Monday, May 21, 2018

Sacramentals


 In this time of the Great Apostasy, there are many Traditionalists who are not fully aware (or who have false beliefs) regarding a great source of graces; the sacramentals. The word sacramental first appeared in the 12th century, and was used by theologians of the time in a very general sense. The devout pronunciation of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, and giving alms to the poor were considered "sacramentals." The same designation was given to the conferring of the white garment in Baptism, which was later called by the proper title of a ceremony.

All theologians since the time of the Council of Trent use the term sacramentals to designate a class of sacred things, instituted by Christ's One True Church, that are, in some respects, similar to the Sacraments. The Church has given Her official approval by defining sacramentals in Her Code of Canon Law: "Things or actions which the Church is accustomed to use somewhat after the manner of Sacraments, to obtain by Her prayer, effects, especially of the spiritual order." (See 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1144).

The Modernists and Protestants deride sacramentals as "superstition" as they eschew not only the miraculous, but much (if not most) of the supernatural order. On the other end, there are some Traditionalists who actually do make the sacramentals into something superstitious by ascribing to them powers they do not possess. The pseudo-Traditionalist Dimond brothers actually used to tell people that it was impossible to go to Hell if you died wearing the Brown Scapular! They eventually recanted such a ridiculous position. The purpose of this post is to give the authentic teaching of the Church on sacramentals. All the information is condensed and from, and credited to, theologian Connell in his most informative work The Sacramentals, The Paulist Press, [1930].

The Difference Between a Sacrament and a Sacramental

  The Sacraments are exactly seven in number and were all instituted by the historical Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of the human race (although all seven Sacraments are not necessary for each individual). The sacramentals are numerous, and have no limit since they are of Ecclesiastical institution. Only the Holy See may institute a sacramental (Canon 1145). The manner in which sacramentals confer grace is markedly different as well. Sacraments confer graces ex opere operato (i.e., loosely translated "by virtue of the action," means that the efficacy of the action of the Sacraments does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God as expressed by Christ's institution and promise). 

 Theologians do not agree as to whether the sacramentals may confer grace ex opere operantis (i.e.,through the action of the one who uses them). Those who hold the negative opinion argue that as the Church cannot confer sanctifying grace nor institute signs thereof, neither can she institute efficacious signs of the other graces which God alone can give. The sacramentals do not infallibly produce their effect, as do the Sacraments. However, sacramentals have a special efficacy of their own. If their whole value proceeded from the the action of those who use them, all external good works could be called "sacramentals," but such is not the case. 

The special virtue recognized by the Church and experienced by Catholics in the sacramentals should consist in the official prayers whereby the Church implores God to pour forth special graces on those who make use of the sacramentals. These prayers move God to give graces which He would not otherwise give, and when not infallibly acceded to, it is for reasons known only to His Perfect Wisdom. God is aware of the measure in which He should bestow His gifts. Many theologians teach that the disposition of the person using the sacramentals can open them to receive even more graces. 

The Classification of Sacramentals

Sacramentals may be classified under three general categories: exorcisms, blessings, and blessed objects. Each will now be considered.

1. Exorcisms. An exorcism is a command, given to the devil and his demons, ordering them, in the name of God, to depart from some person, place, or thing. Holy Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teaching of the Church testify conclusively that God sometimes permits the fallen angels to exercise a certain influence over the doings of humanity. This may even go so far as taking up their abode in the body of a living person, which is known as diabolical possession. When the demons hurt people from without, their activities are known as diabolical obsession.

The purpose of the Church's exorcisms is to compel Satan and his evil cohorts to desist from their malicious interference in human affairs. By employing exorcisms, the Church is acting after the example and by the authority of Her Divine Founder Jesus Christ, Who during His earthly life frequently cast out demons from possessed persons (See e.g., St. Matthew 8:28; 9:32). Christ also commissioned His Apostles, and their successors, to do the same (See St. Matthew 10:8). A considerable number of exorcisms are found in the Church's liturgical books. Some of these are for ordinary use in sacred functions, such as those used in the preparation of Holy Water. Other, most solemn exorcisms, are meant only for established cases of diabolical possession or obsession. Only priests and bishops can perform exorcisms.

One of the four Minor Orders a man receives on the way to becoming a priest, is the order of Exorcist, which constitutes him an official minister of the Church's exorcisms. This, along with the other three Minor Orders, and the Major Order of Subdeacon, were all abolished in the Vatican II sect by command of Montini ("Pope" Paul VI).

2. Blessings. A blessing is a prayer that draws down God's favor on some person or thing. The Church has established two kinds of blessings: constitutive and invocative. A constitutive blessing is one that makes a person or a thing sacred (i.e., dedicates a human being or an inanimate object in a special way to the service of God). Such are the blessing of a monk when he is raised to the office of abbot, the blessing of a Rosary, and the blessing of Holy Water. The more solemn forms are called consecrations, such as the consecration of a Church or Chapel by a Bishop.

An invocative blessing is one that obtains the Divine assistance for those on whom it is pronounced without rendering the person or thing as sacred. Such a blessing can be imparted to a person directly or indirectly. An example of a direct invocative blessing is the blessing of the throats in honor of St. Blaise on February 3rd. This does not make the person or his throat sacred, but asks Divine protection against ailments of the throat. An example of an indirect invocative blessing is the blessing of a house, which does not make the house sacred, but invokes God's favor on those who dwell within it.

Holy Mother Church has a maternal interest in all facets of our lives which is why we find so many and diverse blessings in the Rituale Romanum, the book which prescribes all the rites for the Sacraments and sacramentals. The ordinary minister of blessings is a priest, but for consecrations, a bishop is usually necessary. Making the sign of the cross, one of the oldest and most efficacious blessings, can be bestowed upon anyone who does it devoutly to himself/herself.

3. Blessed Objects. The third category of sacramentals comprises objects that have been blessed with a constitutive blessing. This includes Holy Water, Rosaries, scapulars, statues, medals, pictures, oils, cords, and the like. An object that receives a constitutive remains sacred until it has been destroyed or substantially altered. Thus a Church or Chapel is no longer consecrated if the greater portion of the walls collapse. A blessed candle's drippings are not sacred, nor is a chalice that has been melted down.

To be beneficial as a sacramental, the blessed object must be used devoutly and not for secular purposes. There is no merit bestowed on one who wears a crucifix merely as an ornament, or hangs up a blessed picture due to its aesthetic value.  In case of necessity one can used a sacred object for a profane use, e.g., to use blessed candles during a blackout if no regular candles are available. However, to use such candles for decorative purposes while dining would be a sin of sacrilege.

Besides possessing value as sacramentals, blessed objects are often enriched with indulgences. The indulgences attach whenever the object has been properly blessed according to the Rituale Romanum by a validly ordained priest. One interesting exception are scapulars. Once a person has been duly enrolled by a priest in the five-fold scapular, any subsequent scapular need not be blessed (five-fold, or any of the individual scapulars that comprise it). Merely be wearing it, the enrolled person makes the scapular efficacious.

How Sacramentals Work

 The sacramentals cannot impart graces directly to the souls of people. That power is only to be found in the Sacraments. The sacramentals produce their effects indirectly through (a) the disposition of the recipient, and (b) through the prayers of the Church. By making pious use of sacramentals, a person animates himself with pious sentiments. For example, by gazing on the crucifix, we can bring forth sentiments of love for God and sorrow for sin. By virtue of these sentiments, we can render ourselves worthy to receive from God some favor in the spiritual or material order. 

The sacramentals possess  special efficacy from the prayers of the Church. The One True Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is ever pleasing in the sight of God. Consequently, the prayers and good works of the Church as a perfect society are most powerful to obtain Divine favors. In establishing the sacramentals, the Church promises to join Her own prayers and the intercessory value of Her good works to the dispositions of those who devoutly employ these sacred things and actions. Thus, whenever a person devoutly uses a sacramental, the most pleasing prayers of the Church are directed to God for him or her, and that is what gives sacramentals their special spiritual value. 

The Effects of the Sacramentals

 There are five (5) chief effects of the sacramentals:

1. The dedication of a person or a thing to God. This effect is produced by constitutive blessings and consecrations.

2. The repression of evil spirits. This is particularly true of exorcisms; but it is also produced by other sacramentals, most notably, the sign of the cross, Holy Water, the St. Benedict Medal, and the St. Benedict Crucifix-Medal.

3. Actual graces. In consideration of the disposition of the person, and especially because of the prayers of the Church attached to its use, God imparts to the user actual graces, whereby he is empowered and urged to perform supernatural acts of virtue. Unlike the Sacraments, the sacramentals have not the power of conferring sanctifying grace. However, sacramentals can lead to the attainment of sanctifying grace. If a sinner prays the Rosary devoutly, he may receive an actual grace which enables him to make an act of perfect contrition, and thereby merits sanctifying grace. The actual graces may also prevent someone from losing sanctifying grace through mortal sin.

4. The remission of venial sin and of the temporal punishment due to sin. By the devout use of sacramentals, a person is led to perform acts of virtue that contain, at least implicitly, a detestation of his minor transgressions. Through these acts, the person obtains from God the remission of these sins, and also a remission of some portion of the temporal punishment due to them. 

5. Temporal favors. The primary end of the sacramentals is the spiritual health of the soul. Nevertheless, it is lawful to use sacramentals for temporal favors such as good health and success in business, etc. 

Those for Whom the Sacramentals are Intended

 The Church has established the sacramentals for Her members, first and foremost. To receive the full measure of of their effects the Traditionalists who use them should be in the state of sanctifying grace. However, those not in the state of grace may use sacramentals with profit as it may turn the sinner away from sin and to God's friendship once more. 

In Her zeal for saving souls, the Church extends the use of sacramentals to those outside the Church (unless there is a positive prohibition to the contrary). Hence, blessings and exorcisms may be used on non-Catholics. In giving Her blessings to non-Catholics, the Church prays most especially that they may enter the One True Church. (See Canons 1149, 1152). 

The Church excludes from the benefit of sacramentals those who are excommunicated and under the ecclesiastical censure known as personal interdict. Also excluded are those who, without the necessary and proper dispensation, and conscious of their sin, have contracted a mixed marriage (See Canons 2260, 2275, and 2375). Only exorcisms may be pronounced over those excommunicated (See Canon 1152). 

Conclusion

In using sacramentals, two extremes are to be avoided. On the one hand, no one should despise them as something superstitious or intended for use by "ignorant people" as the Modernists hold. On the other hand, people must not view them as endowed with miraculous power or having infallible powers against temporal evils. The primary purpose of sacramentals is spiritual, not temporal. Hence, one who has received the St. Blaise blessing may die from a disease of the throat. One wearing the scapular may drown. Neither the scapular, nor any other sacramental will save you from Hell if you are in unrepentant mortal sin, or die as a non-Traditionalist Catholic. 

In this time of the Great Apostasy, make use of all the sacramentals you can: the Rosary, the five-fold scapular, statues, St. Benedict Crucifix-Medal, the Cord of St. Joseph, the Cord of St. Philomena, medals of your patron saint, Holy Water, St. Joseph oil, the Green Scapular, etc. However, let them be incentives to piety, and do not deceive yourself that you can live as you please and expect God's grace. To quote from the Second Council of Baltimore in 1866: "Let them especially reprehend those who use these sacred things [sacramentals] like charms, such as the heathens have, to preserve them from the wrath of God even when they are sunk in the mire of the most hideous vices."  

Monday, May 14, 2018

Intent On Causing Harm


 The Traditionalist bugbear that everyone of the faithful will hear at some point, is that Masonic clergy or an "unstable" prelate within the Catholic Church, lacked the proper intention to confer Holy Orders when they ordained/consecrated priests and bishops to continue the True Church after the Great Apostasy of Vatican II. The logical result is that any Traditionalist priests who were ordained by these bishops, or by other bishops who derive their episcopal orders from them, are dubious and must be avoided. Your only choice is to be a Home Aloner or find some elderly priest ordained pre-1968. All Traditionalist priests come from one of three episcopal lineages: (1) Archbishop Peter Thuc, (2) Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and (3) Bishop Alfred Mendez.

 The enemies of the Faith calumniate each of them. Abp. Thuc and Bp. Mendez (so we are told) were either senile or "unbalanced" and couldn't have had the proper intention for a valid conferral of a sacrament. Abp. Lefebvre was ordained and consecrated by an alleged Mason who supposedly withheld his intention on purpose to destroy the Church, which resulted in the Archbishop remaining as a mere deacon. Recently, I saw a website putting quotations around all Traditionalist clergy titles (e.g., "Fr."). I have dealt with the issue of Archbishop Lefebvre before; See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/05/doubting-yourself-in-extreme.html; see also http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/08/sophistry-on-steroids.html.

 In this post, I will try to deal concisely with the objection to lack of intent. Once Church teaching has been set forth, the case against Traditionalist orders on such specious grounds will melt away.

The Requirements for a Valid Sacrament
A sacrament is a visible sign of an invisible grace, instituted by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the human race; however, not all sacraments are necessary for each individual.

 There are four indispensable requirements to confect (i.e. "make") a valid sacrament: proper administer who uses proper matter, form, and has the intention to do what the Church does. The administer (or "minister") must be the person who can perform the sacrament (e.g., a priest for Penance and a bishop for Holy Orders). The matter is the sensible sign that must be used (e.g. bread and wine at Mass). The form is the necessary words that must be used by the minister of the sacrament as he applies the matter (e.g., saying "THIS IS MY BODY" over the bread at Mass). Finally, the minister must intend to do what the Church does while applying the matter and form. (See theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, 8:59-60). 

Self-styled "theologians" call into question the last requirement: the intention to do what the Church does.

What Constitutes A Proper Intention?

 Why must the minister of a sacrament have an intention? God will not force anyone to do something. The minister of a sacrament must have free will, and therefore be able to perform a rational, human act. According to theologian Ott, "The human minister is a creature endowed with reason and freedom. The act involved in the execution of the administration of the Sacrament must therefore be an actus humanus [human act], that is, an activity which proceeds from understanding and free will."(See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 343). Again, theologian Davis teaches, "That he [the minister of a sacrament] must have some intention is clear from the fact that he is to act as a rational agent, and to act rationally some intention is necessary" (See Moral and Pastoral Theology, 3:16; words in brackets mine). 

To be valid, a virtual intention is at minimum necessary. According to theologian Davis, "... virtual intention suffices, for this suffices for a human act, and therefore for the sacramental act." (See Moral and Pastoral Theology, 3:17). According to theologian Ott, a virtual intention is "that disposition of the will, which is conceived before the action and which continues virtually during the action." (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pgs. 343-344). In simple terms, it means that we can perform an intended act while being distracted. When I drive to work, I intend to drive, but I'm distracted by a phone call from a client on my bluetooth. I don't specifically remember all the details of driving, but it was a human act of a rational agent who wanted to drive but was distracted while continuing to (and wanting to) drive.

Theologian Davis comments as follows:
Some attention is necessary in conferring the Sacraments as in every human act. In internal attention, there is usually full advertence to what one does. So much is, obviously, not necessary, for we do many things and act in a human way without this advertence. A lesser degree of attention is therefore sufficient and this is called external attention, which, though internal in itself, is very vague, but is sufficient to carry us through a human act, provided we do nothing that is incompatible with a full internal attention if it were suddenly required. It would be an error to call this act purely automatic. Such external attention is present when one assists at Mass without conscious advertence to what is going on, but at the same time without engrossing the mind with things that are not compatible with true attention to Mass. It is possible, for example, to recite the Rosary and attend to Mass; it is not possible to concentrate the mind on an abstruse mathematical problem and at the same time to attend to Mass. This kind of external attention, as it is called, is sufficient in prayer, in reciting the divine office, in hearing Mass, in receiving the Sacraments, and in conferring them. It is not necessary, therefore, to have actual attention to what is being done in conferring the Sacraments, but as some attention is necessary in every human act, the most that can be required is that amount and degree of advertence to what we do which is not incompatible with what we do.(See Moral and Pastoral Theology, 3:20).

 What must the administer intend, exactly? You must intend to do what the Church does, not intend to do what the Church intends. According to theologian Ott, "The minister... does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the Sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite. It suffices if he have the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians [i.e., Catholics]. (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 344; word in parenthesis mine).

The Presumption of Validity

 There is a rebuttable presumption (praesumptio juris tantum) that every time a Catholic cleric seriously undertakes to perform a sacrament it is done validly. It is presumed that the correct matter, form, and intention were all present. Pope Leo XIII clearly teaches:

"A person who has correctly and seriously used the requisite matter and form to effect and confer a sacrament is presumed for that very reason to have intended to do what the Church does." (Papal Bull Apostolicae Curae [1896]).

According to theologian DeSalvo, "As long as the lack of proper intention is not externally manifested, the Church presumes that the intention of the minister is correct." (See The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments, [1949], pg. 105).

The theologian Leeming says this passage of Pope Leo XIII above recapitulates the teachings of previous theologians who "...all agreed that the outward decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists.… The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash." (See Principles of Sacramental Theology [1956], 476, 482.).

The reason for this principle is clear: Divine Providence will prevent the Church from defecting. While we can never know with absolute certainty (without Divine revelation) if any particular sacrament is valid, we have moral certainty, and the assurance that the Church will continue. Each week at Mass, you don't know if the priest tampered with the bread and or wine. You don't know if he correctly pronounced (and included) all the necessary words of Consecration. He could have done such things, but it is never to be presumed. On moral certainty, the Church allows us to adore that which looks as mere bread as Jesus Christ Himself.

The reason for this presumption is spelled out by theologian Courtemanche, "...it would be monstrous for the law to presume that what the mouth speaks is not in the heart, since that would be tantamount to presuming the presence of a lie." (See The Total Simulation of Matrimonial Consent, [1948], pg. 41).

Application of the Foregoing Principles to Abp. Thuc and Bp. Mendez

 The majority of Traditionalist clergy come from Archbishop Peter Thuc (1897-1984), the former Archbishop of Hue, South Vietnam. The clergy of the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), derive their episcopal orders from Bishop Alfred Mendez (1907-1995), the former Bishop of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Both were in advanced age when they consecrated the bishops for Traditionalists. Abp. Thuc turned 84 in 1981 when he consecrated Bishops Guerard des Lauriers, Carmona, and Zamora. Bishop Mendez was 86 when he consecrated Bishop Clarence Kelly for the SSPV, and the bishop had recently recovered from a stroke. 

The first accusation against them both is that they were senile, and didn't understand what they were doing. Furthermore, Abp. Thuc had consecrated the "seers" of the phony Palmar de Troya fiasco in Spain back in 1976. Naturally, only someone "crazy" would do such a thing. It has been alleged that Bp. Mendez did some strange things--like claim that he was wearing lay clothes because "the mob was after him." He too, therefore, is "crazy."

As we have seen, the Church sets a low bar, not a high one, in what is necessary for a sacramental intention. In order for the consecrations to be declared invalid due to senility, it would mean that Bps. Thuc and Mendez were so "out of it" that they didn't know what they were doing, and had no intention to do it while performing an episcopal consecration. There are numerous photos and witnesses that attest to the fact that both bishops were able to navigate the difficult, hours-long consecration ceremony and were able to pose for pictures. These are hardly the actions of someone who has tragically gone the way of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who had no idea who he even was towards the end of his life.

Abp. Thuc during the complex consecration ceremony of the great Dominican theologian M.  Guerard des Lauriers



Magazine put out by SSPV showing Bp Mendez sitting next to the newly consecrated Bp. Kelly. Inside are several up close pictures of the bishop consecrating Clarence Kelly with the assisting priests.

As to charges of insanity, in the case of Abp. Thuc, it was the SSPX that suggested to someone involved with the "seers" to ask Abp. Thuc to come and check out the alleged apparitions. The fact that Abp. Lefebvre did not dismiss it, and that Abp. Thuc wanted the Great Apostasy to end, can easily account for why he did something rash and foolish. Being "rash and foolish" does not equate to insanity. A proper medical authority would have to certify someone as habitually insane or suffering dementia in order to overcome a presumption of proper intention. That was never done. Abp. Thuc, going back and forth to the Modernist Vatican, makes him fickle in a time of complete confusion, not insane or unable to maintain the minimum intention for a valid sacrament.

The remark by Bp. Mendez about the mob following him, takes on a whole new meaning when put in proper context. He was not as brave as a prelate should be. He would not come out publicly for the faith as did Bishop Kurz, or Abp. Lefebvre. Therefore, he would often wear street clothes when with the SSPV. When someone asked him why he wasn't wearing his clerical garb, he responded, "The mob is out to get me, and I don't want them to find me." It was sarcastic humor, not insanity, that engendered the remark.

Masons and "I've Got A Bad Feeling About This"

 There is one more serious charge that needs to be answered. Since I wrote about it before at length (see my two posts cited at the beginning of this post), I will be brief. No one (to the best of my knowledge and belief) calls into question the mental state of Archbishop Lefebvre. However, the Cardinal-Bishop who ordained him a priest, and later consecrated him a bishop, Archille Lienart, was a Freemason. The evidence for his Masonic membership is hardly conclusive, but ad aguendo, I will concede he was a Mason. 

 There are those who assert that since Masons are the sworn enemies of the Church, Masonic clerics must withhold their intention and make the sacraments invalid. To demonstrate someone has withheld the proper intention, "...one must prove the existence of a positive will that excludes [the sacrament]." (See  Courtemanche, The Total Simulation of Matrimonial Consent, [1948], pg. 18). Such was the case in South America of a bishop who was strongly prejudiced against ordaining native [pueblo nativos] clergy. On his deathbed he confessed that he withheld his intention on those natives. The priest refused absolution unless the bishop agreed and gave permission for this to be told to the proper authorities. The native priests were re-ordained but NOT non-native priests. "The Church, recognizing that She can never know the internal intention of the minister, assumes it is the same as his external intention (the intention which the traditional rite provides by its very wording), unless he himself informs the Church otherwise." (See Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Sacraments, pg. 11 and footnote 19; words in parenthesis in original). 

 It is an established fact that Cardinal Rampolla was a high ranking Freemason. None of his consecrations or ordinations were repeated. There were bishops consecrated during the French Revolution by Masonic bishops, and they were received back as bishops, not subject to absolute or conditional consecration. The Church considers them all valid. Roncalli ("Pope" John XIII) was most probably a Freemason, yet the priests and bishops that derive their orders from him (including Cardinal Ottaviani) are not called into question. 

Those who assert Masons withhold their intention (have a "positive contrary intention" by willing "I do not intend to ordain [or consecrate] this man" while performing the ceremony) are setting up an opposite presumption from the Church, i.e., your sacraments are invalid, unless proven otherwise.If the Church tells us we must presume validity, we must do so. There is no "Masonic exception" to the rule. Remember that there is a possibility that any sacrament could be invalid, but we must not fear it because we have moral certainty. If Masonic membership makes sacraments doubtful, what about Modernists and Communists? They are the sworn enemies of the Church as well, yet we would have to consider virtually every sacrament invalid based on Modernism! (The number of Modernists who came out at Vatican II was staggering).  

The objection to such bishops is not based on theology and the practice of the Church, but rather, "I've got a bad feeling about this situation." That does not suffice. Notice that even the bishop who admitted to withholding his intention on native clergy, did not state he did have the intention for non-native clergy. Did the Church ordain all of the priests "just to be safe"? No! It was presumed valid. 

Conclusion
The renewed attacks on Traditionalist clergy orders are unfounded. Traditional Catholic theology tells us we have no reason to doubt the orders that derive from Abp. Thuc, Abp. Lefebvre, and Bp. Mendez. For those who would like to read more about the consecrations of Abp. Thuc in-depth, please go to the 101 page tome written by Mr. Mario Derksen at thucbishops.com. He quotes many of the same theologians as I do in this post, but goes into much greater (and better) detail, with many more citations to relevant sources. 

Finally, I would like to end with this quote from theologian DeSalvo, "Christ promised that He would be with His Church until the end of the world. Although men cannot be metaphysically certain of having received the sacraments, all may, according to common sense, depend upon the fidelity of Christ's ministers in the administration of the sacraments, and according to faith rely upon the Indefectibility of the Church and her ministers as a body." (See The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments, [1949], pg. 106).

Monday, May 7, 2018

Singing For Satan---Part 10


This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.


Michael Jackson

Michael Joseph Jackson (d. 2009) was one of the most (if not the most) popular music entertainers in world history. It is not without reason he has been given the title "The King of Pop." Jackson was one of eight children born in Gary, Indiana to Joseph and Katherine Jackson. He got his start in music at age 6 in 1964 when he formed the group The Jackson 5 with his four brothers. In 1971, Jackson signed on as a solo performer with Motown Records. Within ten years, he became an icon in pop music. His videos produced for the nascent MTV remain among the most popular of all time. In 1982, Jackson released his sixth studio album entitled Thriller. By November of 1983 it became (and remains as of this writing) the best selling album of all time, having sold just over sixty-six million units worldwide. 

He holds the distinction of being the most awarded musician of all time, having garnered 13 Grammy Awards, 24 American Music Awards, and he was inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice. He had 13 number one singles in the United States alone, and he is the only recording artist to have a Top Ten hit in five consecutive decades. The Guinness Book of World Records lists Michael Jackson as "The Most Successful Entertainer of All Time." 

Jackson's "All Over The Place" Beliefs
Michael Jackson was raised as part of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect, which despite their protests to the contrary, is non-Christian. They deny the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and have their own bastardized version of the Bible called The New World Translation.  The Witnesses are expected to go door to door to proselytize (they have one up on Bergoglio). Jackson said, "Sundays were my day for ‘Pioneering,’ the term used for the missionary work that Jehovah’s Witnesses do. We would spend the day in the suburbs of Southern California, going door to door or making the rounds of a shopping mall, distributing our Watchtower magazine. I continued my pioneering work for years and years after my career had been launched." Upon becoming highly successful, he was "disfellowshipped" by the Witnesses (their version of excommunication) for being "too worldly," but he continued to self-identify as a Witness. (See e.g., https://lasentinel.net/Michael-Jackson-Jehovah-s-Witnesses.html)

 The year before his death, he was rumored to have converted to Islam and changed his name (not legally) to "Mikaeel." (See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1088225/Michael-Jackson-Muslim-changes-Mikaeel.html). This rumor was never confirmed, but he had an admiration for the Mohammedans. There was even speculation he had interest in Judaism, and that he converted to a "born-again Christian" three weeks before his death. There was controversy surrounding his album HIStory: Past, Present, and Future, Book I (usually shortened to just HIStory), because one of the songs ("They Don't Care About Us") contains the lyrics, "Jew me, sue me, everybody do me/ Kick me, kike me, don't you black or white me" which was deemed anti-Semitic. Jackson said the lyrics were about prejudice against all people and should not be construed as against the Jews. Nevertheless, he went back into the studio and re-recorded the song substituting the words "do me" and "strike me" for "Jew me" and "kike me," respectively. (See https://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/23/arts/jackson-plans-new-lyrics-for-album.html)

What is certain is that Jackson was deeply involved in New Age Occultism, which will be demonstrated next in this post. 

Jackson and the Demonic

 Jackson's video for the title track off Thriller is seeped in occult themes. It was so occult, that at the beginning of the video (when it first came on MTV) Jackson explained that due to his strong religious convictions, he did not believe in the occult. The following are the facts that give the lie to Jackson's claim of repudiating the occult--and one also has to wonder what "religious convictions" he really followed:

  • The Thriller video was one of the most violent ever seen at the time. It shows 27 acts of violence including depictions of lycanthropy (a man turning into a beast or "werewolf"), a chase scene, and an off-screen murder.
  • The video employed actor Vincent Price (d. 1993). Price was in many horror movies and was an occultist. A self-proclaimed Wiccan, Price had an old record, now an audio book (available on Amazon.com) entitled Witchcraft Magic: An Adventure in Demonology. The chapters include "How to Communicate with Spirits," "Curses, Spells, and Charms," and "How to Make a Pact with the Devil"
  • Jackson began grabbing his crotch while dancing. His gestures in many performances simulated masturbation. 
  • In the song Thriller he sings, "They're out to get you; there's demons closing in on every side/They will possess you/ unless you change the number on your dial"
  • His famous "Moon Walk" wherein he dances moving backwards is exactly what occultist Aleister Crowley wrote about in his book Magick in Theory and Practice:
 First Method. Let the Exempt Adept first train himself to think backwards by external means, as set forth here following.

(“a”) Let him learn to write backwards, with either hand.
(“b”) Let him learn to walk backwards.
(“c”) Let him constantly watch, if convenient, cinematograph films, and listen to phonograph records, reversed, and let him so accustom himself to these that they appear natural, and appreciable as a whole.
(“d”) Let him practice speaking backwards; thus for “I am He” let him say, “Eh ma I”.
(“e”) Let him learn to read backwards. In this it is difficult to avoid cheating one’s self, as an expert reader sees a sentence at a glance. Let his disciple read aloud to him backwards, slowly at first, then more quickly.
(“f”) Of his own ingenium, let him devise other methods. 
(See online at http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib913.htm; Emphasis mine)

  • His song Beat It, contains the backward masked words "Believe in Satan."
  • According to the New York Times there was a cult that sprung up within the Jehovah's Witnesses sect called the "MJ Cult" wherein adherents believed that Jackson was the Archangel St. Michael who was described in the Book of Daniel 12:1 as the deliverer of the people, "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of Thy people." (See https://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/29/nyregion/dissent-grows-among-jehovah-s-witnesses.html) Since the JW sect thinks St. Michael the Archangel became Christ, in a very real sense, Jackson was seen as Christ by the MJ cult.
  • He had a room with mirrors wherein he claimed to communicate with the spirit of notorious sodomite Liberace. According to Jackson, "I have my own secret room, with a moving wall and mirrors...[Liberace] is the voice I hear in there. I feel his presence very close to me. He's even given me permission to perform his theme song, 'I'll Be Seeing You.'"  Liberace's ex-lover, Scott Thorson, claimed to have had an affair with Michael Jackson for an extended period during the '80s. (See https://archives.sfweekly.com/shookdown/2013/06/14/5-celebrities-whove-communicated-with-dead-musicians) He claimed that other spirits spoke to him in that room, and music was audibly communicated to him through dreams, therefore he was merely the messenger bringing these songs into the world.
  • In 2000, Vanity Fair reported that Jackson went so far as to bathe in blood and have a number of animals sacrificed so he could put death curses on Steven Spielberg and others. In the article, it was reported that Jackson attended a voodoo ritual in Switzerland, and a witch doctor named Baba sacrificed 42 cows as part of the death curse ceremony. Jackson ordered his former business adviser, Myung-Ho Lee, to wire $150,000 to a bank in Mali to cover the cost of the ceremony. The witch doctor promised Jackson that Spielberg, music mogul David Geffen, and 23 other people on Jackson’s hit list would die…but ironically, it was Michael Jackson himself who would end up dying a premature death! (See http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/04/leisure.jackson.reut/index.html)
Wacko Jacko

Known by his nickname "Jacko" in the press, Jackson's behavior soon earned him the new moniker of "Wacko Jacko."  Here is just a partial list of his erratic, and downright sick, behavior.



  • Michael Jackson has proudly admitted sharing his bed with children. He says he sees nothing wrong with a 44-year-old man having such relationships and insisting there is 'nothing sexual' going on; he declares: 'I give them hot milk, you know, we have cookies. It's very charming, it's very sweet, it's what the whole world should do." (See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-158342/Why-I-sleep-little-boys-Michael-Jackson.html)



  • He was accused of child molestation in 1993 by 13 year old Jordan Chandler. Although the police confiscated pictures of scantily clad boys from Jackson's home, they were not pornographic under the legal definition. He was charged with no crime. Chandler's father sued and Jackson settled for $22 million and no admission of guilt


  • He was accused a second time of child molestation in 2002, but was acquitted on all charges after trial.



  • Jackson married Lisa Marie Presley, daughter of the late Elvis Presley in 1994. She was seen largely as his "beard" (term for a woman who pretends to be with a man to make him appear normal when he is a sodomite). She went out of her way to tell the media she and Jackson had sex together. They divorced in less than two years


  • Married long time friend Deborah Jeanne Rowe in 1996, had a son Michael Jr. in 1997, a daughter Paris in 1998, and divorced in 1999. 



  • He had a home and amusement park he called "Neverland Ranch" after the fictional cartoon character Peter Pan, a boy who "never wanted to grow up." 
  • Evil Music

    In an effort to clean up rock and pop music's tarnished image, Jackson wrote the song, We Are The World for "Band-Aid," an effort by musicians to raise money for starving children in Africa, and performed in 1985. It contains superstars singing the song composed by Jackson and Lionel Richie. The lyrics sound nice but are perverse:

    We are all a part of God's great big family and the truth, you know, love is all we need.
    We are the world, we are the children, we are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving. There's a choice we're making, we're saving our own lives, it's true we make a better day, just you and me.
    Send me yourt heart, so they know that someone cares and their lives will be stronger and free. As God has shown us by turning stone to bread so we all must lend a helping hand.

    In the sense God made us all, we are a family, but not in the egalitarian sense that God loves us in spite of our actions and apart from our beliefs. Second, Christ and His Church is what we need, not some nebulous idea of "love." Third, the song says "we're saving our own lives" but Christ says, "For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for My sake, shall find it." (St. Matthew 16:25). Finally, God never turned stone into bread. That's how Satan tempted Christ in the desert, "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, 'If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.' Jesus answered, 'It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (St. Matthew 4:1-4). 

    Just a sample of other songs:

    • Billie Jean tells the story of an illicit affair with a groupie, and denial that the child she had is fathered by him
    She told me her name was Billie Jean, as she caused a scene
    Then every head turned with eyes that dreamed of being the one
    Who will dance on the floor in the round (Have sex with her)...

    Billie Jean is not my lover
    She's just a girl who claims that I am the one
    But the kid is not my son
    She says I am the one, but the kid is not my son

    • Work That Body is the tale of a sordid hook-up with a stranger
    Girl, There's a better way
    I'm talkin' bout me and you
    You sittin' round with a long face
    Thinkin' up nothing to do

    And girl, there's a better way
    I'm talkin' bout doin' the do
    Your killin' time there's a better way
    Than sittin' round being blue

    Don't you know that there are better things to do?

    Work that body
    Work that body
    All that body
    Work that body
    Work that body 
    Everybody (give it to me)
    Work that body
    Work that body
    All that body (give it to me)
    Work that body
    Oooohhhh

    • In The Closet is not about sodomites, but sex with a nymphomaniac
    One thing in life you must understand
    The truth of lust woman to man
    So open the door, and you will see
    There are no secrets
    Make your move, set me free
    Because there's something about you baby
    That makes me want to give it to you
    I swear there's something about you baby...

    She wants to give it
    (She wants to give it, she wants to give it) Dare me
    (She wants to give it, she wants to give it)
    She wants to give it
    (She wants to give it, she wants to give it) Yea
    (She wants to give it, she wants to give it)

    Conclusion
    Michael Jackson was a tormented soul who sought refuge in everything except Christ and His One True Church. He was a deceiver, and his music was inspired by demons from Hell. He died on June 25, 2009 from a drug overdose. He would use propofol to sleep and had many other drugs administered by his personal physician, Dr. Conrad Murray, who was charged and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. He spent about two years in prison for giving too much anesthesia to Jackson, causing his death. Hopefully, he repented and found the True Church before his death. Only God knows. Of his music and his lifestyle, the only proper thing to do is say, "Beat it!"   

    Monday, April 30, 2018

    Slavery And The Catholic Church


     One of the biggest canards used against the Church is that She "supported slavery." Not only is this falsehood used by Protestants and atheists, but it's utilized even by members of the Vatican II sect, who go so far as to attribute "error" to Church teaching. (Ironically, they thereby tacitly admit that there is a contradiction pre- and post-Vatican II. Their sect, therefore, cannot claim to be the Mystical Body of Christ because it is dogma that the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members). In the 1975 book  Slavery and the Catholic Church:The History of Catholic Teaching Concerning the Moral Legitimacy of the Institution of Slavery by John Francis Maxwell, it quotes from the heretical Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes in support of the contention Vatican II "corrected" prior "erroneous" teaching on slavery: "Whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torture inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children... all these things and others like them are infamous. They poison human society, dishonor the Creator, and do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury...Human institutions, private or public, must serve man's ends and minister to his dignity. They should be bulwarks against any kind of political or social slavery and guardians of basic rights under any kind of government...Economic enterprise is generally an affair of collaboration- thus it is wicked and inhuman to arrange and organize it to the detriment of anybody involved. Yet it often happens even in our time that those who work are made slaves to their own work. No "economic tows" Can justify this. (pg. 12, citing para. #27, and 29, See the book online at anthonyflood.com/maxwellslaverycatholicchurch.pdf).

    What is the truth about slavery and Church teaching? Did She teach that treating certain classes of people as "subhuman" (think: African slaves in the United States prior to the Civil War [1861-1865]) was acceptable? Was Vatican II the "great liberator" of human dignity which "corrected" prior teaching on the topic? These are the questions to be explored in this post.

    Defining the Kinds of Slavery
     There are two kinds of slavery: pagan slavery and Judeo-Christian slavery. For the pagan, slavery meant that one person owns another person as one would own an animal or a piece of property. The slave has no rights and is considered (legally and morally) sub-human. In the Judeo-Christian view, slaves are not property; they do not lose their rights or status as human beings. What is owned, in this view, is not the person of the slave, but rather the labor of that slave. This is the only kind of slavery ever recognized as legitimate and moral by the Church. 

    Someone can acquire the right to another's work in various ways. As one example, a man could sell his labor to a wealthy family thus becoming part of that household. Each person has the right to sell their labor, even labor he would perform for the rest of his life, if that is his choice. Humans may legitimately become slaves to another as punishment for a serious crime. Since the State has the right to impose imprisonment, and even death for certain crimes, it stands to reason that the State has the lesser included authority to put a criminal to work at some service for the common good (i.e., slavery) for a certain period of time--or even for life. There was a time when chain gangs were used to build roads, and prisoners made car license plates for the government.  Hence, in ancient times, captured soldiers were made slaves. 

    Why such a difference in outlook on slaves? The worldview of the pagan sees people as greater or lesser according to what they possess. They also view manual labor with disdain. The ideal life was one of leisure: "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die!" In the Judeo-Christian worldview of the Old and New Testaments, people are created in the image and likeness of God. They have an eternal destiny for which they were created. Worth is based not on what you possess, but by how well you live in accordance to the Will of God. Manual labor is not to be despised because God Himself sentenced all to labor, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return." (Genesis 3:19). In the New Testament, most of the Apostles were simple fisherman. 

    The Old Testament and Slaves

    The title bondsman of the Mosaic Law, was really a kind of indentured servitude. Furthermore, the Book of Exodus lays down laws for the protection of the Hebrew slave:

    "These are the ordinances that you shall set before them: When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him." (Exodus 21:1-3).

    "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her.  If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money." (Exodus 21:7-11)

    "Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:16).

    Other prescriptions involving slaves:

    "If thy brother constrained by poverty, sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants: But he shall be as a hireling, and a sojourner: he shall work with thee until the year of the jubilee, And afterwards he shall go out with his children, and shall return to his kindred and to the possession of his fathers, For they are my servants, and I brought them out of the land of Egypt: let them not be sold as bondmen: Afflict him not by might, but fear thy God. Let your bondmen, and your bondwomen, be of the nations that are round about you." (Leviticus 25:39-44).

    "When thy brother a Hebrew man, or Hebrew woman is sold to thee, and hath served thee six years, in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free: And when thou sendest him out free, thou shalt not let him go away empty: But shalt give him for his way out of thy flocks, and out of thy barnfloor, and thy winepress, wherewith the Lord thy God shall bless thee. Remember that thou also wast a bondservant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God made thee free, and therefore I now command thee this." (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)

    The New Testament, The Early Church, and Slaves

      Christ lived for the first thirty years of his life as a simple Carpenter. He gave dignity to work and showed how God loved humble folk most especially. Catholicism established a supernatural equality among humanity with relation to God because all had to acknowledge their common duties to God, and common debt to Christ.

    "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink." (1 Corinthians 12:13). 

    "The brethren who are with me, salute you. All the saints salute you; especially they that are of Caesar's household [in the household were slaves]." (Philippians 4:22; commentary mine)

    "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." (1 Peter 2:18). This "fear" is a reverential awe towards those in charge, even as today you must obey your employer, both those who are kind and those who are demanding. 

    The Church Father, St. Gregory of Nyssa, disdained all forms of servitude:
    "I acquired slaves and slave girls.’ What is that you say? You condemn a person to slavery whose nature is free and independent, and in doing so you lay down a law in opposition to God, overturning the natural law established by him. For you subject to the yoke of slavery one who was created precisely to be a master of the earth, and who was ordained to rule by the Creator, as if you were deliberately attacking and fighting against the divine command." (See Trevor Dennis, "Man Beyond Price: Gregory of Nyssa and Slavery," in Heaven and Earth : Essex Essays in Theology and Ethics Worthington, West Sussex: Churchman, [1986], 130).

    St. Augustine wrote, "The state of slavery is rightly regarded as a penalty upon the sinner; thus the word slave does not occur in the Bible until the just man Noah branded with it the sin of his son. It was sin therefore, which deserved this name; it was not natural."

    Papal Decrees Against the Pagan Notion of Slavery

    Pope Eugene IV  in 1435 issued the Bull Sicut Dudum ordered that Catholics free all enslaved natives of the Canary Islands within fifteen days and failure to do so would incur automatic excommunication. Thus, fifty-seven years before Columbus’s first voyage, the pope unequivocally prohibited the enslavement of native peoples.

    In 1537, Pope Paul III promulgated Sublimus Dei, which taught that native peoples were not to be enslaved. In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV promulgated Cum Sicuti, which was addressed to the bishop of Manila in the Philippines and reiterated his predecessors' prohibitions against enslaving native peoples. In the seventeenth century, Pope Urban VIII decreed in Commissum Nobis (1639) support for the Spanish King Philip IV's edict prohibiting enslavement of the Indians in the New World.


    The need for cheap and abundant labor in the colonies is what led to the African slave trade. This renewed form of pagan slavery was also condemned by the popes, beginning with Pope Innocent XI. In 1741, Pope Benedict XIV  issued Immensa Pastorum, which reiterated that the penalty for enslaving Indians was excommunication. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI's decree In Supremo condemned the enslavement of Africans.

    The popes approved two religious orders dedicated to ransoming Christian slaves from the infidel Mohammedans; the Trinitarians, and the Mercedarians (Order of Our Lady of Ransom). The latter took vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, plus a vow "to become a hostage in the hands of the infidels, if that is necessary for the deliverance of Christ's faithful."

    Pope Leo XIII declared in his encyclical In Plurimis, addressed to the bishops of Brazil:
     "Amid the many and great demonstrations of affection which from almost all the peoples of the earth have come to Us, and are still coming to Us, in congratulation upon the happy attainment of the fiftieth anniversary of Our priesthood, there is one which moves Us in a quite special way. We mean one which comes from Brazil, where, upon the occasion of this happy event, large numbers of those who in that vast empire groan beneath the yoke of slavery, have been legally set free. And this work, so full of the spirit of Christian mercy, has been offered up in cooperation with the clergy, by charitable members of the laity of both sexes, to God, the Author and Giver of all good things, in testimony of their gratitude for the favor of the health and the years which have been granted to Us." (May 5, 1888, para. #1).

    It's been made abundantly clear that the Church never condoned pagan slavery, permitted Judeo-Christian slavery, and moved towards eliminating it altogether.

    Vatican II's  Heretical Notions
    From the aforementioned book by Maxwell, there are some blasphemous and heretical ideas about the Church. It's no wonder, because to make Vatican II good, the True Church as it was before the Council, must be depicted as fallible and capable of defection. Here's just a few samples from the book that contains both a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur from a valid bishop who himself defected to the new religion that is the Vatican II sect.

    Maxwell: "The process of human development involves making mistakes and using the ability to learn from past mistakes. It would be surprising if the same process of human development did not apply to the Church and her pastoral and moral theology. Indeed it would be surprising if the use of the ability to recognize and admit and accept the fact of past mistakes were not one of the remedies for "triumphalist" attitudes in the Church."(pg.11; Emphasis mine)

    Translation: The Church "develops" and "makes mistakes" in theology.

    Reality Check: CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution. (Lamentabili Sane, Pope St. Pius X against the errors of the Modernists).

    Maxwell: "When any large-scale mistake of the fallible ordinary magisterium has been made, it is surely not
    sufficient quietly to drop the erroneous teaching and hush it up and whitewash its past history."

    Translation: The Church can err except in declaring infallible dogmas ex cathedra. 

    Reality Check: According to theologian Van Noort: "The subject-matter of divine- Catholic faith are all those truths proposed by the Church's Magisterium for our belief as divinely revealed...The principle laid down above is contained almost verbatim in this declaration of the [First] Vatican Council: 'Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.' [Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith]" (See Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press 3:220-221[1960]; words in brackets and emphasis are mine).

    Maxwell: "In 1965 the common Catholic teaching concerning slavery was officially corrected by the Second Vatican Council." (pg. 125)

    Translation: The Church was wrong until Vatican II.

    Reality Check: CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places. (Lamentabili Sane, Pope St. Pius X against the errors of the Modernists).

    Conclusion
    The fact that most people don't know the distinctions involved when it comes to slavery and servitude, makes the issue one that the enemies of the Church will use to attack Her. The Church has always stood strong against pagan slavery, and even advocated for the elimination of all forms of permissible servitude as unnecessary. The Vatican II sect has adopted a heretical ecclesiology, one in which the Church can give evil and teach error. This is clearly demonstrated in post-Vatican II theology books teaching that the Church "taught error" on the subject of slavery until "corrected" by the Robber Council in 1965.

    The real problem of slavery, is the slavery of humanity to sin. When not in the state of sanctifying grace, a person is a slave to sin and Satan, making himself an enemy of God. The Vatican II sect is spreading the worst slavery of all, a slavery which if not broken will last forever in Hell. Satan is the cruelest of owners. Break free from the bonds of Bergoglio and his sect. Join (or remain ever faithful in) the One True Church, and stay in the state of grace at all times. The only real freedom anyone has is when they are servants of Christ the King, and Mary the Immaculate Queen. 

    Monday, April 23, 2018

    The Religion Of Psychology


     With the advance of the Vatican II sect, the spiritual needs of humanity were no longer being met. This resulted in the occult explosion and self-deification that plagues our world today. The First Commandment does not say, "Thou Shalt Not be an Atheist," but rather, "Thou Shalt Not have Strange gods before Me." The human race is incurably God-centered. Take away the True Faith, and people will search for meaning in all the wrong places. God's grace, found in the True Mass and sacraments, has dwindled. Something must replace it. On the one hand, you have occult and pagan practices (to give but one example, the number of "mediums" on television has never been higher). On the other hand, atheism and agnosticism are growing exponentially as well. Humanity glorifies itself and tells God, just as Satan did, "I will not serve."

     Modern psychology has, by and large, become a new religion. Don't misunderstand me, I have a good friend who is a psychologist, and he's a "conservative" member of the Vatican II sect. He has helped many people. One of the members of  Fr. DePauw's Ave Maria Chapel (when I first converted in 1981) was a psychologist, and very devout for his whole life. Unfortunately, the number of Christian psychologists, who correctly apply the sound principles of psychology, are growing fewer and fewer. Psychologists and mental health professionals are the new "priests" of the new religion of psychology.

    The purpose of this post will be to expose the very dangerous errors of the new psychology, which infects both the world at large and the Vatican II sect.

    Some Tenets of "Psychology-Religion"

     While there is an almost universal rejection Sigmund Freud's (the so-called "father of psychotherapy") diabolic theories, there are some of his ideas that have remained and infected the practice of psychology. True psychology should seek behavior modification, drug therapies, and help deal with trauma to overcome phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorders, etc. False psychology has pushed the following ideas:

    • There is no sin. God is either denied or considered some vague "higher power."  No one needs forgiveness from God, they just suffer from an "addiction." Adulterers are merely "sex addicts." Those who bully others are "power addicts." Vatican II sect "priests" no longer offer sacrifice to God or forgive sin. They are more or less social workers using occasional religious verbiage. The confessional is not about doing penance, but discussing your "problems" that don't need supernatural remedies.
    • Normalize the deviant. In 1973 the American Psychological Association (APA), removed homosexuality from its second edition of the  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This is the book which lists mental problems. Since then, sodomites are considered "normal," they were no longer to be considered sick and/or immoral. Now gender dysphoria, along with sodomy, is celebrated. A man who wants to be a woman, or vice-versa, is "healthy and normal" as opposed to sinful or sick. 
    • Make deviant the normal. People who reject "sodomite rights" for religious and/or ethical reasons are "homophobic." In other words there's something wrong with you in opposing sins against nature that (literally) "Scream to Heaven for Vengeance." 
    • Everything is ethical as long as you "don't hurt anyone" and there is "consent." Adultery is only wrong if your husband or wife doesn't consent. Having an "open marriage" where one or both can sleep around is ethical. Murder is wrong because someone gets hurt against their will. Euthanasia is ethical because the person consents to be killed. I once sat across from a woman psychologist while having lunch, and she struck up a conversation with me. I asked about her views on ethics and she bought into this garbage hook, line, and sinker. I asked if she thought anything was intrinsically sinful or unnatural. "No, nothing is, " she responded, "anything is OK as long as you're not hurting anyone and all involved consent to the action being done." "What about pedophilia?" I asked. "The child can't give true consent so it's wrong." "What about bestiality (sex with an animal)?" "The animal didn't consent to be your sex object!" she said sternly. With that, I pointed to the hamburger  she was eating and I inquired, "So tell me, when did the cow give consent to be eaten as your lunch?" (She got up and left). 

    The Two Commandments: "Love Thyself and Accept Thyself"

     There are two fundamental principles at work in modern psychology; you must love yourself and accept who you are. It sounds both innocent and benevolent, but it is neither. It is a huge departure from Church teaching. 

    1. Self love. "If you don't love yourself first, no one else will." How often have you heard this slogan? Psychology will play off this notion and make you believe, "I won't be good to others if I'm not good to myself." Next thing you do is send your three-year old off to daycare forty hours per week, or dip into family funds to drink and gamble.

     Should you love yourself? That depends. We should like ourselves when we live in conformity to the Will of God. We should like ourselves for the good we do. However, we should not like ourselves and feel guilt for the evil we do. This is anathema to psychology. Psychologists want us to think of the self-rejecting teenager, trying to be popular. She should just love herself. Really? Even if she's not popular because she spreads rumors and manipulates others? Modern psychology denies Original Sin and the Fall.

    Vatican II incorporated this idea into the heretical document Gaudium et Spes para. #13, "For sin has diminished man, blocking his path to fulfillment." It should say that, sin "prevents man from attaining his salvation." The error promotes the belief that man's "fullness" (he's "diminished" and has a blocked path to reaching his "fullness" or "fulfillment") is the principal value and, moreover, is the basic element of the idea of sin. On the contrary, the Church's perennial teaching is that sin is an offense committed against God because of which we merit legitimate punishment, including eternal damnation.

    2. Accept yourself because you're not responsible. 
    • We are products of our environment. (Blame your parents, poverty, society, but not yourself for anything about yourself you don't like)
    • Therefore, we are not responsible or accountable for our actions.(Denial of free will)
    • Therefore, we are victims. (No sin, just "addictions." You're a "man trapped inside a woman's body"? You were determined to be that way, so be proud of gender dysphoria, etc.)
    Ironically, modern psychology tells us we are responsible for our own happiness. Yet how can we be responsible for anything if we are biologically and/or environmentally determined? (Self-contradiction won't interfere with their teachings!). In the Vatican II sect, many clergy teach that God must love us unconditionally since we can't help the way we are as products of our society. One of my regular readers wrote that she went to "confession" in the Vatican II sect (before finding her way back to the True Church), and for "penance" she was told to sit for a while in the Church and "let God love you" (whatever that means--you can't make this stuff up).

     Vatican II joins modern psychology in the heretical teaching of humanity's "intrinsic self-worth." In Gaudium et Spes, para. 24 states, "...if man is the only creature on earth God has wanted for its own sake, man can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself," as if people possesses such value in themselves that it would cause God to create them.  In the Catholic meaning, the self-worth or "dignity of man" cannot be considered as a characteristic in people's very nature that imposes respect for all choices, because this dignity depends on right will turned toward the Good and is therefore a relative and not an absolute value.


    Psychology's Less Than Admirable "Founding Father"

     That psychology began with antagonism towards God cannot be denied. Sigmund Freud ((1856-1939) remains the best known pioneer in the field of psychology. While his ideas are mostly ignored today, they still have had a great impact on society. Freud is portrayed as an atheist who shunned religion because of the "science of psychology" which supposedly proved God was a subconscious projection of the human mind.  Freud's criticism of the belief in God is called The Projection Theory. According to this theory, God is a projection of our own unconscious desires. As Freud wrote in his book The Future of an Illusion, "...the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection...which was provided by the father...Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fears of the dangers of life."

    Freud's Projection Theory commits the genetic fallacy in logic. This occurs when you try to discredit an idea based on its origin. Even if belief in God came from an unconscious desire for a father-figure, this doesn't prove God non-existent. Perhaps the very reason we have such a desire is because Our Creator made it innate within us to seek Him out. But was Freud a man who "had it all together" and was a convinced atheist? Dr. Paul Vitz, a former professor of psychology at New York University, and a former atheist himself, gives us some insight into Freud in his book Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscious. [1988]

    Here are some interesting facts on the "Father of Psychotherapy:"

    • Freud was very interested in occult phenomena such as telepathy and poltergeists
    • On Saturday evenings, he would frequently play tarock - a form of a tarot card game associated with the Jewish Kabbala
    • In 1937, when he was urged to flee Nazism, he responded that his real enemy was the Roman Catholic Church
    • Was a cocaine addict and his excuse was  "I was making frequent use of cocaine to reduce some troublesome nasal swellings." 
    • The Catholic psychiatrist Gregory Zilboorg concluded: "Religion was, for Freud, a field of which he knew very little and which moreover seems to have been the very center of his inner conflicts, conflicts that were never resolved."
    (See also The Freudian Fallacy: Freud and Cocaine by E M Thornton [1986]; and http://ww3.haverford.edu/psychology/ddavis/f_diary.html).  


      Conclusion
    Psychology can be a force for good to help people. Unfortunately, it all too often turns out to be a substitute for religion--and a very poor one at that. The Vatican II sect is all about self-esteem and self-acceptance forgetting that Our Lord told us, "... If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." (St. Matthew 16:24). A proper, Christian understanding of self-esteem and self-acceptance is good; but we must reject our sin-prone nature, deny our wants, and conform ourselves to the Will of God. To do anything less is to resign oneself to sin and Hell. There was an advertisement for a local Unitarian-Universalist sect that stated, "Come exactly as you are; God accepts you." Sounds like the motto for Bergoglio's "papacy." 

    Monday, April 16, 2018

    Recognizing That You Can't Resist


    The folly of the "recognize and resist" crowd (R&R) becomes more apparent everyday Bergoglio pretends to be "pope." Nevertheless, there are some who cannot let go of the idea that a pope can be "resisted" in his disciplinary and doctrinal pronouncements. In September of 2016, the website Catholicism (sic) Has The Answer, there was an entry entitled, "Why Is Sedevacantism Wrong?" It goes on to list eleven "errors" of sedevacantism--- the usual discredited tripe to dupe those not well versed in Church teaching to remain in the Vatican II sect. This post will propound the teaching of the Church on the papacy and then demonstrate what's wrong with the criticism of the alleged "errors" listed against the sedevacantist position. To read the website article in its entirety, see http://catholicismhastheanswer.com/why-is-sedevacantism-wrong/.


    The Vicar of Christ MUST be Obeyed

     The most cited passage for R&R is Galatians 2:11-14. We read, "But when Cephas [Peter "the Rock'] was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation.But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" 

    Here St. Paul publicly rebuked St. Peter for dissimulating about observing the Old Testament dietary laws. St. Peter knew that Catholics were not bound by Jewish dietary laws and, therefore, he did not follow them because he ate with Gentiles. However, when Jewish converts entered the scene, it seems St. Peter went back to observing those laws so as not to offend the converts. This was a big problem because the Gentile Catholics sensed a separation from the pope. St. Paul was right to correct St. Peter, and such fraternal correction was not disrespectful toward St. Peter’s office. Fraternal correction is an act of charity—even in relation to a pope, because popes are sinners, but not heretics! (See theologian Cornelius a Lapide, "Ad Galatas 2:11," Commentarium in S.S. (Lyons: Pelagaud1839) 9:445, 446, 447.) The principle applies only to fraternal correction. No theologian teaches that the pope can be "resisted" in regard to his universal and ordinary teaching authority. (See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-ordinary-magisterium-of-papacy.html).

    According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). Therefore, you can resist an immoral command from the pope (e.g., "Kill my enemy for me," etc.) or fraternally correct an immoral act (e.g., setting a bad example, committing fornication, murder, etc.), but not legislation on the Mass. Hence, the SSPX, Salza, and the rest of the R&R crowd have no basis for rejecting the Novus Bogus "mass" (among many other things; I choose to  focus on the Mass as but one example). If Roncalli to Bergoglio are recognized by them as "popes," their ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship must be regarded as pure and holy.

    This leads us to three options:

    • The Novus Bogus "mass" is pure and holy; equal to the Traditional Mass. Attachment to the Traditional Mass is a mere preference (Official Society of St. Peter position)
    • The Novus Bogus "mass" is evil because it is sacrilegious and/or invalid (The Church has defected and given evil. She is not infallible. This is heresy, and leads some into the Eastern Schismatics)
    • The Novus Bogus "mass" is evil because it is sacrilegious and/or invalid, so it could not possibly have come to us from the Church, precisely because it is a dogma that the Church cannot defect. The man who promulgated it must have previously taught heresy as a private theologian and lost his office as pope, or was never validly elected pope from the beginning, as the Church's theologians have always taught could happen. (Sedevacantism)
    It seems very clear because it really is apparent, as is all Church teaching. The R&R will attempt to circumvent Church teaching for their desperate want/need to "have a pope." 


    The (Mythological) Errors of Sedevacantism
    I will list the eleven alleged errors in red followed in most cases by a short synopsis of what was argued, by quoting the article and/or paraphrasing it. My response will follow each "error."

    First Alleged Error: "A man who is a heretic, publicly or privately, cannot be, or ceases to be Pope, because he cannot be head of that which he has separated himself from." They offer two reasons; (1) "...this is false for otherwise the First Vatican Council would not have confined the Popes charism of infallibility to a certain event, specifically when he defines a doctrine to be excepted de fide by the whole Church. If it were impossible for him to be in error on matters of faith and morals other times this clarification would have no meaning." And (2) "It also would imply then that Pope John XXII would have never been the Pope, or at least not until the last day of his pontificate when he renounced the error which he had proclaimed publicly from the pulpit that the beatific vision is not seen by the Saints until the last judgment, an error which was clearly false by reason of the whole weight of the Church’s universal magisterium up until that time."

    Response: As to #1, the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

    "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
    (Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

    Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

    "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

    Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

    "Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."

    The pope's infallibility extends to universal disciplinary laws. The pope can give "opinionative" decisions, which by their very nature could be modified or abrogated. In that sense he could be "wrong," but not in promulgating universal disciplinary laws, or deciding upon doctrinal issues. This is a misunderstanding of the 1870 Vatican Council's teaching on the papacy.

    As to #2: Pope John XXII (1316-1334) preached a series of sermons in Avignon, France in which he taught that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God (Beatific Vision) until after the Last Judgement. It was open to debate among the theologians and had not yet been a made a dogma, so its denial is not heresy. Finally, he expressed his opinion as a "private theologian who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate." (Le Bachlet, "Benoit XII," in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.). Therefore, he lacked the pertinacity required for loss of office as he declared himself expressing an opinion, and was willing to submit his judgement to the Church.

    Second Alleged Error: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which prevents a heretic from obtaining the papacy was superseded by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. It was not infallible.

    Response: It need not be infallibly decreed because it expresses what is already known to be true by Divine Law; a heretic cannot become pope. According to canonist Coronata: "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine). Such was the unanimous teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists.

    Third Alleged Error: "In the 1917 Code of Canon law, Canon 188.4 shows that a Pope who is becomes a heretic looses his office."  "...canon 188 §4, in speaking of "public defection from" (or "abandonment of") the Catholic faith, can mean only that kind of defection that is obvious and indisputable before all the world, even to doctrinally illiterate Catholics and non-Catholics. In this kind of defection, the cleric in question ceases even to profess the Catholic faith and clearly has not the slightest desire to continue in his previous clerical office. Sedevacantists must admit that these occupants of the Apostolic Palace, recognized by the world as popes, have all at least publicly professed to be Catholics throughout their respective pontificates and have shown every public sign of intending to continue exercising the papal office until their dying day."

    Response: Sheer nonsense. A heretic can continue to call himself "Catholic" but that doesn't make it so. Isn't it "obvious and indisputable" that a "pope" who tells us "atheists can go to Heaven," "There is no Catholic God," and "proselytism is nonsense" no longer has the True Faith? According to theologian McDevitt, "A cleric, then, if he is to occasion the tacit renunciation of his office, must have defected from the faith by heresy or apostasy in a public manner..." Further, "It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon [188] demands." Finally, "..even if only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the Faith...the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1" (The Renunciation of An Ecclesiastical Office: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, [1946], pgs. 136-140). In the case of Bergoglio, since he couldn't attain office in the first place, this argument is even more futile.

    Fourth Alleged Error: "The excommunicated cannot hold office or be elected Pope." This is false for according to Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, "None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext or reason of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded from the active and passive election of the supreme pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor."

    Response: This law of Pope Pius XII concerns only impediments of ecclesiastical law, not of Divine Law. As noted above, the impediment of heresy is of Divine Law according to the unanimous consent of the approved canonists and theologians. No pope can dispense from Divine Law. It's analogous to saying the pope could allow abortion or allow false worship--a complete impossibility.

    Fifth Alleged Error: "Vatican II promulgated heresy, therefore the men who reigned over the council and have propagated it cannot be true popes."  This means that there was no heresy at Vatican II. Three reasons are advanced: (a) Montini (Paul VI) said Vatican II was only pastoral, (b) according to Dietrich Von Hildebrand, "When the pope speaks ex cathedra on faith or morals, then unconditional acceptance and submission is required of every Catholic. But it is false to extend this loyalty to encyclicals in which new theses are proposed." and (c) "the errors or alleged errors of the Second Vatican Council are shrouded in ambiguity making it impossible to truly convict the adherents or authors of heresy."

    Response: (a) is easily dismissed. Montini said, "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme Ordinary Magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) Magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents."

    (b) Von Hildebrand was not an approved theologian, but a philosopher and married layman. Pope Pius XII decreed, "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." (Humani Generis, para. #20)

    (c) The Church teaches that God doesn't allow ambiguity to be taught by the Church:
    Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos,January 6, 1928:

    "The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on Earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever in tact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men." (Emphasis mine)

    Sixth Alleged Error: "The post-Vatican II Church cannot be the True Catholic Church because it has promulgated evil rites such as the Novus Ordo Mass, Communion on the Hand, and altar girls." These are "abuses" but not intrinsically evil.

    Response: How about approving as "valid" a "mass" with no words of Consecration? Wojtyla did just that when he allowed members of his sect to receive "communion" with Eastern heretics, as recorded in the document "Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East." (2001). This sect's "anaphora" (the Canon which should contain the words of Consecration) never even contains the words "body" and "blood." This runs completely contrary to the Church's teaching on sacramental theology. Need I say any more?

    Seventh Alleged Error: “Canon 844 of the New Code of Canon Law is intrinsically evil, and therefore could not have been promulgated by a valid pope.” 
    It is supposedly an "error" because...
     "...it follows that even though in 1917 it was explicitly forbidden, the Church could give Holy Communion to those separated from her 'in good faith,' or 'through no fault of their own.' The judgment of whether someone is truly 'in good faith' is one that can only be made absolutely by God however the Church has given her ministers the authority to make the assumption for the good of souls who potentially receive sanctifying grace through the sacraments."

    Response:  The idea that the true (1917) Code gave permission to give the sacraments to all those whom a priest believes to be outside the Church "in good faith" is not only false, it's not what the 1983 Code permits. Simply put, as long as they're baptized, non-Catholics can legitimately, according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law in the Vatican II sect, ask to be given "Communion", "absolution", and "Anointing of the Sick" — and then just as legitimately receive the same — without converting to Catholicism, as long as they have a "grave and pressing need", even outside the danger of death. This translates to, "I don't want to join the One True Church, I just 'need' your sacraments." Does that even make sense to you? It does if you buy into the heretical ecclesiology that the "Church of Christ" is distinct from the Catholic Church, and "subsists" there in its fullness, but it subsists in other sects according to how many "elements" of truth they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good and leads to Heaven.

    Eighth Alleged Error: "The Novus Ordo Mass changed the words of the consecration to the point where it is invalid, particularly with the vernacular change of ‘for many’ to ‘for all.’ The Mass has also deformed the intention of the priest rendering it invalid." 

    Response: The very fact they approved a "mass" with no words of Consecration, makes having to refute this objection unnecessary.

    Ninth Alleged Error: "Following the same logic which caused Pope Leo XIII to declare the Anglican church’s form of Episcopal Consecration invalid in ‘Apostolic Curae,’ the New form of Episcopal Consecrations are invalid."The form remains valid since it still expresses the grace of the Holy Ghost and the order of bishop.

    Response: The form is invalid. Pope Pius XII specifically set forth what were the essential words necessary for ordination to the order of deacon, priest, and consecration to bishop. Why would any one want to change what was defined after so many years of study leading up to Pope Pius XII's decree Sacramentum Ordinis? Nevertheless, here's what Montini (Paul VI) made of the form in 1968:

     "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you  gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him  to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name."

    To be valid, the form must, according to Pope Leo XIII (1) express the Grace of the Holy Ghost, and (2) unambiguously denote the rank bestowed (deacon, priest, or bishop). Even if "governing Spirit" is the Holy Ghost, the rank of bishop is not unambiguously signified. The article argues, "...we find the power of the order of the Episcopacy in the words “the power which is from you… the Spirit given by Him to the Holy Apostles” for faithful Catholics know that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles." The Apostles were also the first priests, and the Holy Ghost is given to priests as well as bishops. The order is not thereby unambiguously signified. Further, Dom Bernard Botte, the Modernist who was the principal creator of the new rite, maintained that, for the 3rd-century Christian, "governing Spirit" connoted the episcopacy, not the Holy Ghost! More ambiguity in the form which renders it "absolutely null and utterly void."

    Tenth Alleged Error: "Cardinal Siri was elected to the Pontificate in 1958 and took the name Pope Gregory XVII but was illegally forced to step down because of death threats, possibly even threats of a nuclear bomb being dropped on Rome. Before his death he consecrated bishops and made cardinals secretly…"

    Response: To allege that sedevacantists all subscribe to the so-called "Siri Thesis" or that it is in any way necessary to sedevacantism is (at the risk of sounding uncharitable) simply moronic. I don't subscribe to it, but I've written on it: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/02/one-question-siri-cant-answer.html

    Eleventh Alleged Error: "You’re missing the point! It is the teaching of Sts. Bellarmine, Francis De Sales, Alphonsus Ligouri that a heretical pope would ipso facto fall from the pontificate!" They claim the teachings of the theologians were not unanimous and there was conflicting opinion. "The Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange, (vehemently anti-modernist theologian and renowned neo-Thomist who lived from 1877-1964) basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato, that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. For, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible, albeit abnormal, for a secondary moral head,

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

    Response: Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange, in the place cited, speaks only of an occult, (i.e. secret) heretic. His purpose in this place is to defend St. Thomas Aquinas' teaching on membership in the Mystical Body, the Church, against what he perceives to be the error of St. Robert Bellarmine on the question, specifically in relation to membership by occult heretics. Sedevacantism holds that only contumacious, public heretics cannot lose (or cannot attain) the pontificate.

    Conclusion

    This is the best that R&R has to offer in opposition to sedevacantism, and it's not much. I dispensed with no less than eleven charges of our biggest "errors," and in just one post! It's getting more and more difficult to believe that the SSPX, Bp. Williamson's "resistance," and John Salza are in good faith. In the case of Salza, I wonder if he's still wearing a Masonic apron to deceive who he can into remaining with the Masonic/Modernist Vatican II sect.