Monday, July 25, 2016

The Illuminati Mysteries

 The Vatican II sect isn't un-Catholic, it's decidedly anti-Catholic. This sentiment goes back to the Great Apostasy at the Second Vatican Council which repudiated Catholicism for Modernism. While Mr. Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) might be the Modernist par excellence, he's just finishing the demolition job begun by his (equally false) predecessors. There is nothing more pleasing to God, after the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, than a filial devotion to His Immaculate Virgin Mother. That's why after turning the Holy Sacrifice into the Novus Bogus bread and wine service, the Modernists waited for the dust to settle before attacking the greatest devotion to Our Heavenly Mother; her Rosary. As this post will show, they succeeded in destroying the Rosary and replacing it with one that is as bogus as their new "mass."

What is the Rosary?

  •   The Rosary was instituted circa 1206 by St. Dominic, who was under Divine Inspiration. He had prayed to the Blessed Mother for help in defeating the Albigensian heresy. (See Encyclical Supremi Apostalatus Officio of Pope Leo XIII, para. # 2, 3, and 4). 
  • The supernatural origin of the Rosary has been specifically affirmed in the official teaching of no less than eleven popes, to wit: Leo X , St. Pius V, Gregory XIII, Sixtus V, Clement VIII, Alexander VII, Blessed Innocent XI, Clement XI, Innocent XIII , Benedict XIV, and Leo XIII (who wrote an incredible ten encyclicals on the Rosary).
  • The purpose of the Rosary is to crush heresy, rout the enemies of the Church, convert souls, and appease the wrath of God justly provoked by the sins of humanity. (Notice how the Modernists made it impossible to pray the Rosary at the Novus Bogus with all the bantering back and forth, shaking hands, and singing such deep spiritual classics as Michael Row The Boat Ashore). 
  • The power of the Rosary is attributable to Mary's unique role as Mediatrix of All Grace. (This prerogative was set to be defined by Pope Pius XII, and many bishops at Vatican II wanted it defined, but Roncalli ["Pope" John XXIII] and the Modernists made sure that never happened). 
  • It is composed of The Lord's Prayer, The Gloria, The Apostle's Creed, and 150 Angelic Salutations (The Hail Mary) which correspond to the 150 Psalms in the Bible. For this reason, the Rosary has sometimes been referred to as "Mary's Psalter."  

The Modernists Plot To End The Rosary

In his book, The Reform of the Liturgy, arch-Modernist and Mason Annibale Bugnini relates that in 1972 he drew up a schema to "reform" Marian devotion and submitted it for approval to the Congregation for Divine Worship. In his diabolic schema, he proposed changing the Rosary so the Lord's Prayer is said only once at the beginning, and the Hail Mary truncated to include only the "biblical portion." The part "Holy Mary Mother of God..." would be said only once at the end of each tenth Ave. He even wanted a "public rosary" consisting of songs, "readings," "homilies," and "a series of Hail Marys,but limited to one decade." Montini ("Pope" Paul VI), still busy destroying the Mass and sacraments, declined to approve the change. 

 Ironically, it would be left to the "Marian Pope"---Karol Wotyla, aka John Paul II---to finish what Montini and Bugnini didn't get around to doing; "reform", or rather "deform" the Rosary. On October 16, 2002, Wotyla issued his "apostolic letter" Rosarium Virginis Mariae ("RVM"). The wretched false pontiff overturned the traditional form of the Rosary as set forth in the bull Consueverunt of Pope St. Pius V. He added five "Luminous Mysteries" in addition to the Joyful, Sorrowful, and Glorious Mysteries. Furthermore, RVM tells us why Wotyla made the changes; to bring the Rosary in line with the new and heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II. The Rosary shall no more be about the crushing of heresy and conversion of those outside The One True Church. It is for world peace and family unity. There's nothing, in and of itself, wrong with either intention. However, it omits the main focus of the Rosary, and presents us with two intentions that wouldn't disturb a Protestant, or even a member of the Ethical Humanist Society. It seeks "unity" without "offending anyone" and 11 years before Bergoglio, reminds us that "proselytism is nonsense."

Let's turn our attention to the two worst aspects of the deformed Rosary (1) the purpose, as per Wotyla in RVM, and (2) the Luminous Mysteries. 

RMV and Naturalism

 RVM was spawned by the same error which drives both Modernism and Masonry: Naturalism, i.e., the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes; supernatural/spiritual explanations are rejected as false. In RVM, there is no mention of how praying the Rosary is to save, namely that it might give divine grace, inspire mortification and sacrifice, elevate souls to supernatural and eternal truths and to a supernatural love of God. This elimination of the clear distinction between the natural and supernatural orders, was condemned by Pope Pius XII in his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis.

In paragraph #11 we are told, "In the recitation of the Rosary, the Christian community enters into contact with the memories and the contemplative gaze of Mary." Meditation is not simply remembering, there is supernatural grace which enables the True Catholic to love and sacrifice for God. Paragraph #12 tells us "By its nature the recitation of the Rosary calls for a quiet rhythm and a lingering pace, helping the individual to meditate on the mysteries of the Lord's life as seen through the eyes of her who was closest to the Lord." The "quiet and lingering pace" has nothing to do with Catholic meditation, as if it were some mantra repeated by a pagan during Yoga.

In paragraph #28 we read, "while the latter (non-Christian forms of prayer) contain many elements which are positive (this is the false ecclesiology in Lumen Gentium, whereby the Church of Christ subsists in false sects according to how many "elements" of truth they have. To have all the elements is best, but just having some is equally good) and at times compatible with Christian experience, they are often based on ultimately unacceptable premises. Much in vogue among these approaches are methods aimed at attaining a high level of spiritual concentration by using techniques of a psycho-physical, repetitive and symbolic nature. The Rosary is situated within this broad gamut of religious phenomena"  (Emphasis mine) The Rosary is situated within the broad gamut of religious experience in the same way the Eucharist is related to the Buddha, so John Paul II allowed the pagan statue to be placed on top of a tabernacle at the Assisi ecumenical gathering. (Thank God, their "Eucharist" is invalid!).

Also the heretical ecumenism is seen because:

  • Throughout the document, the word "Catholic" is never used except in one footnote referencing the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992).  
  • There is no mention of its supernatural origin.
  • There is no mention of the Our Lady of Fatima with the First Five Saturdays devotion (that includes the Rosary) and the Fatima prayer to be recited at the end of each decade, "O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy Mercy."
  • There is no mention of Mary as "Mediatrix of All Grace." 
  • There is no mention of the 15 promises to those whom recite the Rosary.
  • There is no mention of its power to convert people, save souls, and destroy heresy.
  • There is no mention of the miraculous power of the Rosary to save the Church as was the case during the great Battle of Lepanto in defeating the satanic Mohammedans. 
The "Luminous Mysteries"

In paragraph #21, RVM institutes the new "Luminous Mysteries." They are "significant" or "luminous" moments: "(1) Christ’s baptism in the Jordan, (2) his (sic) self-manifestation at Cana, (3) his (sic) proclamation of the Kingdom of God and call to conversion, (4) his (sic)Transfiguration and (5) his (sic, again) institution of the Blessed Eucharist." (Numbering mine). You might wonder what it is that these events have in common to be called "mysteries of light." It is not anything to do with the Blessed Mother, or even with the Redemption. They express the new theology whereby propitiatory sacrifice is eliminated, as was the case in replacing the Mass with a neo-Protestant bread and wine service. The new "Pascal Theology" tells us Redemption is a work of God's mercy and love which He shows to all humanity.There is no need for the Cross except insofar as it is a manifestation of God's Mercy. 

The baptism at the Jordan River was a manifestation of the Triune God. The first miracle of Christ at Cana shows His power over the laws of nature, and RVM denigrates Mary as "first among believers." She might be, in some sense, the first to believe at the Incarnation, but She is not merely some "first among equals," as if her Faith were on par with everyone else. The "proclamation of the Kingdom of God" is nebulous and does not clearly teach the Foundation of One True Church, and no one is called to enter it or be damned. It demonstrates Christ's forgiveness and love in some vague way. The Transfiguration shows forth Christ's Divinity (but RVM simply says "the glory of the Godhead" --we wouldn't want to offend someone with a bold statement of Christ's Divinity now, would we?). 

The fifth and last Luminous Mystery is the most disturbing to me. The Eucharist is called that "in which Christ offers his body and blood as food under the signs of bread and wine, and testifies 'to the end' his love for humanity (Jn 13:1)" (RVM, para. #21). First, there is no mention of the Eucharist as one of the seven sacraments, and no mention of the Most Holy Sacrifice necessary to produce It and which perpetuates the sacrifice of the Cross in an unbloody manner.  Second, the Real Presence is not clearly and unambiguously stated as Transubstantiation. Third, St. John 13:1, is misrepresented. Christ said He loves "His own" until the end, referring to the efficacy of His sacrifice (those who accept and work with grace unto salvation), not all humanity (which has grace sufficient to save all, but not all are saved due to the misuse of free will by those who will be damned). The bottom line in all this is that everyone is saved, because all believe (in some way)  in a type of "manifestation of God's love," and that's all that matters. [One final note of interest to which I owe Mr. Michael Cain of (a website I highly recommend) for the info. If you divide the 150 Hail Marys of the Rosary by the three sets of mysteries (a Trinitarian number), that's 50 Haily Marys. Divide the 200 Hail Marys of the Modernist Rosary by the Trinitarian number 3 and you get 66.6!] 


 These "Luminous Mysteries" are "Illuminati Mysteries" conceived in Hell, and planned out by the Modernists and Masons. The Vatican II sect has given us a non-Catholic bread and wine service to replace the Mass, non-Catholic, invalid sacraments (excepting some baptisms and marriages), non-Catholic theology, and since 2002, a non-Catholic Rosary denigrating the Immaculate Mother of God. In this light it makes a perverted kind of sense when "Pope" Francis tells us, "There is no Catholic God." At least not in his sect. 

Monday, July 18, 2016

Demon Chasers

 I can't help but notice how two things are happening simultaneously in our culture: (1) the rise of atheism and (2) the rise of the occult. It seems contradictory, but it stems from the fact that with the advent of the Great Apostasy of Vatican II, anything goes except the Truth. There is no sure guide condemning modern errors since the death of the last pope, His Holiness Pope Pius XII in 1958. Satan makes the most of the situation by fostering positive Indifferentism (i.e., one religion is as good as another, so who cares what someone believes), negative Indifferentism (i.e. all religions are equally bad, which leads to atheism), and occult practices (which leads them to perdition doing works pleasing to Satan).

 The latest phase in what some have called an "occult invasion" is the Pokemon Go craze which is sweeping the globe. To better understand the craze and what's wrong with it, this post will examine the game and explain the danger.

Beware The "Pocket-Monster"

The very word "Pokemon" is Japanese for "pocket-monster," i.e., a demon. The original Pokemon craze sprang from the popular Nintendo hand-held Game Boy video game and progressed to a 1998 TV cartoon series here in the United States. Pokemon cards, movies and other merchandise were ubiquitous among boys ages 4 to 17. In 2000, sales of Pokemon items was approximately $7 billion dollars. There was a wave of violence over stealing cards and assaulting people to get them. The weird looking monsters are to be captured and "trained" by humans to battle other monsters. If victorious, your monster gains points and "evolves." 

 Pokemon Go is an augmented reality ("AR") game. This is a game where there "is a live direct or indirect view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented (or supplemented) by computer-generated sensory input such as sound, video, graphics or GPS data." To play the game, users download the Pokemon Go app to their IPhone or Android phones. Then they begin hunting down 150 different Pokémon creatures capturing them in virtual reality.Unlike any other game in the past, players must go to certain locations to capture the Pokemon. Various pocket-monsters appear on the screen and they must hunt them down in schools, hospitals, and even churches! It can take you anyplace in your surrounding area. Once at the correct location the app has chosen, you throw a "virtual ball" at the Pokemon to "capture it." As succinctly stated, "For those unfamiliar with the game, it’s a mobile app that puts players into a world of Pokemon. Players can catch the creatures, help them evolve and take them to battle, all while leveling up themselves. The game launched over the week, and despite quite a few problems, it seems like everyone is playing." (See

Since the game's recent release earlier this month, Nintendo stock shot up $7.5 billion dollars. The app is being downloaded more than Instagram, Snapchat, and Facebook. This time, it's not limited to mostly young boys playing. Adults of both genders are getting addicted quickly. 

Danger, Violence, and Big Brother

As Our Lord told us, "By their fruits, thou shalt know them." (St. Matthew 7:16). There is much to worry about this game.

1. Pokemon Go is being used by armed robbers to ensnare victims.
According to The Guardian, "Armed robbers used the game Pokémon Go to lure victims to an isolated trap in Missouri, police reported on Sunday.At about 2am in O’Fallon, Missouri, officers responded to a robbery report that led them to four people, all local residents aged 16 to 18, in a black BMW in a CVS parking lot. The occupants tried to discard a handgun out of the car when an officer approached, said Sgt Bill Stringer. The officer then identified the four people as suspects of similar armed robberies described in St Louis and St Charles counties.The adult suspects were charged with first degree robbery, a felony, and had bond set at $100,000 cash, Stringer said.

Stringer added that police believe the suspects used the phone app, which directs users to capture imaginary creatures superimposed onto the real world, to tempt players into secluded areas where they could be easily robbed. At a certain level in the game, he noted, players can congregate at local landmarks to join teams and battle.

'Using the geolocation feature,' Stringer said, 'the robbers were able to anticipate the location and level of seclusion of unwitting victims.'

In a separate statement, a department spokesperson added: 'you can add a beacon to a pokestop to lure more players. Apparently they were using the app to locate [people] standing around in the middle of a parking lot or whatever other location they were in.'"

This could also be used by pedophiles to lure unsuspecting children.

2. It creates dangerous driving habits leading to accidents.
You aren’t supposed to drive and play; the game reads your geo-location and can tell the speed you are moving. If it senses you are driving, you will be kicked out of the game except if you drive at very slow speeds. In this fashion, the game won’t detect that you are driving.  Driving and stopping while capturing the elusive Pokémon could be even more dangerous than texting and driving. Many accidents have been reported throughout the country.

3. Big Brother (Big Pokemon) Is Watching
You must accept the terms and conditions of the app, which gives the company full access to your Google account. While claiming they are trying to "fix this matter" they COULD:

  • Read all your email
  • Send email as you
  • Access all your Google drive documents (including deleting them)
  • Look at your search history and your Maps navigation history
  • Access any private photos you may store in Google Photos
  • And a whole lot more


Is it Bad just Because of the Name?

Pokemon Go, is dangerous because it combines fantasy role playing and the occult with modern technology. The original Pokemon franchise was developed by "Wizards of the Coast", who gave the world the occult games, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and MAGIC THE GATHERING. What's very disturbing is the concept that children (and adults) are being trained to "capture" demon-like creatures, train and control them, and use them against others.  This closely mirrors what many high-level occultists attempt to do with real demons. According to occult researcher William J. Schnoebelen:

"The magician works from within a specially prepared magick circle which supposedly protects him from the demon as long as he stays inside it. He uses special magickal (many occultists spell "magic" with a "k" to distinguish the attempt to summon demons and such from slight-of-hand parlor tricks--Introibo)weapons like a wand, staff or sword to threaten the demon and make it do his or her bidding. Once the ritual is successful, supposedly the demon belongs to the magician to do his or her bidding -as long as the stipulations of their contract are kept by sorcerer. Often the demon will grant the magician occult powers or give him or her special talismans to control others. This is a large part of high magick. Now, there is barely a dime’s worth of difference between this and what goes on in the ' make-believe' Pokémon universe!" (Mr. Schnoebelen is Protestant, but his research seems well-done. He is at least aware of the Biblical prohibition on such evil practices in Deuteronomy 18:10-12, " There must never be found among you anyone who sacrifices his son or daughter in fire, practices divination, interprets omens, practices sorcery, casts spells, or who is a medium, an occultist, or a necromancer. Whoever practices these things is detestable to the Lord, and the Lord thy God will expel them before thee because of these things."---Emphasis mine)

Some people will protest that it's just a game, and place my warning on the same level as those who see evil everywhere and Black Helicopters are around the corner. Not so fast. Everything we do trains or conditions us for better or for worse. Seeing a movie, reading a book, or playing a game can open an interest in something. Whatever that something may be, it could lead us down a good path or a bad path. Many children and young people have admitted dabbling in the occult as the result of Harry Potter books and movies, as well as by the Twilight series. The pagan website (run by modern pagans--I'm not using the word "pagan" in a pejorative sense) has an article entitled Pokemon and the Great Occult Scare which tries to assure us that Pokemon has nothing to do with the occult. I beg to differ. The very idea of capturing spirits to do your bidding is occult and its practice forbidden by God. It has the worldview that there is no God, just spirits and a set of occult laws. Success is predicated upon using the right ritual. The time spent "chasing Pokemon" could be better spent in prayer, acts of charity, or games/sports/activities that are devoid of occult themes.

Pokemon Go is of occult origin, and introduces children and adults to the world of the occult. It is causing many bad things to happen in just a short amount of time. The game, in augmented reality,  makes you think you're chasing demons to control them.  In actual reality, it's the other way around. Have nothing to do with it.

Monday, July 11, 2016

Conspiracy Theory?

 The moon landing of 1969 never took place, it was rigged by the government in the desert of Arizona. There is proof of extraterrestrial life hidden from us. The Queen of England is behind a plot to decimate over 75% of the human population. These are the headlines one usually reads on the tabloids in the local supermarket. Unfortunately, some Traditionalists make us look no less sane when they claim our theological positions are from mystics, apparitions, and private revelations instead of understanding the theology of the Church that stands firmly behind us.

 This past week, someone sent me a comment for publication (which I declined) claiming to be an advertisement for Masonry and exhorting everyone to "join and get rich and powerful fast." A phony e-mail and phone number were included. The upshot was that Traditionalists are "conspiracy nuts" and not to be taken seriously.("You mean the pope isn't the pope? Haha.") Anyone who reads my blog each week knows that I'm no conspiracy theorist. However, as the old Latin maxim goes, In medio stat veritatis ("In the middle stands the truth."). Masonry is a secret society that has been plotting the downfall of the True Church and Christian civilization since it was founded in the 18th century. Everything is not conspiratorial, but certain things are; we even have the penal code in each state that delineates the crime of conspiracy. Here in New York, Article 105.3 of the penal code defines "Conspiracy in the second degree" as " A person is guilty of conspiracy in the second degree when, with intent that conduct constituting a class A felony be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.  Conspiracy in the second degree is a class B felony."

 Bottom line: is there a conspiracy to overthrow the Church and Christian civilization? In a word, yes. The sources I will cite are hardly on the level of supermarket tabloids.

The Bible

 According to the Bible (Douay-Rheims Version with Challoner notes available at in 2 Thessalonians 2:

[1] And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: [2] That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. [3] Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. [5] Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

[3] A revolt: This revolt, or falling off, is generally understood, by the ancient fathers, of a revolt from the Roman empire, which was first to be destroyed, before the coming of Antichrist. It may, perhaps, be understood also of a revolt of many nations from the Catholic Church; which has, in part, happened already, by means of Mahomet, Luther, &c., and it may be supposed, will be more general in the days of the Antichrist.

[3] The man of sin: Here must be meant some particular man, as is evident from the frequent repetition of the Greek article: 'the man of sin, 'the son of perdition, 'the adversary or opposer. It agrees to the wicked and great Antichrist, who will come before the end of the world.

[4] In the temple: Either that of Jerusalem which some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian church, which he will pervert to his own worship: as Mahomet has done by the churches of the east.

[6] And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. [7] For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. [8] And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, [9] Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, [10] And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:

[10] God shall send: That is God shall suffer them to be deceived by lying wonders, and false miracles, in punishment of their not entertaining the love of truth.

[11] That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. [12] But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: [13] Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. [14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. [15] Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace,

[14] Traditions: See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles.

[16] Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.

Now the Gospel according to St. Matthew Chapter 24 (Ibid):

And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And his disciples came to shew him the buildings of the temple. [2] And he answering, said to them: Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you there shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be destroyed. [3] And when he was sitting on mount Olivet, the disciples came to him privately, saying: Tell us when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the world? [4] And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: [5] For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many.

[6] And you shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled. For these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. [7] For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be pestilences, and famines, and earthquakes in places: [8] Now all these are the beginnings of sorrows. [9] Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall put you to death: and you shall be hated by all nations for my name' s sake. [10] And then shall many be scandalized: and shall betray one another: and shall hate one another.

[11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall seduce many. [12] And because iniquity hath abounded, the charity of many shall grow cold. [13] But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved. [14] And this gospel of the kingdom, shall be preached in the whole world, for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come. [15] When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.

[16] Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains: [17] And he that is on the housetop, let him not come down to take any thing out of his house: [18] And he that is in the field, let him not go back to take his coat. [19] And woe to them that are with child, and that give suck in those days. [20] But pray that your flight be not in the winter, or on the sabbath.

[21] For there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, neither shall be. [22] And unless those days had been shortened, no flesh should be saved: but for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. [23] Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. [24] For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. [25] Behold I have told it to you, beforehand.

[26] If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not. [27] For as lightning cometh out of the east, and appeareth even into the west: so shall the coming of the Son of man be. [28] Wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together. [29] And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be moved: [30] And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all tribes of the earth mourn: and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty.

[28] Wheresoever: The coming of Christ shall be sudden, and manifest to all the world, like lightning: and wheresoever he shall come, thither shall all mankind be gathered to him, as eagles are gathered about a dead body.

[29] The stars: Or flaming meteors resembling stars.

[30] The sign: The cross of Christ.

[31] And he shall send his angels with a trumpet, and a great voice: and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the farthest parts of the heavens to the utmost bounds of them. [32] And from the fig tree learn a parable: When the branch thereof is now tender, and the leaves come forth, you know that summer is nigh. [33] So you also, when you shall see all these things, know ye that it is nigh, even at the doors. [34] Amen I say to you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. [35] Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass.

[35] Shall pass: Because they shall be changed at the end of the world into a new heaven and new earth.

[36] But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone. [37] And as in the days of Noe, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. [38] For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noe entered into the ark, [39] And they knew not till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be. [40] Then two shall be in the field: one shall be taken, and one shall be left.

[41] Two women shall be grinding at the mill: one shall be taken, and one shall be left. [42] Watch ye therefore, because ye know not what hour your Lord will come. [43] But know this ye, that if the goodman of the house knew at what hour the thief would come, he would certainly watch, and would not suffer his house to be broken open. [44] Wherefore be you also ready, because at what hour you know not the Son of man will come. [45] Who, thinkest thou, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath appointed over his family, to give them meat in season.

[46] Blessed is that servant, whom when his lord shall come he shall find so doing. [47] Amen I say to you, he shall place him over all his goods. [48] But if that evil servant shall say in his heart: My lord is long a coming: [49] And shall begin to strike his fellow servants, and shall eat and drink with drunkards: [50] The lord of that servant shall come in a day that he hopeth not, and at an hour that he knoweth not:

[51] And shall separate him, and appoint his portion with the hypocrites. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 The Bible definitely tells us of a conspiracy against humanity by Satan and his agents to bring about our ruination and damnation.

Masonry and Modernism--Working Towards the Same Goals

 Both Modernism and Masonry have their philosophic roots in naturalism, the belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes; supernatural/spiritual explanations are rejected as false. On March 12, 1904, His Holiness Pope St. Pius X issued the encyclical Iucunda Sane, praising Pope St. Gregory the Great, and in which he stated the following about the naturalism in Modernism:

"...all supernatural order is denied, and, as a consequence, the divine intervention in the order of creation and in the government of the world and in the possibility of miracles; and when all these are taken away the foundations of the Christian religion are necessarily shaken. Men even go so far as to impugn the arguments for the existence of God, denying with unparalleled audacity and against the first principles of reason the invincible force of the proof which from the effects ascends to their cause, that is God, and to the notion of His infinite attributes. "For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: his eternal power also and divinity" (Rom. i. 20). The way is thus opened to other most grievous errors, equally repugnant to right reason and pernicious to good morals. 

The gratuitous negation of the supernatural principles, proper to knowledge falsely so called, has actually become the postulate of a historical criticism equally false. Everything that relates in any way to the supernatural order, either as belonging to it, constituting it, presupposing it, or merely finding its explanation in it, is erased without further investigation from the pages of history. Such are the Divinity of Jesus Christ, His Incarnation through the operation of the Holy Ghost, His Resurrection by His own power, and in general all the dogmas of our faith. Science once placed on this false road, there is no law of criticism to hold it back; and it cancels at its own caprice from the holy books everything that does not suit it or that it believes to be opposed to the pre-established theses it wishes to demonstrate. For take away the supernatural order and the story of the origin of the Church must be built on quite another foundation, and hence the innovators handle as they list the monuments of history, forcing them to say what they wish them to say, and not what the authors of those monuments meant...

Not less deplorable are the injuries which accrue from this negation to the moral life of individuals and of civil society. Take away the principle that there is anything divine outside this visible world, and you take away all check upon unbridled passions even of the lowest and most shameful kind, and the minds that become slaves to them riot in disorders of every species. "God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves" (Rom. i. 24). You are well aware, Venerable Brethren, how truly the plague of depravity triumphs on all sides, and how the civil authority wherever it fails to have recourse to the means of help offered by the supernatural order, finds itself quite unequal to the task of checking it. Nay, authority will never be able to heal other evils as long as it forgets or denies that all power comes from God. The only check a government can command in this case is that of force; but force cannot be constantly employed, nor is it always available yet the people continue to be undermined as by a secret disease, they become discontented with everything, they proclaim the right to act as they please, they stir up rebellions, they provoke revolutions, often of extreme violence, in the State; they overthrow all rights human and divine. Take away God, and all respect for civil laws, all regard for even the most necessary institutions disappears; justice is scouted; the very liberty that belongs to the law of nature is trodden underfoot; and men go so far as to destroy the very structure of the family, which is the first and firmest foundation of the social structure." (paragraphs #15, 16, and 19; Emphasis mine).

 In his great encyclical condemning Freemasonry, Pope Leo XIII, wrote in Humanum Genus: 

"What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavoured to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract - that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite.

With the greatest unanimity the sect of the Freemasons also endeavours to take to itself the education of youth. They think that they can easily mold to their opinions that soft and pliant age, and bend it whither they will; and that nothing can be more fitted than this to enable them to bring up the youth of the State after their own plan. Therefore, in the education and instruction of children they allow no share, either of teaching or of discipline, to the ministers of the Church; and in many places they have procured that the education of youth shall be exclusively in the hands of laymen, and that nothing which treats of the most important and most holy duties of men to God shall be introduced into the instructions on morals.

 Then come their doctrines of politics, in which the naturalists lay down that all men have the same right, and are in every respect of equal and like condition; that each one is naturally free; that no one has the right to command another; that it is an act of violence to require men to obey any authority other than that which is obtained from themselves. According to this, therefore, all things belong to the free people; power is held by the command or permission of the people, so that, when the popular will changes, rulers may lawfully be deposed and the source of all rights and civil duties is either in the multitude or in the governing authority when this is constituted according to the latest doctrines. It is held also that the State should be without God; that in the various forms of religion there is no reason why one should have precedence of another; and that they are all to occupy the same place." (paragraphs # 21 and 22; Emphasis mine).

Finally, according to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119; Emphasis in original)

A Common Plan in Practice

From the above we see some common threads of belief, and I will demonstrate their place in modern life.

  • Agnosticism, by which human reason cannot lift itself up to God. 
  • Indifferentism by which religion is to be tolerated at best. Education must exclude God as much as possible. There is no true religion. 
  • The supernatural is non-existent. Atheism is the logical outcome.
  • Moral relativism, because morals cannot come from God.
  • Marriage is whatever the State wants it to be.
So remember, we can't know if there is a God; all religions are equally bad (but Christ is worst); education is to be "godless": there are no miracles; there is no true moral code; and marriage is about whatever the State wants it to be.

 Keeping these diabolic principles in mind, take note of the following in America:
  • A prosecutor mentioned seven words from the Bible in the court lasting a few seconds. As a result, the jury sentence of a man convicted of clubbing a 71 year old woman to death was overturned. (See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 599 A. 2d 630, Sup. Ct. PA, 1989).
  • A federal judge prohibited a minister from teaching a secular anti-drug message in public school, even if he didn't wear clerical garb or identify himself as a minister. (See Alexander v. Nachodoches School District; Civil Action 9:91CV144 [U.S.D.C., E.D. Tx 1991)
  • In Florida, a judge ordered a copy of the Ten Commandments to have "Thou shalt not kill" covered so the jury wouldn't be "prejudiced" (See State of Florida v. George T. Broxton, Case # 90-02930 CF [1st Judicial Cir. Ct., Walton County, Fl, 1992)
  • People of the same sex have a "right to marry." (See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ [2015])
  • Philosopher Peter Singer tells us there is nothing wrong by having sex with animals. According to a review of his paper entitled "Heavy Petting", "The argument that bestiality is unnatural because it cannot lead to procreation is not good enough, he says, because many widely practiced sexual activities, which are seen to be natural, cannot lead to procreation either. Isn’t bestiality cruel and harmful? Not necessarily. Can animals meaningfully give consent to sex? Well, sometimes they initiate it, as for instance a dog rubbing its genitals against a human leg. If the animal shows a preference and there are no harmful consequences, there appear to be no grounds in Singer’s ethical framework to object" (See Singer says, "Once we admit that Darwin was right when he argued that human ethics evolved from the social instincts that we inherited from our non-human ancestors, we can put aside the hypothesis of a divine origin for ethics." 
  • The Ten Commandments may not be posted in public school classrooms because "it's plainly religious in nature." (See Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 [1980]). 
Take note of the following in the Vatican II sect:
  • "Atheists can go to Heaven"--"Pope" Francis
  • "Proselytism is nonsense."--Ibid
  • "Who am I to judge"--Ibid
  •  "Most (changed to "many") marriages today are invalid."--Ibid
  • The Church must "ask forgiveness of the gay person who is offended" because the Church "marginalized" them--Ibid
  • "Never proselytize in schools."--Ibid
  • "The sentence 'Jesus has risen' thus expresses that primitive experience on which all Christian faith is grounded..." (Fr. Joseph Ratzinger--aka "Pope" Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987], p. 184).--Note that the Resurrection is not an historical FACT it is some fuzzy "experience"! 
 The Founding fathers of our country subscribed to the naturalism of Masonry. Many were actual Masons. Add on the Modernist takeover of the former Vatican, and we can see the damage done is no accident. God is out and the "New Atheism" is in. Everything spelled out by the True popes and theologians prior to Vatican II regarding the dangers and plot of the Modernists and Masons has come to fruition. I know Elvis is dead, and the Moon landing really happened. I'll never see conspiracies behind every door. Then again I cannot forget the facts and the warning of Pope Pius VII: "Therefore, omit no watchfulness, diligence, care, and effort, in order to 'guard the deposit' of Christ's teaching whose destruction has been planned, as you know, by a great conspiracy." (Encyclical Diu Satis, paragraph # 11, 1800). 

Monday, July 4, 2016

The Church Can Supply Jurisdiction But Not Common Sense

 It amazes me how otherwise intelligent people often get trapped in error; and those errors are frequently linked. Feeneyites becoming Home Aloners is one such tangled web. Gerry Matatics was a Protestant minister, then became a member of the Vatican II sect teaching at the seminary of the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FSSP), then he became a Traditionalist, fell into the error of Fr. Feeney (denial of Baptism of Desire [BOD] and Baptism of Blood [BOB]), and finally denied that there is jurisdiction for Traditionalist priests to function. (I'm told Mr. Matatics is no longer Feeneyite). He now spends his days going on "mega-tours" visiting a few people in various cities to tell them they must stay "home alone" and not join any Traditionalist chapel; a form of "spiritual house arrest." Theresa Benns is a Home Aloner who engineered the "election" of David Bawden as "Pope" Michael in 1990 by his mother, father, two nice neighbors, and herself during a "Kansas farmhouse conclave." She subsequently wound up denouncing the very "pope" her vaunted "research skills" helped to elect. Bawden "excommunicated" her, and she sits, once more, Home Alone and denigrates the learning (!) of Traditionalist clergy. (Benns is not a Fenneyite, but obviously concocts some strange ideas about papal elections).

   This past Saturday, July 2nd, I was issued a challenge via the comments section on last week's post about Bishop Kurz. One Eric Hoyle was a member of Most Holy Family Monastery in New York, run by the Feeneyite Dimond "Brothers." Mr. Hoyle, a wealthy young man, decided to leave his Protestant religion in which he was raised, and join the Dimond's monastery. He joined them in September of 2005, and donated approximately two million dollars in cash and stock. Hoyle left on or about December 2007, after some doctrinal disputes with the Dimonds. Hoyle then files suit in federal court demanding his money back. On June 22, 2012, U.S. District Judge John Curtin dismissed the suit in favor of the Dimonds.

 Now, Mr. Hoyle sends me a message in which he first quotes from part of my post last week:

" We now know that we are in a state of sedevacante, so priests and bishops can function by means of supplied jurisdiction until such time as the Church should return to Her usual mode of operation. The position of the so-called "Home Aloners," contending that you must stay "home alone" due to a lack of Ordinary jurisdiction in this time of near universal apostasy, is just pure theological ignorance many times discredited."

He then writes the following:

"Dear Sir,

Could you point me to some articles that explain the details of supplied jurisdiction in our times? For example, what is its basis in law, custom, and/or theological commentary? To whom is it supplied? For the internal forum only, or also for the external forum? Is it limited as to persons, times, places, matter, or circumstances?

I suppose these questions should be easy to answer, if all that can be said against supplied jurisdiction is just pure theological ignorance many times discredited. Of course bad arguments have been used in support of a “home-alone” position, but the same can be said for most any position. Bad arguments need not concern us.

I've done some research on supplied jurisdiction for confessions; the result is here. I'd be most grateful if you could point out where I'm in error.

Thanks and may God bless you."

He links me to a 192 page monograph that attempts to prove that Traditionalist priests have no jurisdiction to hear Confessions, except when someone is in immediate danger of death. Of course, there are rare exceptions explored, and he does not claim to pronounce definitively on the subject in his "book," but as you can see from the comment he e-mailed, he seems pretty sure of himself. I don't have the time for a 192 pg rebuttal because the practice of law and having a family is time consuming, so I have but one post per week on Mondays. Having skimmed through his monograph, I will attempt to point out the basics of what's wrong with his contention in this post.

Preliminary Considerations
There are two questions that need to be explored: (1) Can God supply jurisdiction outside the norms of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and (2) Does God supply jurisdiction through extraordinary means, or is there a solution within the Code of Canon law itself?
  •  God normally supplies the grace of Baptism by water. However, God is not constrained by His precept. BOD and BOB can substitute for water. Likewise, God is not constrained to supply jurisdiction as spelled out in Canon Law. Jurisdiction itself is necessary, how that jurisdiction can be obtained is not dogmatically defined. Conclusion: God could supply needed jurisdiction outside of the constraints of Canon Law. 
  • There are logical grounds for implying extraordinary conferral of supplied jurisdiction outside of Canon Law. Conclusion: We could safely infer God does supply jurisdiction outside the Code.
  • Even if not convinced by mere implication, there is proof God can and does supply Traditionalist priests with jurisdiction within the Code of Canon Law itself

God Can Supply Jurisdiction Outside Canon Law--And With Good Reason

 Canon law embodies some prescriptions of Divine Law and some of ecclesiastical origin. For example, the need for natural water in baptism is of Divine Law. You could not substitute milk for water, even in danger of death. No pope could change this, because the requirement comes from God. On the other hand, the need for a papal mandate to consecrate a bishop, or the amount of time needed for the Eucharistic fast is of ecclesiastical origin and is subject to change by the Supreme Pontiff, who is above Canon Law. As a matter of fact, the Eucharistic fast was modified by Pope Pius XII. Could a real pope modify Canon 209 dealing with supplied jurisdiction? That jurisdiction is necessary for the validity of confessions is of Divine Law, how it is given has never been dogmatically defined. I know of not one approved pre-Vatican II canonist or theologian who teaches that the norms for supplied jurisdiction within the 1917 Code of Canon Law is of Divine prescription and could not be changed. Hence, a pope could change the way jurisdiction is supplied. The means of giving jurisdiction is therefore of ecclesiastical origin and can be altered.

 The Divine Law trumps ecclesiastical law. There is good cause to believe that God must supply jurisdiction outside of canon law, because of grave harm to the faithful.  The Home Alone ("HA") position would have us deprived of Confession in virtually all cases outside immediate danger of death. The consequences of this cannot be limited to the sacrament of Penance. It affects the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Eucharist, and Holy Orders. 

 As a corollary of not having Confession, we would then be deprived of the Holy Eucharist. Remember that the Eucharist gives us great Graces. It is Divine Food for the soul, preserving and increasing the supernatural life of the soul. "Reception of the Blessed Eucharist is not necessary by an absolute necessity of means, but by a relative or moral necessity...It follows from the definition of the purpose of the Eucharist as nourishment for the soul, that without it supernatural life cannot be permanently maintained." (See theologian Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 397). To receive the Eucharist worthily, one must be in a state of Grace. Confession before Communion, not an act of perfect contrition, is to be used except in extraordinary circumstances.

 What constitutes such circumstances whereby the Sacrament of Penance may be replaced by an act of perfect contrition? According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, "Examples of cases in which an act of perfect contrition suffices are not many. If the communicant is already at the rail before he remembers an unconfessed mortal sin, the act of perfect contrition suffices. This is also true if a member of a wedding party, when all its members are to receive Holy Communion on the morning of the wedding, remembers on the morning of the ceremony that he is not in the state of grace. In 1938, the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments  issued an instruction with regard to the reception of almost general daily communion in boarding schools and religious houses in which, among other provisions, it required that, to prevent the danger of the sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion, a confessor should be available on the occasion of the distribution of Holy Communion." (See The Sacred Canons, 2:856-857). In regards to regaining the state of grace, "the Council of Trent forbade under penalty of excommunication the teaching of the view of Cajetan, who held that the obligation of recovering the state of grace through confession was not a grave one." (Ibid, n. 22 pg. 800). 

 So the reception of Communion, and the ability of any priest to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (should he commit mortal sin) disappears under HA theory. Priests and bishops would be prevented from offering Mass and hearing Confessions, so why have them? This would be a grave and harmful situation, and would seemingly prevent the Church from carrying on Her Divine Mission. However, the Church can not be impeded from Her Divine Mission and could never sanction any law conducive to the injury of souls. "The church's infallibility in disciplinary matters when understood this way, harmonizes beautifully with the mutability of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change of circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification." (See Van Noort, 2:115; Emphasis in original)  So if the law for supplied jurisdiction doesn't cover the extraordinary times, God can make it so; He is not bound by Canon law! 

Hoyle writes: "But nowhere does the Code supply jurisdiction to all priests for hearing confessions in urgent necessity short of danger of death. The absence of such a provision shows that the lawgiver did not intend to supply jurisdiction in such circumstances by a provision of Canon law." (Eric Hoyle, pg. 30; Emphasis in original). Again, why is God bound by His canon law? Certainly, if He can supply the grace of baptism without water, He can supply jurisdiction without following every jot and tittle of canon law! Even theologian Miaskiewicz (the favorite theologian of the HA crowd) wrote:"..the law behind laws is concerned with the protection of the good of the people for which they were enacted. They were becoming more and more convinced that the legislator did not intend any man-made laws to bind any longer if, when, and as the observance of that law or its enforcement would defeat the very purpose of its institution: namely, the public good." (See Supplied Jurisdiction According To Canon 209, pg. 39)

Conclusion: We can safely imply God supplies jurisdiction for Traditionalist priests and bishops.

 St. Alphonsus and Danger of Death

 Now, what about those who are not satisfied with a mere (yet well-founded) implication? They want more than an implication, no matter how logical. OK, let's play the HA game that God is somehow bound by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Jurisdiction, they will admit, is supplied to ALL priests when the penitent is in danger of death. The death knell of the HA position is provided by St. Alphonsus Liguori, whom the Holy See has pronounced all his opinions safe to follow in practice. He writes: "Is any priest able to absolve from any sins and censures, not only at the point of death, but also in danger of death? This is denied by [various names] but more truly and more commonly affirmed by...The reason for this is that in this matter, the danger in taken for the point, as is clear from...For in such a case, anyone in mortal sin is bound to confess in the same way as if he were at the point of death. This is accepted by...provided that such a danger be so grave that it can scarcely be distinguished with certainty from the point: but, more immediately, it seems to be sufficient that there be prudent fear that death will arise in the danger. Now such a danger is considered to be present in a battle, in a long sea voyage, in a difficult delivery, in a dangerous disease, and similar cases...The same is true of one who is in probable danger of falling into insanity (amentia)...and the same of those who are captives among infidels with small hope of liberty. For it is believed that they will have no other priests in the future."(See Theologia Moralis, Bk.6, no. 561, Q.2) 

 As Traditionalist John Daly notes, we are in "the same position as those who are captives among infidels with small hope of liberty and with excellent reason to believe [we] will never have access to any priest possessing jurisdiction in the future. Thus we can be sure that any truly Catholic priest to whom we do have access, even if he be bereft of jurisdiction and laboring under excommunication, can lawfully and validly absolve us."

 Mr. Hoyle, I hope you are in good faith. Your academic credentials and writing/research skills are outstanding. What great work you could do for the remnant Church! I really don't know how you fell in line with sophists like the Dimonds and gave them such large sums of money which will spread the Feeneyite error. While the Church does supply needed jurisdiction for Her priests, She can't supply anyone with good judgement and common sense. I'll be praying for you. 

Monday, June 27, 2016

A Forgotten Hero

 This past May 22nd marked the fiftieth anniversary of the first Traditionalist Bishop to take a stand against the Modernist Vatican II sect. The name will be a surprise to many. It's not the name Lefebvre (he didn't come onto the scene until 1969), it's not Thuc (unheard of until the mid-1970s), it's not Mendez (he wouldn't be around until the late 1980s), and it's not de Castro Mayer (he fought to keep the Faith only in his diocese of Campos and would not do more until the 1980s). It was Bishop Blaise Kurz, a bishop of Faith and courage rarely ever seen, especially since the world-wide Deformation that was Vatican II.

 When the historical revisionists of the Society of St. Pius X tell us that Archbishop Lefebvre was the "first and only" bishop to fight the Modernists (with Bp. Antonio de Castro Mayer a distant second place), I can't help feeling angry. In this post, I want my readers to know the truth about a brave bishop who is rarely (if ever)  credited in the fight for "Truth and Tradition."

Who was Bishop Blaise Kurz?

 He was the only bishop from the Rhineland who was staunchly Catholic and refused to be won over by the likes of arch-Modernists Joseph Frings, and Bernard Alfrink. Blaise Kurz was born on the feast of St. Blaise, of a pious German Catholic family in the town of Sontheim in 1894. As was the case with many European Catholics, children were named after the saint's feast on which they were born (if the saint was of the other gender, the name of a saint with the same gender whose feast day was closest to the child's birthday got picked).  

 From an early age, Kurz felt called to the priesthood. On December 21, 1919, he was ordained to the holy priesthood by the great Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber of the Archdiocese of Munich. Cardinal von Faulhaber wasn't merely anti-Nazi, he wanted the restoration of a Catholic monarchy! Ironically, this brave prelate ordained two men to the priesthood who would clash directly at Vatican II---the aforementioned Blaise Kurz, and Joseph Ratzinger in 1951. The Cardinal passed in 1952. 

Fr. Kurz was ordained a Franciscan, and as a loyal son of St. Francis, he spent the next 20 years of his life as a missionary priest in China, converting the pagans to the One True Church of Christ. On July 11, 1939, the 45 year old missionary was informed that the newly elected and crowned Pope Pius XII had chosen him to be consecrated as a bishop; with the pope himself as his principal consecrator. So it was that on the feast of Christ the King, October 29, 1939, Fr. Kurz was raised to the episcopacy by His Holiness with Archbishops Celso Constantini and Henri Streicher as co-consecrators at the main altar of St. Peter's Basilica.

The young bishop was assigned by the pope to the Diocese of Kokstad, South Africa. Kokstad is a small town on the slopes of the Drakensberg Mountains, in the province of KwaZulu-Natal, overlooking South Africa’s southern coast. The bishop spent the next eight years living in a large institute for the deaf and mute. While there, he met a Franciscan missionary priest from the Belgian Congo, who came there when an inner ear infection threatened to make him deaf. This priest was Fr. Adhemar DePauw, the older brother of Fr. Gommar DePauw who would found the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964. Fr. Adhemar and Bp. Kurz, both zealous for the salvation of souls, became good friends. Soon after the outbreak of World War II, the Protestant British in charge of South Africa placed German-born Bp. Kurz under arrest because "Germans can't be trusted." Apparently, not even when they are Roman Catholic bishops appointed by the pope and have been law-abiding citizens all their lives.

 Fr. Adhemar came to the rescue. Using his influence as a Belgian citizen, and with the help of his father's money, the government allowed the bishop to be bailed out and placed in Fr. Adhemar's custody. After the war, in 1948, Pope Pius XII appointed Bp. Kurz as the Ordinary of the newly created Diocese of Yungchow, China--putting him back in the country he loved and where he made many converts to the Faith. He took canonical possession of the diocese on May 21st of that year. The very next year, the Communists took over China, and Bp. Kurz was ordered back to Rome. He barely escaped with his life. As a reward for his Apostolic zeal, Pope Pius granted to Bp. Kurz the privilege of a "personal prelature" of sorts, whereby he retained Ordinary jurisdiction with all the rights of any other diocesan bishop even though his diocese was suppressed by the Communists.

In 1949, Bp. Kurz was invited by Francis Cardinal Spellman to take up residence in his Archdiocese of NYC--the Cardinal was virulently anti-Communist and thought the good bishop would like the United States. That same year, Fr. Gommar DePauw immigrated to the U.S. and was incardinated into the Archdiocese of NYC. His brother flew in from Belgium to introduce them--two anti-Communist, anti-Modernists taking up residence in the USA. Needless to say, they became good friends as well. From 1949 to 1962, Bp. Kurz spent his days much like a humble parish priest, except when asked by the Cardinal to perform a Confirmation. Fr. DePauw relates that the way he was degraded by some pastors was shameful; treating his German accent as "proof" that he was "an enemy of freedom."

[A note to my readers: You will see the words "incardinated" and "excardinated" used in this post. When in normal times, a priest needed to be under the jurisdiction of a prelate with Ordinary jurisdiction. In most cases, this means belonging to a particular diocese. A priest is said to be incardinated when he belongs to a particular diocese or personal prelature. Excardination means the priest has been freed from the jurisdiction of his superior to be incardinated elsewhere. This was a big concern immediately after Vatican II. The situation was not fully understood. We now know that we are in a state of sedevacante, so priests and bishops can function by means of supplied jurisdiction until such time as the Church should return to Her usual mode of operation. The position of the so-called "Home Aloners," contending that you must stay "home alone" due to a lack of Ordinary jurisdiction in this time of near universal apostasy, is just pure theological ignorance many times discredited. ---Introibo]

Bp. Kurz and Vatican II

 In 1959, Angelo Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII) called for an ecumenical council. This would be the beginning of the Great Apostasy. Bp. Kurz was entitled to attend. His Excellency called on Fr. DePauw to be his peritus (i.e., "theological expert") at the council. Father was now a canon lawyer, having obtained his doctorate in canon law (JCD) from Catholic University, Washington DC in 1955. He had been incardinated into the Archdiocese of Baltimore, where he was in charge of admissions, as well as professor of Canon Law, Moral Theology, and Latin at Mount St. Mary's Seminary. However, in December of 1961, Archbishop Francis Keough died and was replaced by "gay friendly" Lawrence Shehan from Bridgeport, Connecticut. His first act as the new Archbishop was to remove Fr. DePauw from his position in charge of admissions and appoint a Modernist priest who was "pastoral" to those who feel attracted to the same sex and think they may have a "vocation." 

 Bp. Kurz fought along side Cardinal Ottaviani and the other anti-Modernists with Fr. DePauw at his side. The bishop was told by Arch-Modernist Frings to "fall in line" with the Rhineland bishops and their heretical novelties, to which he replied he would never abandon the Catholic Faith. He even tried (in vain) to convince Leo Cardinal Suenens of Belgium to "come back to the Faith and leave those lousy traitors [i.e., the Modernists]" While most of the prelates stayed at the finest hotels in Rome, Bp. Kurz, ever mindful of the evangelical counsel of poverty, chose to stay at Villa Maria Regina, which at that time was a guest house of the Sisters of Notre Dame in Rome. 

 After the Council, Bp. Kurz was broken in spirit. Lest anyone start throwing stones, this was an unprecedented time of near universal apostasy, and he didn't know how to react. He was open to the idea of sedevacantism as his ordination of Gunther Storch to the priesthood clearly demonstrates. Storch was later consecrated a bishop by Abp. Thuc in the 1980s. On December 31, 1964,  Fr. DePauw sent his Catholic Traditionalist Manifesto to every single Catholic bishop in the world, asking them to join him in preserving the Traditional Mass and "That, while truly respecting all non-Catholics who follow their conscience into what in candid honesty we must continue to call objective errors or partial truths, our bishops, priests, religious and laity alike renew their truly ecumenical efforts to proclaim the full unadulterated doctrine of Christ's Catholic Church in a world that desperately needs it." ---a slap at heretical ecumenism! Of the nearly 2,000 bishops, only Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, and Bishop Kurz publicly supported it and the newly founded "Catholic Traditionalist Movement" (aka "CTM").

 When Fr. DePauw was ordered by Shehan to disband the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, Bishop Kurz intervened. With the help of Cardinal Ottaviani, Shehan signed the excardination papers for Fr. DePauw, and he was incardinated into the Diocese of Tivoli, Italy. The bishop of Tivoli then allowed Father to be incardinated under the direct episcopal jurisdiction of Bp. Kurz, who immediately ordered Fr. DePauw to continue his work with the CTM.  "Cardinal" Shehan was furious! He denied signing the excardination papers and "suspended" Fr. DePauw. Bp. Kurz went toe to toe with Shehan, and on January 17, 1966 made the following public declaration carried by the news media; it read in pertinent part:

 "I consider any attack on Father DePauw, at whatever the source or with whatever person that attack may originate, as an attack on my personal integrity as a bishop of the Catholic Church. I most solemnly declare that the statements released by Father DePauw to the media [about his being incardinated with Bp. Kurz after release by Shehan--Introibo] ...contain the truth and nothing but the truth." Then on May 22, 1966 at the Garden City Hotel in Long Island, NY, Bishop Kurz made the following historical step at a press conference when he stated to the world: "I recommend the Catholic Traditionalist Movement to all Catholics willing to defend our Church.  While the active leadership of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement will remain with Father De Pauw, I have today accepted the position offered me by that Movement's Board of Directors, and will henceforth publicly function as Bishop-Moderator of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement."

Not one bishop was willing to join him! Bishop Kurz consecrated the Ave Maria Chapel in Westbury, NY on August 10, 1968. Fr. DePauw had purchased the Chapel from an Eastern Orthodox bishop who wanted to sell and move elsewhere. In 1968, 1969, and 1970, he administered Confirmation to all members of the CTM who needed it. He returned to West Germany, where he was despised by the German Modernists. They sought to have his faculties removed by their Satanic leader, Montini ("Pope" Paul VI). That never happened, as Montini did not want to make a martyr out of a brave missionary bishop, now in his 70s. Bp. Kurz refused to say the Novus Bogus, and publicly offered only the True Mass and Sacraments for small groups of German Traditionalists.

Fr. DePauw had built a beautiful Bishop's Residence across the street from the Chapel (which still stands unoccupied to this day) and invited Bp. Kurz to spend the rest of his days at the Chapel and not deal with the relentless heretics in his native Germany. Bishop Kurz agreed, only to fall suddenly very ill and unable to travel. When the good bishop asked Abp. Lefebvre, who started the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in 1970, to fill in for him and Confirm at the Ave Maria Chapel, the Archbishop responded in a letter to Fr. DePauw: "As far as Confirmation is concerned, it is clear that this is a very delicate thing for me to do…I have to be very prudent in this area." He ultimately declined to help a bishop who fought by his side at Vatican II. While I respect all the Archbishop has done, please remember this when the SSPX harps on how fearless Lefebvre was and how cowardly were all other bishops.

Bp. Kurz died in West Germany on December 13, 1973, at the age of 79. He never was able to set foot in his residence at Westbury, a place fit for a bishop. He was buried in the cemetery of the Franciscan seminary where he had been ordained to the priesthood 54 years earlier. He was placed in a grave with some 20 other Franciscan missionaries bearing the simple epitaph of "Missionary Bishop of China."  No mention of his 54 years of service and suffering for the Church, and no mention of his defense of the True Faith and Church as Moderator of the CTM.(What else could be expected?) It's been said the truly great ones are the truly humble ones, so I guess it's only fitting that he was laid to rest as humbly as he lived his life, in imitation of Our Lord.

Answering "Monday Morning Quarterback" Critics

  •  Didn't Bp. Kurz recognize the false post-Vatican II popes? Yes, but he was open to sedevacantism from the very start. He never obeyed their evil laws, he rejected the errors of Vatican II, and was proud of the fact that he NEVER (not even once) said the Novus Bogus bread and wine service. He offered the True Mass his whole life exclusively. He remarked that "the greatest thing I ever did was what I didn't do"--say the invalid abomination that was called a "mass" and produced by Vatican II. This was a novel situation. Had he lived longer into the Great Apostasy, I believe he would have been a sedevacantist. He called the Vatican II sect apostates (and those who claimed to be anti-Modernists but wouldn't stand up with him) "dirty rats who have for all times forfeited their right to be called Catholic bishops." It is my personal belief that Fr. DePauw was a sedevacantist since at least 1999 (he was my spiritual father, whom I knew very well). 
  • Why didn't he ordain priests and consecrate bishops? He did ordain two priests from seminaries taken over by Modernists--one being the sedevacantist Bp. Gunther Storch. He died less than ten years into the Vatican II sect's creation. People are great at telling others what should have been done after the fact, and when they weren't there and privy to all the circumstances of the day. It's no different than the "armchair quarterback" who tells everyone on Monday what the losing Superbowl quarterback "should have done" to win the game yesterday. 
  • How can he be said to have any real significance? A Traditionalist priest I admire and respect very much honestly said to me, "If it hadn't been for that (Fr. DePauw and Bp. Kurz), I wouldn't be a priest today." Father and the good bishop led the way for Lefebvre, Thuc, Mendez, and the others to follow. They were the first to sound the alarm and fight the good fight. Contrary to what many believe, who knows what bishops would have come forth if they had not encouraged all to follow them in open rebellion against the Modernist Vatican II sect?!

 Fifty years ago, a very brave successor of the Apostles stood up for a very brave priest in a fight for "Truth and Tradition." It's my pious belief that should the Church be restored to Her former glory with a True Pope, we will see the feast days of St. Gommar of Westbury and St. Blaise of Sontheim. If it is God's Will that this mess shall remain until Christ returns in Glory, I can't help but think that Father and His Excellency are together smiling down upon all of us Traditionalists, as we try to fight the good fight. It was God Who inspired them to start this battle just over a half century ago; a battle we continue today. I admit that I get upset when Fr. DePauw--and even to a greater degree, Bp. Kurz--get ignored for their rightful role in keeping the True Faith alive in the wake of Vatican II. However, I remember that all the heroic good deeds they did are remembered by God. In the end, isn't that all that really matters for any of us?  


Monday, June 20, 2016

Islam, Sodomites, And Violence

On Sunday, June 12, 2016, American-born Mohammedan Omar Mateen, 29, of Fort Pierce, Florida, gunned down 49 people at a homosexual nightclub in Orlando. Mateen called 911 during the attack to pledge allegiance to ISIS and mentioned the Boston Marathon bombers, according to a U.S. official. Orlando police shot and killed Mateen. He carried an assault rifle and a pistol into the packed Pulse club about 2 a.m. Sunday and started shooting, killing 49 people and wounding at least 53, officials said. This was the worst act of terror since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

 Of course in the media, it's seen as a act against sodomites, while claiming simultaneously (without proof) Mateen was bipolar to avoid attacking Islam. It's about mental illness, not religion; or so the left-wing secularists would like us to think. The Chief Communist of the United States, Obama, refuses to denounce Islam in any way, even by avoiding the phrase radical Islam to marginalize the threat that wicked, false religion poses. Vatican II sect "Bishop" Robert Lynch went so far as to blame "Catholicism" (sic) which "targets" and "breeds contempt for gays, lesbians, and transgender people," as one of the "causes" of the shooting. This same character is against banning Moslems from entering the U.S. saying there are "as many good, peace loving and God fearing Muslims to be found as Catholics or Methodists or Mormons, or Seventh Day Adventists." That Mr. Lynch could make such outrageous statements shows you just how far into apostasy (and stupidity) the Vatican II sect  has sunk. (The false "god," Allah, is not the same as the True Trinitarian God. Mormons are polytheistic. What "god(s)" do they fear, Mr. Lynch?).

 Truth be told, both Islam and those who practice unnatural vice are both prone to violence. The following run down of facts will never be seen in the mainstream media. Warning! Some graphic language will be used in this exposé. 

Mass Murder and Homosexuality

The top six American male serial killers were all homosexual:

  • Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky
  • John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard
  • Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways
  • Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois
  • A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he had sex with their corpses--"necrophilia").

The pathology of eating one’s sexual victims also characterized Milwaukee’s Jeffrey Dahmer in 1992. He not only killed 17 young men and boys, but cooked and ate their body parts. The association between serial murder and homosexuality isn’t recent. Two gays compete for the spot of “world’s worst murderer.” During the Nazi reign of terror, Auschwitz executioner Ludwig Tiene strangled, crushed, and gnawed boys and young men to death while he raped them. Though his grand total is uncertain, he often murdered as many as 100 a day. Gilles de Rais (Bluebeard) brutally destroyed the lives of 800 boys. Each lad was lured to his home, bathed and fed. Just as the poor boy thought "this is my lucky day," he was raped, then killed by being ripped or cut apart and either burned or eaten.

A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals (See Cameron, Dr. Paul,  [1983] "Is homosexuality disproportionately associated with murder?" Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Assn Chicago.) Lesbian Aileen Wuornos laid claim in 1992 to "worst female killer" with at least 7 middle-aged male victims. She single-handedly topped the lesbian nurse team of Catherine Wood and Gwen Graham, who had killed 6 convalescent patients in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Jim Warren, who worked as a counselor at the Washington State Corrections Center, did the intake interview for almost all the younger murderers (i.e., under age 36) in the state of Washington from 1971-82 (during the growth of the so-called "gay rights movement"). He was "probably the only one who examined the entirety of each of their case files." Warren testified that he was struck with how frequently homosexuality turned up in the cases (See Warren, J,  [1989] Testimony before the Law and Justice Committee of the Washington State Senate December 15).

The data supports that most violence comes from within the sodomite lifestyle and gets exported. It does not come mostly from the outside against them. Homosexuals are a danger to society, not the other way around. The FBI reported 431 hate crimes against homosexuals for the U.S. in all of 1991. Only one was "confirmed" for Washington, D.C. — yet D.C. gay activists claimed 397 incidents! When pressed, they admitted that at least 366 of these "crimes" consisted of "verbal harassment." (See Washington Blade (1993) "FBI releases stats on hate crimes." January 1, pg.1).  [Research for this section compiled by the Family Research].

Islamic View on Homosexuality

 Mohammedans despise unnatural vice but not for the reason Christians do. According to scholar Bruce Dunn, Islamic states place a distinction between the homosexual act (which is acceptable), and the emotional attachment, which is not acceptable. "Sexual relations in Middle Eastern Societies have historically articulated social hierarchies, that is dominant and subordinate social positions: adult men on top; women, boys, and slaves below." (See Dunne, B, [Spring 1998], The Middle East Report, "Power and sexuality in the Middle East."). Sex in Islamic society is about male pleasure through domination. A Mohammedan who sodomizes another is not seen as homosexual, only the one who gets sodomized. According to The New York Times, Male prostitution has been rampant in Islamic society right up to the modern day. They are even frequented by high ranking officials. (See NYT, 6/23/02 "Iran by the Numbers") 

Please take note, if Mateen wanted to kill sodomites for their practices, why not target a "gay bathhouse" where anonymous sex and spreading disease is the name of the game? He targeted a nightclub which shows them in a more "romantic" way, consistent with what I reported above. 

Summary and Conclusion
  • The attack in Orlando, Florida had nothing to do with lack of gun control or generalized concepts of "hate." It was an attack by a Moslem acting upon the violent beliefs enshrined in the Koran. 
  • Homosexuality is a moral disorder which breeds violence, disease, and moral corruption as the traditional family unit is further mocked and destroyed. 
  • Islam is all about violence--jihad. It brooks no peace among "infidels" and disrespects any host country that is not an Islamic state.  
  • Sodomites are not "victims" and Islam is not "mostly peaceful." 
  • The media will use this tragedy to engender sympathy for homosexuals and downplay the role of Islam. Anyone who states otherwise will be derided as having mental problems, i.e. "homophobia" and/or "Islamophobia."
  • "We the people" makes no sense in our Constitution unless there is a people who care about the country. We have the (condemned) principle of "separation of Church and State" in our Constitution. Even so, Islam is a special case, and must be treated as the dangerous cult it is, seeking to overturn our very existence as a nation. They clamor for freedom to practice their religion while acknowledging that if and when they come into power, they will force all to submit to Islam or perish. Keep them out.
  • The open practice of sodomy must be criminalized once more, and marriage defined as between one man and one woman. 
 With the Vatican II sect firmly committed to the perverts and Islamic infidels, if strong measures are not taken quickly, I fear for what is coming in the not too distant future. It should be no surprise that the lies of the "gay lobby" and Islam are linked to serious acts of violence. Did not Our Lord say of Satan, " He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof." (St. John 8: 44). 


Monday, June 13, 2016

Seeing Is Believing

 In the comments section to my post two weeks ago (5/30/16), a certain truculent reader derided Traditionalists as "delusional." This reminds me of the Communist regimes who label as "insane" anyone who doesn't agree with Marxism, consigning them to asylums. I challenged him to prove his assertion (I'm always up for a civilized debate). However, he wanted me to divulge my identity, which I refuse to do as I remain anonymous (a) so as not to expose my family and friends to repercussions from the enemies of the Faith in the world, and (b) because I have no ego--whatever good this blog may do, I give all glory to Christ, to Whom it rightfully belongs. Moreover, an argument stands or falls on its own merits. A sound, valid argument can be made by anyone, as can a fallacious argument. Therefore, my identity (and his) are of no consequence to the merits of sedevacantism.

 The one telling remark he made, so common among Vatican II sect apologists, is that I was called by God to "this important work [ blog] for the invisible Roman Catholic Church anywhere except Rome." This is the argument that without a pope actually sitting on St. Peter's Chair in Rome, the Church loses Her visibility, which means sedevacantism cannot be true. While it is correct that the pope is the visible Head of the Church, even as Christ is Her invisible Head, it is false that the Church is 'invisible" without a pope to fill the Divinely established office of the papacy.

First, some preliminary remarks about the papacy are in order. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

 Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

The Vatican Council (1870) On The Papacy

 The next mistake made by the defenders of the Vatican II sect is to distort the infallible teaching of the (real) Vatican Council of 1870, in its decree Pastor Aeternus which decrees:" Therefore,if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by Divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."  This has been wrongly interpreted by some as follows:

"The Visibility of the Church is directly linked to the Roman Pontiff. And while during an interregnum the church is "Popeless," for a short period of time, this is not a part of the ordinary constitution of the Church and must necessarily be of short duration. The longest interregnum in the Church to date is less than three years. If the sedevacantists are right, then the present interregnum is ten times greater than that one. Thus the visibility of the Church, embodied in the person of the Roman Pontiff is non-extant. In this awful scenario, the only true Church is constituted of individual priests and bishops in their respective chapels, none of whom have valid jurisdiction, and none of whom report to anyone higher than themselves as authorities. This is not a visible Church; it is a Protestant Church." 
(Brother Andre Marie M.I.C.M--as approvingly quoted by Vatican II apologist I. Shawn McElhinney in his online "treatise" entitled  A Prescription Against Traditionalism at ) I find it supremely ironic that McElhinney quotes a Vatican II Fenneyite, Bro. Andre Marie, who gets Catholic theology wrong at every turn in defense of his thesis that sedevacantism is a "heresy" because of the Vatican Council's 1870 decree.

The (1870) Vatican Council's definition was directed against heretics who contended that (1) the Primacy was an extraordinary power Christ gave to St. Peter alone, (2) Christ did not intend it to be passed along in perpetuity to his successors, and (3) this power either died with Peter, or was passed along to the Church or episcopal college. (See Dorsch, de Ecclesia, 2:191-2) The definition therefore means, "a primacy of true jurisdiction, together with a full scope of rights and duties would continue in the Church, and this in virtue of the will of Christ or by divine law." (Dorsch, Ibid 2:191)

Moreover, there was a de facto interregnum for 51 years during the Great Western Schism from 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff. Prior to this, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or none) could be the true pope. Which one was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit? Was the Church a "three headed monster" during this time? If you chose wrongly (in an age of limited education with no Internet or daily papers) are you "schismatic" and damned to Hell? There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith.

Let's not forget the Great Apostasy foretold in the Bible, and taught by the Church. According to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119; Emphasis in original) This is not incompatible with the visibility of the Church even though there most likely will be no real pope in hiding.

 The real nail in the coffin was delivered by theologian Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century. He wrote a book in 1882 (a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...
The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree." (Emphasis mine).

Summary and Conclusion
  • The visibility of the Church is not bound to an actual, living pope on the throne of St. Peter.
  • The Vatican Council's 1870 decree on the papacy has been misconstrued. The institution of the papacy is perpetual; there is no need nor guarantee of actual men to fill that See.
  • The Great Western Schism sets historical precedent for a de facto interregnum of 51 years. 
  • The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church. 
  • It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as an "heretical pope"--an oxymoron)

My pugnacious antagonist in the comments section of 5/30/16 is like many members of the Vatican II sect whom wrongfully think the Mystical Body of Christ must have an actual pope to fill the See of Peter or the Church is "invisible." In the words of Bro. Andre Marie, if  the Church is not visible by having a true and recognizable pope the True Church is really "a Protestant Church (sic)." What's really invisible to them is the Truth. "Do you have such hard hearts? ‘Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear?’...(Our Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in St. Mark 8: 17-18)