BEST PRINTED IN "SMALLEST" SETTING ON YOUR BROWSER
Comments on Replies from Apparitionist Promoter of False Mystical Phenomena
Ronald L. Conte of Catholic Planet
Relative to the Alleged Statement by The Virgin Mary that
"Rome Will Lose The Faith And Become The Seat Of Antichrist"
RON CONTE REPLIES TO MY REQUEST TO REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO
"ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH AND BECOME THE SEAT OF ANTICHRIST"
Dialogue with
Ronald L. Conte of Catholic Planet
Ron Conte's words are in blue font.
Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:29:35 +0200
Hi, i did take a look at your web site and i must disagree.
- Well, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with another person.
- I would be grateful for an official statement from an appropriate authority indicating the truth
of Ron's contention that:
The Secrets of La Salette is not currently surpressed or condemned by the
Holy See, hence the booklet you refer to has the imprimatur.
That the city of Rome becomes corrupt and becomes the seat of Antichrist is also found in
the book of Revelation 17:9, where Rome is referred to as the seven hills, and Rev 18:10,
where Rome is called Babylon.
I don't see why you object so strongly to this idea that Rome would be the seat of the
Antichrist. The idea is not contrary to the Faith. Is there some other city you think is the
correct answer?
Well, Ron., my concern is not whether or not the City of Rome may be (some day) the seat of Antichrist. ( My personal
opinion is that it very well may. But you do not distinguish between the secular "City of Rome", and the "Vatican" -
or more precisely, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church which presently is located in the Vatican State.
No!. My present concern is not with that matter. It is to do with the tarnishing of the honor of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, by attributing to her words which she did not speak. In other words, it is to do with the dissemation of
the false "Secret of La Salette." There is no evidence for its veracity except from the pen of the embittered
seeress, Mélanie Calvat.
Ron Conte Jr, of Catholic Planet - Virgin claims:
- "Perfect Virgin Mary, your perfect virgin life began with a miraculous virgin conception and a miraculous virgin birth..."
- On the same page he refers to "...the Immaculate Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth of Mary."
At Catholic Planet - Dates he says "the Virgin Mary was conceived, solely by a miracle of God, on Nov. 8 of 31 BC at the Temple of Jerusalem..."
Leaving aside any right Mr Conte may have to privately speculate on the date of Our Lord's birth, as far as I have been able to establish, every human being EVER born on this earth (except for Adam and Eve) experienced a virgin birth - that is, was born a virgin!
Another excerpt from Catholic Planet
"The Virginity of Mary is also entirely perfect, therefore she also must necessarily have a Virgin
Conception and Virgin Birth. It cannot be otherwise. The Virgin Mary is perfect, therefore her
Virginity must also be perfect. To be perfect is to be like Christ. Since Christ has a Virgin
Conception and Virgin Birth, Mary must also have a Virgin Conception and Virgin Birth", and
"Mary is like Christ in all things except His Divinity.
Therefore, Mary had a virgin conception and a virgin birth, similar to Christ's virgin conception
and virgin birth."
This is absolutely without ANY corroboration from the Catholic Church's teachings. "Mary had
two normal parents, Joachim and Anne. Her Immaculate Conception was a special privilege in
which she was prevented from contracting the stain of original sin that would ordinarily be
transmitted from the father. If things took their natural course, being a daughter of Adam, she
would have contracted it. She was redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, just like everyone else.
But unlike everyone else freed from sin by that Blood, that Blood prevented her from contracting
sin at all."
Implicit in that argument is the notion that there is something evil about sex itself, and had
Mary been conceived by sexual intercourse, it would have somehow sullied her. Sex is a good
willed by God, and that is how every human person is conceived, including Mary. Jesus could
not have been sexually conceived because He is a divine and not a human person (even though
he has both a human and divine nature). The very person of Christ is the Word who has existed
eternally with the Father. His conception was not the creation of a new person, but the
incarnation of the Eternal Son of God as man. No human father could fit into that since His
true father is God the Father. That is why He is virginally conceived, not because sex in an
evil.
Jim McCrea, Apr. 5, 2002.
The following question and answer from the Fr. Matteo Archives - Sept. 27, 1994 - is located at
CIN The (alleged) Virgin Birth of
Mary
You read the title right, Father. Mary's virgin birth. Not the Virgin Birth of Jesus, but the Virgin
Birth of Mary.
As an amateur theologian in my own right, and a theology and philosophy major at a conservative
Catholic University, Father, I try to keep up with all the teachings of Mother Church. I have
NEVER, in my years of study, seen any indication that the Church either teaches or permits the
teaching that Our Mother was conceived by the Holy Spirit, or that her mother was virgin before
and after Mary's birth, as Mary remained through and following the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Neither have I seen such a teaching put forth by any source of private revelation.
However, I have recently been told by a user on my BBS here in Arlington, VA, that the user, his
father, and his mother, all brought up Catholic, were taught this in their CCD classes in their
younger years.
I thought perhaps he was confusing it with the Immaculate Conception. He stated that he was
familiar with what the Immaculate Conception of Mary is and is not, and claimed to be very clear
that his parents and he had heard this from their teachers, and in fact heard sermons (homilies,
probably, but point is made) on the subject.
In any case, I would like to know if you have heard of this "doctrine". If so, who has taught it?
Is it permissible to believe? Is it a heresy to believe so? This has me very perplexed.
Jeff
Dear Jeff,
The following opinion of Anthony Rosmini-Serbati was condemned by the Holy Office on
December 14, 1887:
"To preserve the Blessed Virgin Mary from the taint of origin, it was enough
for the slightest seed in man to remain uncorrupted, neglected perchance by the demon himself,
from which uncorrupted seed transfused from generation to generation the Virgin Mary might
arise in her time" (Denzinger, 1924).
Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma makes no mention at all of Sts. Anne and Joachim, the
legendary names of Mary's parents. The silence shows that no Church teaching centers upon
them.
Guasten's Patrology, vol. 1, notes that the Protoevangelium of James, the second century
apocryphon which gives us the names of Mary's parents and records her miraculous conception
(not, be it noted, her "Immaculate Conception") was declared heretical by Pope St. Gelasius I
(492-496) in his famous Decretal.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 1, p. 559, says, "Christian married couples find in the parents
of Mary a model of conjugal life such as they do not find in Joseph and Mary, at least on the level
of conjugal relations."
I hope this answers your question.
Sincerely in Christ,
Father Mateo
Copyright (c) 2000 Catholic Information Network (CIN)
Sponsored by St. Gabriel Gift & Book Nook
Jesus' Year of Birth states:
"Matthew explicitly connects the birth of Jesus with the government of King Herod, and the
reference to this ruler's successor Archelaus proves that he meant Herod the Great. The years
during which Herod was King of the Jews are known from [the first century AD Jewish historian]
Josephus [and confirmed by others]. According to his colorful reports, Herod was elected the
king of the Jews by the Roman senate in 40 BCE, and he died at springtime thirty-six years later,
which gives us the year 4 BCE. Matthew thus reports that Jesus was born some time before the
year 4 BCE." [from "Chronology" in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 119] ("BCE" - "Before
the Common Era" is often used among scholars as the calendar equivalent of "BC.") Thus, in
terms of our current calendar, Jesus was born sometime between 4 and 7 B.C., making the
year 2000 - if reckoned more accurately "in the year of Our Lord" - at least 2004!
This would place the BVM's date of birth at between 19 and 22 B.C.!
So! What is the source of Ronald L. Conte's speculation on the "Virgin birth of Mary," and the date
of her birth as being "Nov. 8 of 31 BC at the Temple of Jerusalem during the festival celebrating
the completion of the rebuilding of the Sanctuary." Catholic
Planet - Dates ?
The answer is: none other than "Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich." (cf. His "the Virginity of Jesus and Mary")
Of course, he is wrong as to Anna Katherina Emmerick in respect of her being "Blessed", and in respect
of the correct spelling of her name.
Yes, he gives his sources as being "Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, 'The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary'," and
"Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, 'The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations'," - Tan books. The problem is
that, not only does Ronald perpetuate erors of fact relating to the above, but the books themselves are nothing
but speculations on the meditations of the holy woman named. Whatever is exacted as a quote from the books falsely
attributed to her is still ONLY her meditation, and NOT history. But, Ronald has a far superior authority
than the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, which has NOT taught as Ronald teaches, and, it would
appear in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church has declared what Ronald teaches to be heresy a "condemned error"!
Moreover, in CINBVM Archives,
Jacques Therrien commented on the following passage from the four volume "The Life of Jesus Christ
and Biblical Revelations" Book 1, Pages 129-181, Tan Books.
"Four and one-half months less three days after St. Anne had conceived under the Golden Gate, I
saw the soul of Mary, formed by the Most Holy Trinity, in movement. I saw the Divine Persons
interpenetrating one another. I saw something from the midst of the Three Divine Persons rising towards
the mouth and issuing from it like a beam of light. This beam hovered before the face of God and
assumed a human shape, or rather it was formed to such. As it took the human form, I saw it, as if by
the command of God, most beautifully fashioned. I saw God showing the beauty of this soul to the angels,
and from it they experienced unspeakable joy.
"I saw that soul united to the living body of Mary in Anne's womb. Anne lay asleep upon her couch. I saw
a light hovering over her and from it a beam descended towards the middle of her side. I saw that beam
enter into her in the form of a small, luminous, human figure. At the same time Anne sat up. She was
entirely surrounded by light, and she had a vision. She saw her own person, open as it were and in it,
as if in a tabernacle, a holy, luminous virgin from whom proceeded all salvation. I saw, too, that this
was the instant that Mary first moved in her mother's womb."
Jaques Therrien comments:
This part contains something contrary to present Church teaching:
This says that she saw the "soul" of Mary "united to the living body of Mary in Anne's womb", 4.5 MONTHS (minus
3 days - why this minutia?) AFTER the "conception" of "Mary's body" (described above).
I remember vaguely that earlier Church Doctors believed that the soul entered the body (was created
by God) a few months after conception (perhaps it was St. Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas - I don't remember
exactly). This is probably where this period of a few months comes from - I believe it was around for a long time.
Now, it should be obvious that according to the teaching of the Church, that a "body" without a "soul"
is not a person. That means one could theoretically abort a pregnancy up to the 4th month - this may
have in fact been practiced in the past. That is certainly against the present teaching of the Church.
More precisely, the present position of the Church is that "ensouling" (? - the soul appearing by direct
action of God) occurs VERY NEAR conception, and therefore abortion at "any time" is "killing a person".
The Church to-day would certainly NOT agree that "ensouling" occurs after 4.5 months.
(End quote from Jacques Therrien)
See also the response on depending on the meditations of the (as from April 24, 2001) now
Venerable Anna Katherina Emmerick:
Gary Schaefer wrote:
I have been listening to you all debate this issue about Our Mother Mary's Parents [sic.] and St John the Baptists Parents and How, who,
did what, where and why. It is time to share this with you.
I will quote from the 4-volume book: "The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations" from the venerable [sic.] ANNE CATHERINE
EMMERICH, Stigmatist, Visionary and Profit. [sic.] Book 1 Pages129-181. [sic.] available at Tan Books "http://www.tanbooks.com"
THE HOLY AND IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF MARY (QUOTE)
Anne had the assurance, the firm belief that the coming of the Messiah was very near, and that she herself would be of the number
of His relatives according to the flesh.
For 19-yrs and 5-mos after the birth of there [sic.] first child, Joachim and Anne were childless. They lived in continual prayer
and sacrifice, in mortification and continency.
The anxiety of both and their longing after the promised blessing had reached their
III < -- snipp -->
Apart from noting the fact that Gary Schaefer incorrectly (in 1998) described the mystic as
"Venerable", I would like to point out that Jacques Therrien ably refutes Schaefer's post. It is
well worth reading at CINBVM Archives:
re: Immaculate Conception
The bottom line is that the meditations were definitely NOT the cause for the Church bestowing the title
"Venerable" on Anna Katherina Emmerick (for the first time) on April 24, 2001. In fact, it could quite
easly claimed that that honor was DESPITE the various books spawned - not by her - but by her admirers.
She became entitled to be called Venerable Anna Katherina Emmerick owing to her heroic virtues.
I certainly hope that Ronald Conte, and repairs the damage that he has caused by his pride and disobedience.
There is still the matter of repairing the damage caused by promoting the false "Secret of La Salette",
which is still subject to the prohibitions imposed in the Index of Forbidden Books. See
Practical Effect of Abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books, and
The "Secret of La Salette" Writings Placed on the Index of Forbidden Books - the 1915 to 1925 Decrees
Ronald L. Conte Jnr replies to the above:
His words are in blue, and my response is in black and in italics.
You wrote:
"Guasten's Patrology, vol. 1, notes that the Protoevangelium of James, the second century
apocryphon which gives us the names of Mary's parents and records her miraculous conception
(not, be it noted, her "Immaculate Conception") was declared heretical by Pope St. Gelasius
I (492-496) in his famous Decretal."
The Pope did not declare the idea of a miraculous conception for Mary as
heresy. He was only referring to the Protoevangelium of James as a whole, not to every idea
expressed therein.
- It was NOT I who wrote those words!
- They were written by Fr. Matteo of the Catholic Information Network (CIN) - the source
was given as: The (alleged) Virgin Birth of
Mary
- The same "Errors of Antonius de Rosmini-Serbati" are listed in Denzinger's - my copy being
the 1955 Loreto Publications edition, Item 1924, p.479.
- First of all, Ronald acknowledges that "the whole" was condemned, but, he says, "Not every idea expressed
therein" was condemned. Well, that is true - to an extent! The idea, for example, that the "sons of Israel
were bringing their offerings" on the day of the Lord IS quite in order, and so on. But not every
idea, figure of speech, adverb, conjunction or noun was expressly condemned either. Nevertheless,
the WHOLE document was condemned.
Let us examine Ronald's contention a little further: the very document is on-line at
The Protoevangelium of James. Each
paragraph has been numbered. I wonder if Ronald would support the greater exposure of the idea
brought out in paragraphs 19. and 20. (which I will not re-produce here). These paragraphs deal
with the idea of Jesus, who had been in Mary's womb, appearing from a cloud or a great light; the
mid-wife, whose services were not required after all, met Salome and told her of the strange sight.
Salome disbelieved, saying: "unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe
that a virgin has brought forth."
Would this be one of the ideas upon which Ronald will exercise his "speculative theology"?
Accusing someone of heresy is a very serious matter. Since the Church has
not ruled definitively on whether or not the Virgin Mary had a virgin conception and virgin birth,
you should withdraw your accusation of heresy. You are free to disagree with my views on this
subject, for the same reason.
- There is a difference between calling a person a "heretic", and "believing that a person has
"taught heresy". I am certainly NOT in an authorative position to state that Ronald IS a "heretic".
Only a person in authority is able to do that. If the appropriate authority makes such a
declaration, then others may also use the term in respect of the condemned party. One
may be a heretic formally or materially. Persons may speak or teach heresy without being aware
of the fact. I would suggest that Ronald place his speculations before his local Ordinary for
assessment.
- Inasmuch as it was Fr. Matteo who replied that "her miraculous conception [. . .] was
declared heretical by Pope St. Gelasius I (492-496) in his famous Decretal," it is quite in order
for me to speculate that "it appear in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church has declared what
Ronald teaches to be heresy!" If Ronald is aggrieved, then he can take the matter up with Fr.
Matteo.
- This may be the opportunity to point out the following related matters:
THE SOURCES OF CATHOLIC DOGMA
Translated by Roy J. Defarrari from the Thirtieth Edition of
Henry Denziger's "Enchridion Symbolorum"
Loreto Publications [ http://www.loretopubs.org ]
April 25, 1955
Denzinger's records on Apocrypha:
- THE CREED OF THE COUNCIL OF TOLEDO OF THE YEAR 400 [AND 447]
Item 32, p.14:
12. If anyone either believes that any scriptures, except those which the Catholic Church has
received, ought to be held in authority or venerates them [If anyone says or believes other
scriptures, besides those which the Catholic Church receives, ought to be held in authority or
ought to be venerated], let him be anathema.
- Item 84, p.33:
The "Decree of DAMASUS" from the acts of the Roman Synod, in the year 382 on "The Canon of
Sacred Scripture" lists "the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what
she ought to shun."
It then lists those from
The order of the Old Testament...
[...]
Likewise the order of the Prophets.
[...]
Likewise the order of the histories.
[...]
Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament.
[...]
The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen.
[...]
Likewise the Apocalypse of John.
[...]
Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven.
[...]
The canon of the New Testament ends here.
Items 161- 166, pp. 66-70:
ST. GELASIUS I 492-496
Errors Once Condemned, not to be Discussed Again
Item 162, pp. 67/8
An enumeration of the canonical books similar to that, which we have placed under DAMASAS
[n. 84] is accustomed in certain codices to be set before the special Decree of GELASIUS ...
- Item 166, pp.69/70
The Apocrypha "which are not accepted"
(4) [After the long series of apocrypha has been presented, the Decree
of Gelasius is thus concluded:] These and (writings] similar to these,
which . . . all the heresiarchs and their disciples, or the schismatics
have taught or written . . . , we confess have not only been rejected,
but also banished from the whole Roman Catholic and apostolic Church and
with their authors and the followers of their authors have been condemned
forever under the indissoluble bond of anathema.
- Item 245, p. 94
JOHN III, 561-574
COUNCIL OF BRAGA II 561
17. If anyone reads the Scriptures, which Priscillian has distorted according to his own error, or
Dictinius's treatises, which Dictinius himself wrote before he was converted; or whatsoever writings
of the heretics under the name of the Patriarchs, of the Prophets, or of the Apostles they have
devised in agreement with their own error, and follows or defends their impious creations, let him
be anathema.
- Item 1924 p. 479
Pope Leo XIII
Errors of Antonius de Rosmini-Serbati
[Condemned in a Decree of the Holy Office, 14th of December., 1887]
34. To preserve the Blessed Virgin Mary from the taint of origin, it was enough for the slightest seed
in man to remain uncorrupted, neglected perchance by the demon himself, from which
uncorrupted seed transfused from generation to generation the Virgin Mary might arise in her
time.
- Here is the Catholic
Encyclopedia's entry on St Anne:
All our information concerning the names and lives of Sts. Joachim, and Anne, the parents of Mary,
is derived from apocryphal literature, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, the Gospel of Pseudo-
Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James. Though the earliest form of the latter, on which
directly or indirectly the other two seem to be based, goes back to about A.D.I 50, we can hardly
accept as beyond doubt its various statements on its sole authority. [...]
[...] Since this story is apparently a reproduction of the biblical account of the conception of
Samuel, whose mother was also called Hannah, even the name of the mother of Mary seems to be
doubtful.
[...] According to Ephiphanius it was maintained even in the fourth century by some enthusiasts that
St. Anne conceived without the action of man. This error was revived in the West in the fifteenth
century. (Anna concepit per osculum Joachimi.) In 1677 the Holy See
condemned the error of Imperial! who taught that St. Anne
in the conception and birth of Mary remained virgin (Benedict XIV, De Festis, II, 9). [...]
Concerning my views on Biblical Chronology, my dates are not based only
on Ven. Anna Katherina Emmerick. I also have, in my book Important Dates in the Lives of Jesus
and Mary, a thoroughly researched historical argument for my chronology.
I guess that Ronald is entitled to believe in the tooth-fairy, and to join the Flat-Earth Society,
which still actually operated in the U.S.A.
Thanks for pointing out the correct spelling of her name and her current
status re: pending Beatification.
But that is only one of the minor problems with Ronald L. Conte Jnr's "Catholic Planet" website:
He promotes the false "Secret of La Salette" which places a number of lies in the mouth
of Our Lady, including the "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of antichrist" canard. The
point at issue is his being complacent and compliant with such a dishonor being given to Our Lady.
He promotes "speculative theology" on the "miraculous conception of St Anne" - that is outside the
normal marriage act. This speculative idea has been condemned by the Church on a number of occasions, as
demonstrated, yet he disobediently and pertinaciously persists in its promotion on his website. It
actually promotes honor to the B.V.M.
His sources for such "speculation" (which has developed beyond speculation) are the Apocryphal
"Protoevangelium of James", and the (unapproved by the Church) alleged meditations of Ven.
Anna Katherina Emmerick, who was entitled to that honorific as from April 24, 2001, but whom Ronald
Conte describes as "Blessed". The first named contains passages which certainly run counter to one
of Our Lady's titles: "Mother undefiled"!
For the sake of charity, I have amended the word "heresy" to a "condemned error"!
|
|
