NewChurch “moral theologian” Janet Smith Denies Virginitas in partu

Janet Smith responds to Alice von Hildebrand’s critique of Christopher West
Lima, Peru, Oct 22, 2010 / 01:04 am (CNA).-
Smith also discussed the debate surrounding whether or not dwelling on the details of Christ’s birth displays an inordinate curiosity.
“Von Hildebrand’s response to West’s likening the birth of his son to the birth of Jesus is curious. She believes it is incorrect to think that Mary may have expelled a bloody placenta. Pregnant wombs have placentas,” Smith wrote. “Did not Mary’s? Would it be wrong to think it might have been bloody? Christ’s body was covered with blood when he died, was it not? Scripture itself makes reference to Mary’s womb and breasts; is the placenta really so objectionable that it could not be mentioned?
· Louis Tofari 1 comment collapsed CollapseExpand
Our Lady did not expel a placenta; the Virgin Birth (hence, no blood) was miraculous and did not take place in the normal manner. Such has been related by numerous saintly writers and theologians.
Replying to Louis Tofari

Dear Mr.Tofari,

The “virginitas in partu” (virginity in giving birth) is not just a “pious tradition”…it is a Catholic Dogma “de fide divina et catholica” – which must be believed by “Divine and Catholic faith,” infallibly proposed by the ordinary and universal Magisterium; whose denial on the part of Janet Smith is therefore – formally heretical and presumably malicious: she cannot be excused on account of ignorance. The specific contents of this Catholic dogma are as follows: non-rupture of the physical virginal integrity (I omit the biological term “ex reverentiam”); the absence of labor pains; AND…the “sine sordibus” – the absence of the biological accidents of natural birth: placenta, umbilical cord, etc. Janet Smith’s blasphemous expression, “…pregnant women (sic-!) have placentas,” just indicates her degree of hatred for Our Lord Jesus Christ and his Most Holy and Immaculate Mother…[cf., Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis: “…it was a miraculous birth.” Vatican II: “..whose birth not only did not diminish his Mother’s virginal integrity, but augmented it;” repeated by John Paul II in his catechetical and Marian discourses…]


Virginitas in partu…

In perfect conformity to the official Acts of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican
Mgr Luciani [later Pope John Paul I] retained his devotion as well as his faith in the privileges and prerogatives of the Virgin Mary, founded on the teaching of the Fathers, the Doctors and Magisterium of the Church.
Whilst many bishops read with an indifferent eye the blasphemies of Modernists who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity, Mgr Luciani firmly defended this signal privilege of the Immaculate Mother of God. For example, in his Homily of 12 September 1969:
“Her virginity, during both conception and childbirth, is a miracle that surpasses the laws of philosophy and biology: we profess it by an act of faith, based on God’s evidence […].
“Matthew and Luke expressly say that Jesus was born ‘of the Holy Spirit’. Can one go along with the ‘Dutch Catechism’ and interpret this phrase as follows, namely that Jesus, unlike any other person, is the son of the prophecies and promises inspired by the Holy Spirit over the centuries preceding His coming? Doubtless one can, but only on this condition: that in company with the Gospel, in company with the antique Symbols of the faith and the Magisterium of all time, we add that Jesus was engendered without the intervention of man and that He ‘was born of the Virgin Mary.’ ”
“The preface of the Blessed Virgin expresses it thus:
Father, through the working of the Holy Spirit, Mary didst conceive Thy only Son; and, ever intact in Her virginal glory, didst shine forth over the world the eternal light, Jesus Christ, Our Lord.’
“This is the style employed by the Fathers who, to tell us how Jesus came forth from His Mother’s womb, leaving it intact and without causing His Mother any inconvenience or suffering, all had recourse to the following examples: Christ came out of the sepulchre and appeared to His disciples gathered in locked rooms; a ray of light passes through crystal without breaking it; thoughts pass from one mind to another.”
The quotation on which Mgr Luciani ended his homily shows that he had noted down and retained Pius XII’s most explicit words concerning the Virgin Mary’s Universal Mediation of Grace:
If Peter holds the keys of the Church, Mary holds the keys of God’s Heart; if Peter binds and unbinds, Mary also binds with chains of love; She also unbinds with the art of forgiveness. If Peter is the Guardian and Minister of Indulgences, Mary is the magnanimous and skilful Treasurer of the Divine favors. Those who wish for Grace and yet have not recourse to the Virgin Mary to accomplish their journey, are wanting to fly without wings.”


The Dominican F…

The Dominican Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that an heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head.

The reason is that, whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul, a moral head, as is the Roman Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by the jurisdiction and authority which he received, and these can co-exist with his own heresy.

Adnexa – Fr Garrigou-Lagrange on this topic

Rabid Anti-Sede Rant

I would like to refer my readers – if any – to an article written by a certain James Larson at the following link:

I had written him a personal letter about sedevacantism – he responded by consigning me – in so many words – to the eternal fire of Hell.

This poor man is so confused that he seems to equate the personal faith of the Pope with the charism of infalliblity in his relation to the universal Church as Supreme Teacher in matters of faith, morals, worship and discipline. He seems to be asserting that the Pope can only be a material heretic; never a formal one – all based upon the dogmatic definition of the Vatican Council – !

Diocese of Charleston Approves Sodomy

Open Letter to the Ordinary of the Catholic Diocese of Charleston, AND the Faculty and Staff of Cardinal Newman High School, which falsely claims to be “Catholic.”

The dissenting positions of so-called “practicing Catholics” within the Diocese of Charleston are quite well known with regard to specific moral norms: namely, Catholics who publicly admit the sinful practice of contraception; and, even more to be condemned, sterilization by Catholic doctors; culminating in “therapeutic” abortions and removal of nutrition and hydration from unconscious or comatose patients in so-called “Catholic” hospitals. To this may be added laity and even Deacons who remain active members of Masonic organizations.

All of these persons continue to remain in good ecclesial standing and sacrilegiously partake of the Most Holy Eucharist on a regular basis.

This impiety is nothing new and has been cancerously eating at the Church’s vitals for the last 35 or 40 years.

What is new and unheard-of is the more or less tacit and/or open approval of the homosexual sub-culture and its corresponding public manifestations by recent Bishops of Charleston, clergy, religious, and laity who approve of the evil Vice of Sodomy, whether by silence, evasion, or consent; and a notably feeble defense of the objective moral order revealed by God and infallibly proposed by the ecclesiastical Magisterium for twenty centuries, up to and including, the Pontificate of Blessed John Paul II.

For example, the Synod of Charleston, promulgated in 1995 by the ultra-liberal and feminist-friendly Bishop David Thompson, states as follows: “…the Church in South Carolina is sensitive to the presence of homosexual persons in the life of the Church and civil society.”

This is absolutely equivalent to giving these individuals rights of citizenship in the Church and society which they do not possess as practicing homosexuals.

Their right of citizenship in the Church arises from their Baptism and Confirmation; their right of citizenship in society arises from this being the country of their birth. In these things, they differ from none of the other faithful.

In the January 15, 2012 edition of The State newspaper, in the Section entitled, “Weddings and Engagements,” to the great sorrow and indignation of devout Catholics, many non-Catholics, and even some (orthodox) Jews; one reads the following:

“A celebration of marriage (sic) was held on Saturday, January 14, 2012, at 2pm at the Reformation Lutheran Church in Columbia…Both of the grooms’ fathers served as best men, (this writer’s emphasis), as well as Mr. Robert Dale Watson…” (writer’s emphasis in bold).

“Mr. (Michael, not Robert) Watson is the son of Mr. and Mrs. George Ralph Watson (Athletic Coach – Emeritus of Cardinal Newman High School – not in original text)…He is a graduate of Cardinal Newman High School…(sic)

Robert Dale Watson is an active Faculty/Staff member of Cardinal Newman High School which falsely – and therefore fraudulently – claims to “…form Students in the Catholic Tradition.”

“Some people conclude that their tendency (i.e., homosexual orientation or affect) is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations withinn a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage…(cf., Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona Humana, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, [1975], n. 8).

“…which at least implicitly would constitute an alternative to marriage…even worse when dealing with ‘couples’ of the same sex, something unknown in the cultural histories of people and in law, even if they are not presented as ‘marriage.’ ” (cf., Pontifical Council for the Family, Eucharistic Coherence of Politicians and Legislators, His Eminence Alfonso Lopez Cardinal Trujillo, October 7, 2005)


“…homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of. ” (cf., Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona Humana, Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, [1975], n. 8).

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that (Mr) Robert Dale Watson be immediately terminated from the employ of a Catholic institution which at least claims to be such…

If this is not done, the internal coherence (ad intra) and external Evangelical witness (ad extra) of the Catholic Diocese of Charleston is placed in serious doubt and peril…and all this to the grave detriment of the good of the Church – both local and universal; as well as the glory and honor of God and the salvation of souls, which is the supreme law of the Church.

Jesus of Nazareth – the Infancy Narratives

Benedict is denying the historicity and Divine inerrancy of the Gospels in gratuitously asserting that there were no animals…The Old Testament refers to the animals at the Nativity in both Isaiah and Habakuk…”she laid him in the MANGER”…poor Saint Francis – ! The Fathers and Doctors of the Church – especially Saint Alphonsus – quote from these sources of Revelation copiously in their works [cf., “The Incarnation and Infancy of Our Lord Jesus Chirist.”] They are unanimous regarding the great symbolic meaning of the animals presence as well as the meaning of the manger: the animals symbolize fallen Man with all of his vices; the manger indicates that Christ intends to be our Food and Divine Remedy for these vices in the Most Holy Eucharist…for Benedict to dump all this is an inconceivable impiety. The Church infallibly teaches at Trent, Vatican I, AND VATICAN II – that the Scriptures taken together and in each and all of their parts – are inspired by the Holy Ghost. Admit one “officious lie” or erroneous assertion – and the whole edifice collapses. Benedict XVI is a Modernist who follows the historico-critical method of exegesis – whicgh destroys inspiration at the roots.

Footnote for “Condoms for Male Prostitutes”

* The reigning Pontiff  and the Bishops in communion with him openly and publicly deny primary precepts of Divine and Natural Lawand those who recognize and/or follow them attempt to excuse this with feeble arguments:…the use of a condom by a Sodomite is not the beginning of a “moralization” which helps him “…to appreciate the Divine [-!] gift of sexuality.” [Benedict XVILicht Der Weldt/SCDF] The use of a condom between homosexual men AGGRAVATES the guilt of the unnatural sin…it facilitates the commission of sins against nature with impunity…it shares the same malice as the act itself…WAKE UP – ! The Pope and Bishops are dogmatic and moral apostates…they CANNOT CONTINUE INDEFINITELY  as the regula fidei proxima for the universal Church – this patently violates the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church.

Reverend Federico Lombardi, the Vatican’s Press Office spokesman, is in agreement with Pope Benedict XVI. He said: “…for Benedict, [sic – !] the use of condoms by people infected with HIV could be: ‘…the first step of responsibility, of taking into consideration the risks to the life of the person with whom there are relations, whether it’s a man or woman or a trans-sexual.’ ” [-!]


According to the First Vatican Council, the purpose of the Divine institution of the Primacy is to preserve the universal Church in a visible unity of Faith and ecclesial Communion. Now this purpose or end is vastly hindered throughout the NEW universal “Church of Vatican II.”

Christ the Lord did not found His Holy Church on earth in such a way that the truly Catholic faithful would find themselves in some great Apocalyptic Conflictat every turn and for FIFTY YEARS NOW [1962 – 2012] – with the so called “Pope and the Bishops in communion with him throughout the world.”

In order to skillfully evade the appearance of denying the Dogmas of Apostolic Succession [Trent] and the Perpetual Succession of the Papacy [Vatican I] – the “Novus Ordo” Conservatives and the  “Summorum Pontificum” Traditionalists must posit a PRETENSE THAT THEY [the POPE and BISHOPS]  STILL EFFECT the  VISIBLE REALISATION of the PETRINE SUCCESSION and the APOSTOLIC HIERARCHY…!




According to Cardinal Billot (De Ecclesia):

THESIS: The Roman Pontiff is the proximate rule of faith and morals for the universal Church.

A public heretic cannot be the proximate rule of faith for the universal Church; therefore, the hypothesis of an heretical Pope who remains Pope is impossible.

The Pope, as Shepherd, must feed the flock not with the poison of error, but with the salutary food of sound doctrine; for he is not a shepherd, but a hireling, who administers pernicious food to his flock.”

(James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, 11th ed. [Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1980], p. 104.

When the storm is more violent, then the Church will be without Pilot.” … in Abbé Arminjon, Fin du Monde Présent et Mystères de la Vie Future, one of the favorite books of St Therese of Lisieux.

Christ has allowed this: that the Antichrist, the head of all the apostates, would sit in the Temple of God, his own (true believers) would be exiled, and those who do not belong to God will one day occupy the Seat of Peter.” (Blessed Peter, De miraculis, Liber II, Ch.16; Bollandists, Tome 14, p. 473

From aggiornamento to apostasy (cont.)

There are three dogmas operative here – which most Catholics do not even consider; or, they only consider one, or two – but not all three.

The first is the infallibility of the universal Church: which should have been fully operative at the Second Vatican Council: why then is there moral certitude of error in these documents among so many of the Catholic faithful in vast areas of the Church?

The second is the indefectibility of the universal Church: the Holy Ghost would not allow an ecumenical Council to legislate the destruction of the Church: but all we see is universal apostasy, in doctrine, liturgy, and discipline.

The third is God’s Divine Providence over His Church: which is even broader than the first two: can we believe that God would allow the Holy Mass and the Holy Eucharist to be profaned in a universal and daily manner by the overwhelming majority of His ministers?