their trail and will pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to the very cause they seek to undermine. And we, the sheepdogs, will protect the sheep as well, for the poor sheep know not what is at stake.