Rorate Caeli

Events: "Cults" examined in Arlington

KINGDOM OF THE CULTS: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists

Arlington, VA (July 7, 2011)— Deacon Sabatino Carnazzo, M.A. and Subdeacon Sebastian Carnazzo, Ph.D., will present a three-part study on Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists, exposing the true history of these organizations and their flawed theology. The sessions occur on Tuesday, July 12, 19, and 26.

Subdeacon Sebastian Carnazzo received his MA in Theology with a concentration in Sacred Scripture from the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College and his PhD in Biblical Studies at Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. Subdeacon Sebastian is a professor of Sacred Scripture and Biblical languages at Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary of the Fraternity of St. Peter in Denton, NE and and a lecturer in Sacred Scripture for Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. He is also the academic director of the Diaconal Formation School of the Diocese of Tulsa, OK, and lecturer in New Testament for the St. Gregory Melkite Greek-Catholic Seminary. Subdeacon Sebastian, his wife, Leila, and their four children reside in Denton, Nebraska.

Deacon Sabatino Carnazzo, founding Director of the Institute of Catholic Culture, graduated from Christendom College in 2004 and completed a Masters degree in Systematic Theology with an Advanced Apostolic Catechetical Diploma in 2008 at Notre Dame Graduate School. On May 8, 2010, he was ordained to the holy deaconate. In addition to offering frequent lectures at the Institute of Catholic Culture, he is a Lecturer in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Liturgy for the Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, Ok, Diaconal Formation School and the Missionaries of Charity North American Novitiate Formation Program. Deacon Sabatino and his wife, Linda, have three children and live in Front Royal, Virginia.

Join the Institute of Catholic Culture at St. Mary Catholic Church, 310 Duke St., Alexandria, Va. Time: 7:30 p.m. All are welcome. No reservation required. Free Admission. For more information, please visit or call (540) 635-7155.


  1. Thanks for the post. I believe I will make the second's looks like a very informative series.

  2. Anonymous11:34 PM

    The question on everyone's lips... is this the permanent subdiaconate? Or is he eastern?

  3. Anonymous12:14 AM

    By any chance, will there be a recording made of these sessions? I do not live in the area but would nevertheless enjoying hearing the content of the sessions.


  4. If I go to one of the lectures, I will find out if recordings will be available.

  5. Anonymous4:52 AM

    Audio of all their events are available here:

    Please consider donating. They are doing good work.

  6. Anonymous5:14 AM

    I agree with Francis I hope is available on mp3.

    This would be very sessions are very important and could be very informative.

  7. First Anonymous: He is a FSSP subdeacon.

  8. Anonymous11:26 AM

    Poete: I find it hard to believe he's an FSSP subdeacon when it says he has a wife.

  9. Anonymous11:53 AM

    He is a Melkite Catholic.

  10. Anonymous3:48 PM

    How did this unecumenical event get through the censors?

  11. \\The question on everyone's lips... is this the permanent subdiaconate? Or is he eastern?\\

    Maybe to the first, yes to the second.

    It is not uncommon in Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) to become a reader or subdeacon with no intention of taking a higher order.

    These are considered ministries (principally liturgical) in and of themselves.

    I have heard of a Russian Orthodox subdeacon who became such in order to handle the sacred vessels to repair and restore them.

  12. Anonymous at 11:26: My apologies; I misread the announcement.

  13. Anonymous7:08 PM

    In Canada Mormons are Seventh Day Adventists. Too bad Scientology wasn't included in the discussions.

    It's important for everyone to know that these groups target sad and depressed people who have have great emotional needs.

  14. Anonymous8:14 PM


    Are you the Jack from The Anglo Catholic who denies that Mass is a Sacrifice of propitiation?


  15. \\Jack:

    Are you the Jack from The Anglo Catholic who denies that Mass is a Sacrifice of propitiation?\\

    No. And I've never posted on there, though I read it from time to time.

    And what does your question have to do with my comments about permanent sub-deacons in Eastern churches?

  16. In Canada Mormons are Seventh Day Adventists.

    Seventh-Day Adventist Mormons?

  17. Anonymous10:09 PM

    Dear Jack:

    I meant no offence, and the question had nothing to do with your comments here. I have nothing censoriuos to comment about your comments on this thread.

    The Jack on The Anglo Catholic has denied the propitiatory nature of the Mass. He prefers an Eastern Church approach and denies the infallible proposition of Trent mentioned in Denzinger 950. Incredibly, the moderators there refuse to post my corrections and rebuttals, while they continue to let him spew heresy. I am beginning to have grave doubts about the moderators there. I know that Fr. Christopher Phillips is a good man and entirely orthodox. I know less about the others.


  18. Anonymous10:30 PM


    Here is what the other Jack wrote on The Anglo Catholic, and note this everyone. First, he quotes me and then responds:

    "'Propitiation is the principal meaning of the Mass.'

    Hardly, and for two reasons. 1. Propitiation is a pagan concept, indeed the very foundation of pagan sacrifice. It assumes an adolescent yet powerful deity who has thrown a nutty and now must be 'bought off' with an appeasing sacrifice. I'm sorry that Mr. Perkin's god needs propitiation. Mine doesn't.

    2. Expiation is the right word."

    Now Session XXII of the Dogmatic Council of Trent says this "950. Can. 3. If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is only one of praise and thanksgiving, or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the Cross, but not one of propitiation; or that it is of profit to him alone who receives; or that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema [cf. n. 940 ]."

    From Denz. 938 and 940, we can infer that propitiation is the principal meaning of the sacrifice, for it is mentioned first: "that His sacerdotal office might not come to an end with His death (He 7,24) at the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice [can. 1] (as the nature of man demands), whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented, and the memory of it remain even to the end of the world (1Co 11,23 ff.) and its saving grace be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit, declaring Himself constituted "a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech" Ps. 109:4" (Denz. 938). . . . "

    Now this twerp, this twit who claims to be a Latin Catholic, says that he prefers a different soteriology. The wonder is that The Anglo Catholic publishes his every error and rant and refuses to publish my corrections. He has been joined by ye olde fool (a.k.a. ye olde acolyte).

    Yes, The Anglo Catholic loves the FiFers of England, who would rather be Anglican than Catholic (hence they sought a special provision until the very end but the Archdruid turned them down); and it and its controlling moderator don't like the good TAC people one little bit. I am beginning to wonder what sort of heretics we are now handing over the ordinariates to. These are nothing but Novus Ordo Anglicans.


  19. PKTP, if you want to know the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches regarding the Eucharistic Sacrifice, please read the texts of the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and St. James themselves.

    I have nothing to add to what they say.

  20. Anonymous6:41 PM

    From an Orthodox perspective it is amusing when the term "permanent deacon" (or subdeacon) is used since any deacon can theoretically be ordained a priest just as there are no "permanent priests" (why?) since any can theoretically be consecrated bishops. It is obvious that in the West the term was coined so that married men could again be ordained without any danger of them ever becoming priests.

  21. However, even so-called "permanent" deacons can become priests, and sometimes they do become priests after the deaths of their wives. That's pretty rare, though, I think. Also, unmarried men or widowers sometimes become deacons (in which case, however, they may not marry or remarry -- we have one such widower deacon in our parish, a celibate because he was unmarried at the time of his ordination).

  22. Anonymous8:00 PM

    That's all right, Jack. First of all, I've already done it. Secondly, Trent is just fine by me. I don't want to adhere to anything contrary to an infallible teaching as described in Denzinger 950 (i.e. failure to recognise the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice).

    The other Jack on The Anglo Catholic--the one not to be confused with you--seems to have confused Calvinist and Catholic conceptions of propitiation. Our God is not some "adolescent god throwing a nutty". More specifically, He is not so petty and vengeful that He is appeased by torture. That is the Calvinist view: that what appeased the Father was the actual tortures of His divine Son. What we believe is that what appeased the Heavenly Father was not the tortures themselves but Christ's love, manifested in His complete willingness to endure those tortures. Christ's love for us, being perfect, is constant. For this reason, it is accessed every time the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated. At each Mass, Christ applies the fruits of HIs Passion through the hands of the priest, thereby manifesting the very same willingness to suffer for us as before; that is, were the Father to ask Him to endure countless Calvaries, He would do it because His love for us knows no bounds. This means that Christ's will to suffer and to die for us is just as present at each Mass as it was at Calvary. It is the GOOD WILL of our Redemmer that appeased the Father, not the actual sufferings.

    Nevertheless, it is propitiatory because the Divine Justice of God was offended at man's rebellion in sin. There had to be reparation for this so that man could be restored to his perfect state of just obedience.


  23. PKTP, I read this, vis a vis your sparring with "Jack" (not the Jack commenting here) over at AngloCatholic:

    "The fact of the matter is that there are serious problems with the N.O.M. and some of these have been recognised by Benedict XVI himself. The Pope believes that the prefaces and three-year lectionary of the N.O. are admirable because they bring "a richer fare to the table of the Lord". But he is known to be much less keen on the Offertory and Canon of the N.O. as well as some of the optional penitential rites.

    Those of us who have belonged for many years to the Traditional Latin Mass movement are extremely critical of the N.O. Its rubrics make it possible to be celebrated in very unbecoming ways but the main problem is a lack of direct reference to the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice in both the New Offertory and Eucharistic Prayer No. 2. There are also some other serious problems, a major one of which is the means by which this Mass was arranged and, to some extent, even 'composed' in the 1960s. I am exercising extreme restrainst in explaining all of this. To a traditional Catholic, there could hardly be anything more serious in a Mass than a failure to convey the meaning of the propitiatory Sacrifice in overt and direct terms, especially given the fact that E.P. 2 and the New Offertory are open to interpretation as a sacrifce of praise and thanksgiving alone; in other words, they can be read as a Protestant service. Propitiation is the principal meaning of the Mass. Missing it is like not noticing the elephant in the livingroom.

    As for the continuer critics, I am guessing that they fear a loss in terms of traditional Anglican prayers. Well, I do too because these are a cultural treasures which need to be preserved, whereas the new prayers composed for the N.O. are not.


    Well done, Sir!

    This really needs to be shouted from the rooftops! Why is it that only around 30% of "Catholics" believe in the DOGMA of the real Presence in the Eucharist? (Thereby making 70% of Catholics de facto heretics) Well, you answered it, supra, and in your other comment here re Propitiation!

    "Cranmer's [un]Godly Order" has come to pass. As Gherardini says:

    "In all truth Modernism hid itself under the cloak of Vatican II's hermeneutic...The new rite of Holy Mass practically silenced the nature of sacrifice making of it an occasion for gathering together the people of God...the eucharistic gathering was given the mere sense of sharing a meal together...After having said all of this about Vatican II, if someone were to ask me if, in the final analysis, the modernist corruption had hidden itself within the Council documents themselves, and if the Fathers themselves were more or less infected, I would have to respond both yes and no...But yes as well, because not a few pages of the conciliar documents reek of the writings and ideas of Modernism--this can be seen above all in GS."

  24. Could we please get back to the subject?

  25. Dymphna, OK, after this last comment we can get back on the subject. :-)

  26. Anonymous2:22 AM


    He is eastern Catholic.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!