Monday, February 20, 2017

Monkey Business About Creation

 Few topics invite so much misinformation and disinformation as the origin of the universe and the human race. Protestant fundamentalists will say that the universe was created about 6,000 years ago in six (6) twenty-four (24) hour time periods, while Modernists will assert that the biblical account of Genesis is largely a myth and humans evolved in a strict Neo-Darwinian fashion. Then we have the atheists who love to portray theists (and Christians in particular) as anti-science and superstitious dolts. Whenever a Traditionalist is presented with such a topic, we must put aside our feelings and prejudices to ask, "What does the Church teach on this matter?" In the absence of a true pope, it is vital not to seek our answers from our private interpretations of Scripture, or private revelations (alleged messages from apparitions, or even the mystic writings of certain saints) but from the authoritative teachings of the popes, and the approved pre-Vatican II theologians. In this post, I will seek to dispel some popular myths, and then present Church teaching.

Hollywood vs. Religion

 The atheists and other enemies of the Church who run most of the media, have been doing their best to denigrate Traditional Catholicism, and even any form of belief in Christ from Protestant sects.It didn't just start in recent years either. The 1955 play and 1960 film Inherit the Wind is an excellent example of anti-God propaganda. The movie (starring Spencer Tracy, Frederic March, and Gene Kelly) purports to accurately dramatize the events surrounding the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, which transpired in Dayton, Tennessee. The movie has the same relationship to reality as the "fake news" of today.

 According to the movie, John T. Scopes (1900-1970) is a high school biology teacher who loves science and passionately introduces his students to the evolutionary ideas of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), only to be violently denounced by the ill-educated, unenlightened, and bigoted town leaders--all of whom are fundamentalist Protestants. Scopes is thrown in prison for violating the law forbidding the teaching of evolution. Scopes' girlfriend is the daughter of the town preacher, and begs him to renounce his belief in Darwinism. Scopes bravely refuses to "deny the truth."

 Then comes lawyer Clarence Darrow (1857-1938), the champion of truth, science, reason and humanity. He will defend Scopes pro bono (free of charge). The prosecuting attorney is William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), an ignorant, ill-mannered Protestant fundamentalist who says in the movie, "...the Lord began the creation on the twenty-third of October in the year 4004 B.C. at--uh, at 9 a.m.!" I hate to tell you how many people I know who believe this rubbish to be an accurate account of what actually happened (highly educated people among them). They have been brainwashed into buying the whole "science vs. religion" canard. God is the author of all truths meaning that the True Faith, and the truths of science, cannot contradict each other.

In his 1998 Pulitzer Prize winning book, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion, historian, lawyer, and author Edward J. Larson does a splendid job of setting the record straight.

  • The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) placed an ad in the Chattanooga Times, offering free legal services to any teacher prepared to stand trial for teaching evolution, prohibited by the "Butler Act" passed that same year by the Tennessee legislature. 
  • Local business leaders in Dayton, lead by George Rappleyea and drugstore owner Frank Robinson, thought that if a trial like this could be held in Dayton, it would give major publicity to the town and boost the economy.
  • They recruited Scopes, who was not a biology teacher. He taught physics and math, and coached football. He did substitute on occasion for the biology teacher, and mentioned evolution so he could be the "test case."
  • The conspirators contacted the ACLU. Scopes was arrested and charged with one count of violating the Butler Act. He was immediately released on bail. He never spent a single minute in jail.
  • The textbook from which Scopes taught, A Civic Biology, by George Hunter, had a chapter on evolution. Hunter was an advocate of eugenics and held a low opinion of the mentally disabled, the mentally ill, and epileptics, all of whom he put in the same category with habitual criminals. He stated that, "If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading...we do have the remedy...preventing intermarriage and the possibility of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race." (See A Civic Biology Presented in Problems, NY: American Book Company, [1914], pg. 263; Emphasis mine).
  • William Jennings Bryan, a three time Democratic nominee for US President, a US Congressman, and US Secretary of State, opposed evolution because of the eugenics it engenders. By 1925, 24 states had laws permitting forced sterilizations on the "mentally feeble" and approximately 12,000 such sterilizations had occurred. He believed in a universe that was very old, and that the days in Genesis were not literal.
  • Clarence Darrow was everything that decent lawyers (such as myself), abhor in the profession. Scopes was his first and only pro bono case, because he had an avowed hatred for Christianity. Just months before the Scopes trial, he defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, the sons of two very wealthy families in Chicago, when they murdered fourteen (14) year old Bobby Franks just to see if they could (literally) get away with the murder of someone they didn't like. Darrow argued that they were "psychologically determined" from birth to do what they did, and both killers escaped the death penalty. 

What the Church Teaches on Creation

Moses, who wrote the Book of Genesis, used the Hebrew word "yom"--which means a time period of unspecified length as it was used at the time. It was translated as "day." The following question was proposed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

"Whether in the designation and distinction of six days with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word 'DAY' can be assumed either in its proper sense of a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among the exegetes?"

On June 30, 1909, the Commission (with full approval from His Holiness Pope St. Pius X) responded:

"IN THE AFFIRMATIVE." This means that the "days" of creation need not be actual periods of twenty-four hours each. This also comports with the Commission's decision of June 23, 1905 (also approved by Pope St. Pius X) that Scripture gives historical accounts except "...where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgement, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words."

In my opinion (and consistent with the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission approved by Pope St. Pius X), Moses meant to convey that man was God's special creation, so the Earth (our planet) takes place of pride over the other celestial bodies.That's why it is created first.  The creation of Man comes last to show Him as God's crowning achievement. There ARE strong arguments from modern science which would validate this interpretation. As a matter of fact, the Big Bang Theory was formulated by a Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (1894-1966). The Communists forbade the Big Bang to be taught, because they taught the "Steady State Theory" (the universe always existed), and it did not imply the need for a Creator!  I stand, as ever, to be corrected should Holy Mother Church be restored and teach otherwise.

The Church and Evolution

  What of Adam and Eve? Did they evolve or were they created exactly as stated in Genesis? 

Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis of August 12, 1950 states:

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."

As theologian Sagues explains, "With these words therefore it is supposed or asserted that evolutionism, and indeed only regarding the human body, is not a fact that has really been demonstrated, but a "hypothesis," and one that touches on doctrine contained in Scripture and Tradition. It is assumed that the hypothesis is not certainly directly or indirectly opposed to revelation, since otherwise it would be totally rejected; it is assumed it can, since the Church does not forbid it, be freely discussed in the present-day context of theology and natural science (this does not include everyone), but only by experts in both camps, and also in gravity and moderation in advancing reasons for or against transformism [evolution--Introibo], provided that all are ready to submit to the judgement of the Church." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, II B [1955], pgs. 236-237; Emphasis mine).   

Summary and Conclusion
  • There is much misinformation and disinformation regarding the origin of the universe and humanity.
  • The atheists, Masons, and other enemies of the Church do everything in their power to make it appear that science and theology are at war, when in fact God is the author of both the True Religion and true science so no contradiction is even possible.
  • Inherit the Wind is but one example of propaganda that mixes truth, half-truths, and outright lies under the guise of "history" to demonize those who believe in God and make them seem "unscientific."
  • Traditionalists must follow the teaching of the Church in this and all matters. Look to actual Church teaching and the approved pre-Vatican II theologians for guidance in an age of near universal apostasy without a pope to lead us. 
  • We are permitted by the Church to believe Creation was not in a literal six days, and that Genesis might not convey the exact order of Creation. Rather, it may have been told to make a point.
  • Evolution of the human body only, is open to discussion among experts under the guidance of the Church. This theory cannot be directly or indirectly opposed to the Faith, or Pope Pius XII would not have authoritatively allowed it to be the subject of open discussion; rather, it would have been condemned outright.
 The relationship between science and the True Religion, when properly understood, presents no difficulties. Just be sure to look for your guidance to actual Church teaching in the decrees of the popes, Roman Congregations, and the approved pre-Vatican II theologians. There are many questions (such as evolution of the body and the time involved in creation) that are open to differing opinions, and cannot be solved until the Church is restored. We have no business condemning those whom the Church Herself does not condemn in areas open to theological differences, unless/until the Church is restored and decrees a definitive answer. I believe in an old universe that God began with a Big Bang and that the human body may have developed over time before God's special intervention. You might deny both. However, we both remain loyal sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church. Let's focus on our common enemy, the Vatican II sect, and not busy ourselves in condemning fellow Traditionalists in matters left unresolved.  

Monday, February 13, 2017

Signs And Wonders

 They can heal you; or so they claim. Fr. Ralph DiOrio, Fr. Francis Macnutt, "Fr" Richard McAlear, and "Fr" Fernando Suarez are just a few past or present members of the Vatican II sect clergy claiming to be able to heal people. Their services are always packed, unlike the typical Novus Bogus "mass" where the Church is near empty. As Christ said, "Unless you see signs and wonders, you believe not." (See St. John 4:48). God can and does heal people. Miracles can and do happen. However, one must discern what really comes from God, and what does not. Unfortunately, many people get trapped into staying in the Vatican II sect for this very reason. People will say that it must be the True Catholic Church because God would not permit such signs and wonders otherwise. This post will examine some well-known "healers,"  some arguments to help those who believe in them to see the truth, and give some signs of false healing miracles.

Meet The "Healers"

1. "Fr" Richard McAlear was "ordained" in 1970, and began his "healing ministry" in connection with involvement with the Catholic (sic) Charismatic Movement in 1976. He says a "healing mass" in which "After attending Father McAlear's healing mass, many individuals experience emotions that are sometimes too powerful to express in human language; all experience a deep peace." (See

2. "Fr" Fernando Suarez was "ordained" in 2002 and is currently 50 years old. He is Filipino and on January 26, 2008, two people died and seven were rushed to James Gordon Hospital, Olongapo City while waiting for Suarez' "healing mass." Juanito Eleazar, 69, was one of those who died. She had a heart attack amid more than 15,000 worshipers having lined-up 

3. Fr. Ralph DiOrio was ordained in 1957. He claims that "On Sunday, May 9th, 1976 (Mother’s Day), Father Ralph Anthony DiOrio, Jr. was openly blessed with the Holistic Charisma of Healings." (whatever that means). He claims that he knew he had the "gift of healing" his whole life. He is quoted in People magazine as saying, "Whether church officials of any denomination accept us or not, we’re here to stay. That’s God’s plan, not mine." His "healing ceremonies" resemble a Protestant revival. He retired January 2017. 

4. Fr. Francis MacNutt was ordained in 1956. He became involved in the Catholic (sic) Charismatic Movement during the late 1960s. In 1980, he broke his vows to "marry" a woman more than 20 years his junior and set up a "healing ministry." In 1993, the Vatican II sect granted him a "dispensation" from his vows and "Bishop" John Snyder performed their Church wedding in Florida. In 2007, the Modernist Vatican co-sponsored an international conference with his "Christian Healing Ministries" for 450 Catholic (sic) leaders from 42 countries. Now, turning 92, he turned the organization over to his concubine. 

Mind Over Matter

Most of those caught up in these "healing services" do not want to hear of demonic influence (which probably occurs in some of them). They are not open to hearing that Satan will gladly cure a malady (inflicted by him) in order to bring about the "cure" and keep a soul in a false religion leading to perdition. Many so-called healings are the result of the power of suggestion. Some ailments are caused by the power of suggestion (known as psychosomatic illness). So too, can the mind cure certain ailments. According to Dr. Paul Brand, who studied such cases and co-published an article in Christianity Today entitled, "A Surgeon's View of Divine Healing" ( issue of November 25, 1983), he cites the following documented examples:

  • In the placebo effect, faith in simple sugar pills stimulates the mind to control pain and even heal some disorders. In certain experiments, among those with terminal cancer, morphine was an effective pain killer in two-thirds of patients, but placebos were equally effective in half of those! The placebo tricks the mind into believing relief has come, and the body responds accordingly.
  • Through biofeedback, people can train themselves to direct bodily processes that previously were thought involuntary. They can control blood pressure, heart rate, brain waves, and even vary the temperature in their hands by as much as 14 degrees.
  • Under hypnosis, 20 percent of patients can be induced to lose consciousness of pain so completely that they can undergo surgery without anesthetics. Some patients have even cured warts under hypnosis. The hypnotist suggests the idea, and the body performs a remarkable feat of skin renovation and construction, involving the cooperation of thousands of cells in a mental-directed process otherwise unobtainable.
  • In a false pregnancy (known as pseudocyesis), a woman believes so strongly in her condition that her mind directs an extraordinary sequence of activities: it increases hormone flow, enlarges breasts, suspends menstruation, induces morning sickness, and even prompts labor contractions. All this occurs even though there is no physical cause, that is, no fertilization and growing fetus inside. (My primary care physician, now age 72, told me how as a young doctor in the South Pacific, he actually was caring for such a woman. He believed her to be in the 8th month of pregnancy. When he heard no heartbeat, he ordered an X-ray and some other diagnostic tests; the best that could be done at that time and in that area of the world. He cancelled all other tests when the X-ray revealed no baby! Confronted with this evidence, the woman's body returned to normal in a short time. My doctor told me he has not [and never will] forget this experience. He thought the entire idea of false pregnancy was nonsense kept as a footnote in most medical texts.---Introibo) 
Most of these "healing services or masses" are conducted like Protestant revivals, where the emotions of those present are worked up to the point of making them susceptible to induce certain cures. Point to be made: tell those involved with these "healing masses" that mental suggestion, charlatans who place false people in the audience to be "healed," and demonic activity to dupe people, can all be possible causes of "miraculous cures."

What Does The Church Teach Concerning Miracles?

We must remember miracles:

  • Are performed for the glory of God and the good of humanity, and are the primary or supreme ends of every miracle.
  • Are evidences attesting and confirming the truth of a Divine mission, or of a doctrine of faith or morals
  • Are wrought to attest to true sanctity. Thus, e.g., God defends Moses ( See Numbers 12)
  • Benefits either spiritual or temporal. The temporal favors are always subordinate to spiritual ends, for they are a reward or a pledge of virtue, e.g. the widow of Sarephta (1 Kings 17), the Three Children in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3), the preservation of Daniel (Daniel 5), the deliverance of St. Peter from prison (Acts 12), of St. Paul from shipwreck (Acts 27). Thus semeion, i.e., "sign", completes the meaning of dynamis, i.e., "[Divine] power". It reveals the miracle as an act of God's supernatural Providence over men. It gives a positive content to teras, i.e., "wonder", for, whereas the wonder shows the miracle as a deviation from the ordinary course of nature, the sign gives the purpose of the deviation. 
(Above taken from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia)

Ask anyone who is caught up in these "healing masses":  To what doctrine of faith and/or morals do they attest? That false sects are a "means of salvation"? That "there is no Catholic God"?

Do any of the aforementioned healers seem especially holy?

What benefits are given? "Emotions and a feeling of deep peace"?

Some Warning Signs Against False "Miraculous Healings"

 1. The "Healer" claims "you must have faith" and "If you don't believe strongly enough, God can't heal you." God is in control of the universe and faith is not some condition without which He cannot act. God can cure whomever He wishes, in His Divine Providence. Someone without faith may be cured because of others praying for them, or because of a greater spiritual good that will result for the one healed, or perhaps another. Of the twenty-five (25) miracles Christ performed as recorded in the Bible, fifteen (15) were done with no faith on the part of the recipient (e.g., the healing of the ear of Malchus in St. Luke 22: 49-51). On the other hand, psychological healings (power of suggestion) does require belief--not in the true faith, but in the "healer" or even a placebo.

2. The "Healer" needs to touch you or have you place your hands on some object (blessed or not).
God does not need anyone to touch anything to heal. Consider how Christ brought Lazarus back from the dead without touching him, and He healed the centurion's servant from afar. Making contact with people (or objects--"put your hands on the TV and be healed" as those phony Protestant "televangelists" would declare back in the 1970s and 80s) is part of a psychological build up.

3. The "Healer" claims the cure is gradual. Miraculous cures are instantaneous and permanent. People who claim they "begin to feel better" and then go to doctors to complete the "miracle" shows a true case of psychological healing, not Divine Intervention. 


Don't let yourself or others get taken in by "healing masses" and "healing services" of Vatican II sect clergy. They are false miracles (many psychological cures) in the context of a false religion and a false "mass" (Novus Bogus). God will not ratify a false sects' teachings with His Power. Pray to the Divine Physician to be healed, but also remember His warning, recorded in St. Matthew 24:24, "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." (Emphasis mine). 

Monday, February 6, 2017

Is Mary Our Co-Redemptrix?

  The spurious "Benedictine brothers" of the "Most Holy Family Monastery," Fred and Bobby Dimond, are damning more people to Hell. If anyone should disagree with their ever changing opinions on any given subject, they don't hesitate to claim that person is on the road to perdition. The Dimonds suffer from a condition endemic among those who deny Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB), namely, the refusal to submit to the authority of the Magisterium. According to them, only infallible decrees are to be believed, and then only their twisted interpretation of them. The approved pre-Vatican II theologians are to be spurned, as are any decrees of Roman Congregations (and even of the popes themselves), if they don't agree with their novel interpretation of some infallible decree.

 The latest case in point, is an article on the Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) website that declares anyone who gives Our Blessed Mother the title Co-Redemptrix is a heretic. The title Co-Redemptrix has pre-Vatican II theologians divided. Some approve and advocate for the title, and others feel it should be a title denied to her as it is unbecoming Our Lady. Neither side declares the title to be a matter of heresy or worthy of some censure short of heresy. As the Dimonds set themselves up as the ultimate arbiters of truth, my post will (a) explain why they are wrong and (b) give the arguments of the pre-Vatican II theologians (pro and con) as to the title Co-Redemptrix. The Church has never decided the matter and, unlike Fred and Bob, I realize I have no authority to settle the issue. Traditionalists are free to adopt either position on giving Our Blessed Mother the title Co-Redemptrix.

A Dimond Is Bad Theology's Best Friend

 The Dimond brothers attack those who wish to honor Our Lady with the title Co-Redemptrix as heretics because it (allegedly) contradicts the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent. They write:

 Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984-987) (Emphasis in original).

What the Diamonds, in their duplicity, choose to omit are the following words between the ellipsis, "and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ...(Emphasis mine). It's clear that Trent was condemning the Protestants who think that because there is ONE MEDIATOR (not two or more--See 1 Timothy 2: 5-6), that saints are not to be invoked and cannot pray and intercede for us without derogating from the one Mediator, Jesus Christ. The Dimonds have no problem calling Our Lady Mediatrix, with no fear of minimizing Our Lord's unique role as the one Mediator. Likewise, Trent was not defining Christ to be the only Savior so as to exclude the possibility of Our Lady having a secondary and subordinate role in redemption. Just as Mary has a role in dispensing all grace (subordinate to and united with Her Divine Son) so as to merit the title Mediatrix without dishonoring or denying Her Son as the one and only Mediator, the title Co-Redemptrix would be given in the same manner.  So much for their contorting the meaning of Trent, just as they do in regards to its decrees on Baptism and the sacraments.

What about the theologians and popes who spoke of Mary as having a role with Her Divine Son in the redemption of humanity? According to MHFM, "There are a few non-infallible quotations that people bring forward to attempt to show that Mary is Co-Redemptrix.  The answer is that they are not infallible and they are simply wrong.  They cannot be defended." Well, that settles it! They were not infallible, and we only need to believe those statements that are infallibly defined (or so the Feeneyites contend). These theologians and popes were unaware that the Council of Trent infallibly defined that Christ alone redeemed us to the exclusion of any cooperative role of Our Blessed Mother. Wouldn't that make them notorious heretics who would thereby lose their ecclesiastical office (in the case of a pope)? What good is having a Teaching Authority which is unable to preserve Her members from the errors of errant theologians?  Don't expect logical answers anytime soon from our wannabe "Benedictines."

What Real Theologians Teach

  As I wrote above, the Church has not settled the question as to whether or not Mary is to be invoked under the title Co-Redemptrix. I will therefore put forward the teachings of two eminent pre-Vatican II theologians; Joseph Pohle who opposes the title, and Juniper Carol, who defends the title.

  1. The Case Against Mary Being Called Co-Redemptrix (Pohle)
(a) It obscures the fact that Mary herself was redeemed through the merits of Jesus Christ which theologians technically call pre-redemption as She was preserved free from Original Sin "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ" (See Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of Pope Pius IX defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception on December 8, 1854). 

(b) The title never belonged to the Blessed Virgin before the 16th century and is the invention of recent theologians.

(c) Mary might be though of as acting in a priestly capacity. Any/all such titles attributed to Mary, such as "priestess," were solemnly condemned by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1916, and again in 1927. 

(d) The title Mediatrix most appropriately and comprehensively describes Our Lady's part in the Redemption, which title is sanctioned by primitive Christian usage and embodies all that can be said on the subject.
(See Mariology, [1916] pgs. 122-123) 

      2. The Case For Mary Being Called Co-Redemptrix (Carol)

(a) Redemption designates the sum total of meritorious and satisfactory acts performed by Christ while on Earth, offered to the Eternal Father in and through the Sacrifice of the Cross, in virtue of which the Eternal Father was moved (humanly speaking) to reinstate the human race into His former friendship. When we say Mary is Co-Redemptrix of humanity, we mean that together with Christ (although subordinately to Him and and in virtue of His power) She atoned or satisfied for our sins, merited every grace necessary for salvation, and offered Her Divine Son on Calvary to appease the wrath of God, and that as a result of this, God was pleased to cancel our debt and receive us into His former friendship. This co-redemptive role of Mary actually began when She accepted to become the Mother of God by her own free will. 

(b) Pope Benedict XV, in his Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia (March 22, 1918), wrote, "To such extent did she (Mary) suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son, and to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man's salvation, and immolated Him, insofar as she could, in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ."

(c) Pope Pius XI called Our Lady Co-Redemptrix at least six (6) times. In the radio broadcast to the world at the solemn closing of the Jubilee Year which commemorated the Redemption of humanity (April 29, 1935) he prayed, "O Mother of piety and mercy who, when Thy most beloved Son was accomplishing the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, didst stand there both suffering with Him and as a Co-Redemptrix; preserve us we beseech thee, and increase day by day, the precious fruit of His Redemption and of thy compassion."

(d) Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam (October 11, 1954) distinguishes Mary's role in the Redemption from her role as Mediatrix of All Grace. 

(e) On November 26, 1951, the entire Cuban hierarchy petitioned Pope Pius XII for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. An entire nation of bishops felt that it could and should be defined.

(f) Just as Adam alone brought sin in the world, yet had the cooperation of Eve, Mary is the Second Eve. Christ alone brought redemption to the world with the cooperation of Mary.

(g)   When the Church teaches Christ alone is our Redeemer, they are referring to the primary, universal, and self-sufficient causality of Christ in the redemptive process which does not exclude Mary's secondary and totally subordinate cooperation which drew all its efficacy from the superabundant merits of her Divine Son. 

(h) Mary was redeemed by Christ, so how could she both receive the effect of redemption and be the cause of it? Because Mary cooperated to redeem all others not herself. Mary was redeemed by God preemptively in the Immaculate Conception, then together with Her Divine Son, she cooperated to redeem all others.

(i) Christ's merits have infinite value, so how can Mary's cooperation add anything to the Passion? Mary did not add (and could not add) anything to Christ's merits. However, God was pleased to accept her satisfaction together with Christ as a fitting way of making her the Second Eve, even as Christ was the Second Adam.
(See Mariology, [1956] pgs. 56-65)

 When the Church has not settled a question and leaves it open to discussion among the theologians, Traditionalists are free to accept any answer the theologians offer as long as it is not censured by the Magisterium. Such is the case on whether the title Co-Redemptrix properly belongs to Mary. Notice however, how the strongest (and most numerous) arguments come down on the side favoring Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Theologian Pohle's objections are more about the fear of misunderstandings that could derogate from Christ's unique salvific role, not a condemnation of the correct understanding of Mary's role in redemption. Personally, I believe Mary is our Co-Redemptrix. However, that's all it is--one layman's opinion based on the teachings of the popes and theologians. I will not arrogate unto myself alleged Magisterial authority and issue false condemnations of people who disagree. I will leave all that up to Fred and Bobby Dimond, the self-anointed "Benedictine brothers" at Most Holy Family Monastery.  

Monday, January 30, 2017

Addicted To Masonry

 Pope Pius XII once said, "The greatest sin of our age is that we've lost all sense of sin." Truer words were never spoken, especially in our age. Divorce and remarriage is no longer a mortal sin that requires your repentance and living as brother and sister. No, you can live in open adultery, and the Vatican II sect will find ways to give you "communion." Worse still, is the attempt to explain away sin as an "illness." Take the example of New York pervert Anthony Weiner, the former congressman who tweeted pictures of his genitals to women he hardly knew across the country. He lost he seat in Congress, lost his bid for mayor of NYC, destroyed his marriage, and is being investigated for possible sexual communication with a fifteen (15) year old girl. Weiner never asked forgiveness of God. No one acknowledges sin. No one does penance.

Perverts are now "sex addicts" who need group therapy and couldn't help themselves. Weiner actually went to some "Sex Addicts Anonymous" group for a huge sum of money to "cure himself."  The "Twelve Step Program" made famous by Alcoholics Anonymous ("AA") is now in vogue to allegedly help people beat all kinds of "addictions" including, but not limited to, drugs, gambling, tobacco, and sex. Virtually any vice is now labeled an addiction. While AA may have helped some people stop drinking, it does far more harm than good. As a matter of fact, the origins and purpose of AA are quite disturbing. Most people are unaware of the occult/Masonic origin of AA and its (rather successful) campaign to promote religious indifferentism and eliminate the sense of sin.

AA's False Representation and True Origin

According to AA: "Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of men and women who share their experience, strength and hope with each other that they may solve their common problem and help others to recover from alcoholism. The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. There are no dues or fees for A.A. membership; we are self-supporting through our own contributions. A.A. is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy; neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety." Seems benevolent enough until you dig beneath the surface.

 AA started when William (Bill)Wilson and Dr. Robert (Bob) Smith met in 1935. Both men were alcoholics who met at the Oxford Group,a non-denominational group allegedly modeled on early Christianity.  The Oxford group literature defines the group as not being a religion, for it had no hierarchy, no Church, and "no plans but God's plan." Their chief aim was "A new world order for Christ, the King." (See F. Buchman, Remaking the World. Blandord Press, London (1961)). Due to this affiliation, people have tried to paint AA as "Christian," yet the facts speak for themselves. AA denies any religious affiliation, and the Oxford Group denied being a religion, yet claims to build a "new world order" for "Christ the King." They knew "God's plan" through some "personal experience." The Group called it, "Listening for God's guidance, and carrying it out."

 The official AA biography of Bill Wilson, entitled Pass it On, details Wilson and Smith practicing séances and communing with demonic spirits while writing the program of AA and the Twelve Steps. Bill Wilson explains one of their experiences with a Ouija board:

"The ouija board began moving in earnest. What followed was the fairly usual experience-it was a strange mélange of Aristotle, St. Francis, diverse archangels with odd names, deceased friends–some in purgatory and others doing nicely, thank you! There were malign and mischievous ones of all descriptions telling of vices quite beyond my ken, even as former alcoholics. Then, the seemingly virtuous entities would elbow them out with messages of comfort, information, advice—and sometimes just sheer nonsense." (See Pass It On, pg. 278). 

It is an abomination to attempt to contact the dead. As I've written before, necromancy (attempting to contact the dead) is condemned by both the Bible and Church teaching. "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.) According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it. Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium." (See Moral Theology, pg. 100; Emphasis mine). 

AA has its origin in the demonic. The triangle within a circle (symbol of AA) has its origin in secret societies. The Rosicrucians (a secret society tied to masonry) uses it to impart and convey its teachings to initiates.  According to Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age (published by AA), Wilson says of the symbol:
"That we have chosen this symbol [for A.A.] is perhaps no mere accident. The priests and seers of antiquity regarded the circle enclosing the triangle as a means of warding off spirits of evil, and AA’s circle of Recovery, Unity, and Service has certainly meant all that to us and much more." (pg. 139; Emphasis mine.) 

Twelve Steps To Losing The Faith

 The Twelve Step Program is little more than an exaltation of positive Indifferentism (the belief that all religions are more or less equally good). 

Step Two states: "[We] Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity."

What "Power" is that? It could mean God, an impersonal "god" of the deists, or the "Great Architect of the Universe" of the Masonic Lodge.

Step Three states: " [We] Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him." 

" we understood Him." Any understanding of  "God" as some higher "Power" are all equally good and praiseworthy.

Step Eleven states, [We] Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out."

 To whom do they pray, and how do they meditate? "Conscious contact with God"? What does that mean? Contact by some direct communication as the Oxford Group claimed? 

Step Twelve states, [We] ... had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs."

A "spiritual awakening"? It certainly is not to the One True Church of Christ. They are further instructed to "practice these principles in all our affairs." 

AA even has chapters for atheists and agnostics but will not allow proselytism, or for anyone to pray in the Holy Name of Jesus! (As Bergoglio would say, "Proselytism is nonsense."). They do not "tolerate" the idea that any person's religious beliefs are superior to another's, nor that anyone's "spiritual beliefs" may be wrong. Despite AA's protestations that it is "not allied with any sect, denomination..." the New York State Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) determined that AA is  religious in the broad sense of the term. (See Matter of Griffin v. Coughlin 88 N.Y.2d 674 (1996)). A religion of indifferentism that can tolerate anything except the Truth!

People in these Twelve Step programs will begin to imbibe something worse than alcohol; the idea that any "Higher Power" worshiped by anyone is just as good as any other. It matters not if you are Hindu, Moslem, Protestant, Vatican II sect, or Traditionalist. Any religious belief can help you in life, and (by implication) the afterlife. After enough exposure, you're on the road to believing it and rejecting the idea of a One True Church. 

Scientific Studies Dispute AA's Effectiveness

In 2006, the Cochrane Collaboration, a health-care research group, reviewed studies going back to the 1960s and found that "no experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or [12-step] approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems."

AA claims a 75% success rate, yet "in his recent book, The Sober Truth: Debunking the Bad Science Behind 12-Step Programs and the Rehab Industry, Lance Dodes, a retired psychiatry professor from Harvard Medical School, looked at Alcoholics Anonymous’s retention rates along with studies on sobriety and rates of active involvement (attending meetings regularly and working the program) among AA members. Based on these data, he put AA’s actual success rate somewhere between 5 and 8 percent." 

Even more frightening, "There is no mandatory national certification exam for addiction counselors. The 2012 Columbia University report on addiction medicine found that only six states required alcohol- and substance-abuse counselors to have at least a bachelor’s degree and that only one state, Vermont, required a master’s degree. Fourteen states had no license requirements whatsoever—not even a GED or an introductory training course was necessary—and yet counselors are often called on by the judicial system and medical boards to give expert opinions on their clients’ prospects for recovery." These same mostly unqualified people will be teaching the occult/Masonic ideology intrinsic to AA.

 (Information on scientific studies culled from the work of Gabrielle Glasser located at

Summary and Conclusion
  • The sense of sin is largely lost in our modern society. People make "bad judgments" or have "illnesses." The idea of moral failure, sin, penance, and asking forgiveness from God are now nearly obsolete.
  • The Vatican II sect is working towards this goal of eradicating the sense of sin as well,  both in teaching and practice.
  • One of the major organizations (claiming not to be a religious sect or denomination) that pushes the notions of religious indifferentism, and ignores the concept of sin, is Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).
  • AA was founded by two alcoholics who got the ideas for their loosely knit society from occult practices, and they were influenced by Masonry.
  • The Twelve Step program is nothing more than religious indifferentism from which Christ and His One True Church are excluded. They tolerate any beliefs as long as they are not true.
  • People in these Twelve Step programs will begin to see all religions as more or less good, and question (even reject) the idea of One True Church.
  • The 75% success rate claimed by AA has been called into doubt by recent scientific studies that put the actual number at no more than 8%.
  • Most of the counselors are completely unqualified, to the point that even high school drop-outs can  function as a "counselor." These are the same people who will tell you all beliefs are equally valid.

 There are many more effective methods of treating alcoholism (or any other problem) than organizations using the Masonic Twelve Step method. If you or someone you love suffers from a problem considered "an addiction," consult with a doctor you trust, shop around, and find treatment from a person or group unaffiliated with the Twelve Steps. Most important to your recovery, is your spiritual health in the One True Church. Christ and His Mother will help you through your sins.  Otherwise you'll put your soul in peril as the Masonic "cure" is worse than the so-called "disease" it purports to fight.

Monday, January 23, 2017

In The Red

 "Father" John Zuhlsdorf, a former Lutheran, was "ordained" a Vatican II sect "priest" by John Paul the Great Apostate on May 26, 1991. Known as "Fr. Z," he maintains a popular blog wherein he promotes so-called conservative ideas and sells coffee for profit. He currently resides in Wisconsin, but it seems like this man spends more time promoting himself and his products on the Internet than doing anything one would expect from a cleric. On the other hand, since what many Vatican II clerics are doing these days lands them in jail, perhaps it's a better option after all. Mr. Z is fond of writing "Say the Black, Do the Red." This is a reference to the True Roman Missal, where what is to be said is written in black type, and what is to be done is written in red type. (The very name "rubrics," or "rules" to be observed in offering the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, comes from the Latin word ruber, i.e., "red"). The same is true of their "Sacramentary" for the Novus Bogus, or at least it was; keeping up with how fast the Vatican II sect changes is difficult.

Mr. Z wants to promote "reverence" in the Vatican II sect mockery of the Mass, known as the Novus Ordo Missae or "New Order of the Mass." (sic) I prefer to call it the Novus Bogus, as it is both new and invalid. Trying to make one of these services "reverent" is like putting lipstick on a pig. In 2002, the bishops of the United States, with the blessing of Modernist Rome, issued another General Instruction on the Roman Missal (Hereinafter, "Instruction"). This is their version of the rubrics to be employed for a "proper and reverent celebration of the Eucharist."

 Much has been written about the evil doctrines and invalidating consecration brought about by the recitation of the heretical text of the Novus Bogus. In this post, I will show how even the very actions are either evil or incentives to impiety. Since the True Church cannot give that which is evil or an incentive to impiety, it did not come from the Church, but from heretics who lost their office by Divine Law and started a false religion.
The Instruction will appear in red type, and my response below it will be in regular black type.

A Heretical Structure

35. The acclamations and the responses of the faithful to the Priest’s greetings and prayers constitute that level of active participation that is to be made by the assembled faithful in every form of the Mass, so that the action of the whole community may be clearly expressed and fostered

  • The Mass is not a "communal activity;" this idea was expressly condemned by His Holiness Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, "For there are today, Venerable Brethren, those who, approximating to errors long since condemned teach that in the New Testament by the word 'priesthood' is meant only that priesthood which applies to all who have been baptized; and hold that the command by which Christ gave power to His apostles at the Last Supper to do what He Himself had done, applies directly to the entire Christian Church, and that thence, and thence only, arises the hierarchical priesthood. Hence they assert that the people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office committed to him by the community. Wherefore, they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a 'concelebration,' in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should 'concelebrate' with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent." (Emphasis mine)
  • The emphasis is always on "conscious, active participation." The clear import is that for centuries at the True Mass (and Traditionalists today) are unconscious and inactive at the Holy Sacrifice when they lift up their mind and heart to God by praying the Rosary, following the prayers in a hand Missal, or meditating on the sacred action. To "participate"  for Vatican II means to banter back and forth and be preoccupied doing something so you don't get bored.

50. When the Entrance Chant is concluded, the Priest stands at the chair and, together with the whole gathering, signs himself with the Sign of the Cross. Then by means of the Greeting he signifies the presence of the Lord to the assembled community. By this greeting and the people’s response, the mystery of the Church gathered together is made manifest.After the greeting of the people, the Priest, or the Deacon, or a lay minister may very briefly introduce the faithful to the Mass of the day.

  • "Standing at the Chair" means the "priest" is now at the center of the assembly. Where is the tabernacle? Probably relegated to a hole in the wall. 
  • The "mystery of the Church" is not made present by the assembly and "presider" or "president of the assembly" (as they now commonly call the former "priest") exchanging greetings and responses. The Mass is the Sacred Mystery in and of Itself.
  • "Introduce the people to the Mass of the day"---whatever that means

59. The function of proclaiming the readings is by tradition not presidential but ministerial. Therefore the readings are to be read by a reader, but the Gospel by the Deacon or, in his absence, by another Priest. If, however, a Deacon or another Priest is not present, the Priest Celebrant himself should read the Gospel, and moreover, if no other suitable reader is present, the Priest Celebrant should also proclaim the other readings as well.

  • In typical Protestant fashion, the role of the priest is reduced. There is some wacky distinction between  what is "presidential" and "ministerial." You will look in vain at pre-Vatican II sources for such terminology and distinctions
  • Get as many laymen and even laywomen involved as possible. The priest is a last resort to "do the readings." Have a married "permanent deacon" at every "celebration." 
  • I wonder if the female "lectors" ever "proclaim" the following reading, "Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith." 1 Corinthians 14: 34.
82. There follows the Rite of Peace, by which the Church entreats peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

  • The Church always has Unity; it's one of the Four Signs of the True Church along with Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity. There is no need to "entreat" "unity for herself" (sic)
  • The "whole human family" cannot have peace if they are outside the True Church. It may be "bumper sticker theology" but it's true; Know Christ (in His One True Church), Know Peace. No Christ (outside His One True Church), No Peace.
  • The "sign of peace" is now a bunch of handshakes, kissing, back-slapping, and idle chatter while Christ is (allegedly) Physically Present. Yet they clearly believe that His "presence in the assembly or community" is of equal importance. A denigration, if not implicit denial, of the dogma of the Real Presence. 
379. The Church offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christ’s Pasch for the dead so that, since all the members of Christ’s Body are in communion with one another, what implores spiritual help for some, may bring comforting hope to others.

  • Excluded in the Instruction is ANY mention of the dreaded word "Purgatory." It would be decidedly Catholic.
  • No mention of the Four Last Things.

 I could go on and on, but I need not belabor the obvious: The Novus Bogus is invalid and heretical even in its very actions; by what it does, and fails to do. Actions often speak louder than words. This whole farce is an incentive to impiety. However, we know the Church cannot give incentives to impiety. The Council of Trent declared, "CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema." So ask yourself "recognize and resisters" of the SSPX and the rest, "How could this be from the True Church?" Please don't talk about "abuses" and what "the pope really said," because this is from the official text of the Modernist Vatican! 

 Perhaps after a few more cups of his coffee, Mr. Z will wake up to realize the only "black and red" coming from the Modernist Vatican is the black smoke from the red flames of Hell. 

Monday, January 16, 2017

Trumped Up Charges

 On Friday, January 20, 2017, Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States of America, after the nastiest and most contentious election in U.S. history. He lost the popular vote, but won the Electoral College, the method used to decide the president since this nation was founded. The reaction of the left-wing was disturbing, from signs proclaiming "He's not my president," to demonstrations planned for the Inauguration. Had this happened eight years ago when Obama was sworn in, there would have been cries of "racism" against any such protesters. (For the record, Obama was not the "first black president," he is bi-racial. He was, however, the first Communist in all but name). Trump is far from perfect, but the reactions of many (including members of the Vatican II sect), are outrageous. People are claiming it's their "right" not to recognize him as president and to oppose everything he does, regardless of the merits.

 What does the One True Church teach about the duties owed by citizens to the State? That is the topic to be covered in this post.

Catholic Principles on the Authority of the State and the Duties of Citizens

 I will turn to the most eloquent teacher on such principles, His Holiness Pope Leo XIII.

1. All authority comes from God, but the person invested with authority can be designated by the people by different methods at various times. 

" It is of importance, however, to remark in this place that those who may be placed over the State may in certain cases be chosen by the will and decision of the multitude, without opposition to or impugning of the Catholic doctrine. And by this choice, in truth, the ruler is designated, but the rights of ruling are not thereby conferred. Nor is the authority delegated to him, but the person by whom it is to be exercised is determined upon."--Diuturnum # 6

"There is no question here respecting forms of government, for there is no reason why the Church should not approve of the chief power being held by one man or by more, provided only it be just, and that it tend to the common advantage. Wherefore, so long as justice be respected, the people are not hindered from choosing for themselves that form of government which suits best either their own disposition, or the institutions and customs of their ancestors."--Diuturnum # 6

2. Authority exists so that the common good (and the good of individuals) may be more easily and perfectly obtained.

"But in order that justice may be retained in government it is of the highest importance that those who rule States should understand that political power was not created for the advantage of any private individual; and that the administration of the State must be carried on to the profit of those who have been committed to their care, not to the profit of those to whom it has been committed."---Diuturnum # 16

3. Authority must be exercised with justice and in a fatherly manner for the advantage of all members of society.

"... God has always willed that there should be a ruling authority, and that they who are invested with it should reflect the divine power and providence in some measure over the human race... They, therefore, who rule should rule with evenhanded justice, not as masters, but rather as fathers, for the rule of God over man is most just, and is tempered always with a father's kindness. Government should, moreover, be administered for the well-being of the citizens, because they who govern others possess authority solely for the welfare of the State. Furthermore, the civil power must not be subservient to the advantage of any one individual or of some few persons, inasmuch as it was established for the common good of all."---Immortale Dei # 4 and 5

4. Legitimate authority must be respected and obeyed conscientiously. 

"Whence it will behoove citizens to submit themselves and to be obedient to rulers, as to God, not so much through fear of punishment as through respect for their majesty; nor for the sake of pleasing, but through conscience, as doing their duty."---Diuturnum # 13

"Both the natural and the Christian law command us to revere those who in their various grades are shown above us in the State, and to submit ourselves to their just commands."---Graves de Communi Re # 9

5. If lawful authority commands anything contrary to natural and/or Divine Law, there is a duty not to obey the command (an intrinsically unjust law like abortion).

"The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated."---Diuturnum # 15 

Ask yourself, "Are the protesters against Donald Trump adhering to the principles defined by Pope Leo XIII?"  Traditionalists suffered through the presidency of Barack Obama without questioning his designation by the people to rule. We prayed and fought against his disastrous policies with dignity and in the manner consistent with Church teaching. We resisted in appropriate ways when sodomite "marriage" was foisted upon the nation with the help of two of his Supreme Court nominees, and when he declared that determining the humanity of unborn children was "above his pay grade." (Good thing Lincoln didn't think determining the humanity of slaves was above his pay grade, Mr. Obama). 

 Has the Vatican II sect admonished anyone for this unprincipled behavior? Perish the thought. Traditionalists should protest outside the Modernist Vatican with signs that read, "He's not my (or anyone else's) pope."

Monday, January 9, 2017

Secret Santa

 As the Christmas season winds down with the Feast of the Most Holy Family (January 8, 2017), I'm writing to ask Traditionalist parents (if they haven't done so already) to eliminate Santa Claus from their homes, and don't tell their children about it. No, I'm not here to tell you the letters in "Santa" spell "Satan," but I will bring home two points; (1) you must lie to your children multiple times about a fictitious character that you want them to think is real, and (2) it lessens their belief in other things you tell them; like the existence of God. All this for folklore that has nothing to do with the real meaning of Christmas, and serves to make kids materialistic. Just what we need, right?

 There is good reason to believe that the modern day Santa, far from being St. Nicholas, is a Masonic ploy to detract from the real meaning of Christmas, just like the Easter Bunny detracts from the most important event in human history; the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Consider the following carefully.

Santa is God-Like

 People calling themselves "Christian" lie to their children about the existence of a supernatural, all-knowing being who is watching them and holding them morally accountable. This "God-surrogate" is an all-seeing person endowed with miraculous powers, who’s making a list and checking it twice in order to find out if you've been naughty or nice. "He knows when you are sleeping; he knows when you’re awake. He knows if you've been bad or good, so be good, for goodness’ sake!" Fear not, however, no matter what you’ve done, he thinks you’re good and delivers the presents. Is this caricature of God something about which you want to lie to your children? 

 Once they find out that you have lied to them about Santa’s existence, how can doubts not also arise that you have been lying (or wrong) as well in telling them that God exists? Maybe the whole Christmas story is a myth which thinking adults should outgrow. I’ve heard ignorant atheists actually comparing God to Santa Claus and saying that there is no more evidence of God’s existence than Santa’s. In lying to your children about Santa Claus, you may be setting them up for fall. If you think I'm exaggerating, there's at least one high ranking Freemason who agrees.

Giving Children "Masonic Doubt"

 Gaylord Z. Thomas, a major in the United States Air Force, and a 32nd degree Mason, compares Santa Claus to The Legend of Hiram Abiff. According to Masonic Education (See, Hiram Abiff was comissioned by King Solomon as chief architect and master of works at the construction of his temple. As the temple is nearing completion, three fellowcraft masons from the workforce ambush him as he leaves the building, demanding the secrets of a Master Mason. Hiram is challenged by each in turn, and at each refusal to divulge the information his assailant strikes him with a mason's tool. He is injured by the first two assailants, and struck dead by the last.The assailants are brought to justice, and King Solomon informs the people that the secrets of the Master Mason are now gone. Such is the tale told to Freemasons entering the Third Degree. Masons use the story to show "how Hiram's death was also his triumph--as the resurrection of truth over ignorance is always a victory,..." (See It is the triumph of Masonic naturalism ("truth") over the "ignorance" of the Church. Masonry claims to have the truth and will keep it secret (like Hiram Abiff) while seeking to destroy the ignorance of its enemy, the True Church. 

 Major Thomas now compares this legend to Santa. "Another parallel to Santa can be seen in how Hiram is struck down and how Santa Claus 'dies' in the minds of our youth. Hiram was met at the first principal gate and struck with the Rule, inflicting the first wound. He is struck in the throat, the place of our voice. Is it not by word of mouth from their fellow school children (or siblings) that Santa Claus is also first struck?" 

Next, "Hiram was met at the second principal gate and struck a second wound by the Square. He is struck in the chest or heart, the place of our affections. Is it not normally by the word of the parents, those who stand upright in the minds of the child, that the first realization about Santa Claus is confirmed? And doesn't it almost always break their hearts to hear this news? They are growing up." 

Finally, "Hiram is met at the third gate, and the final blow by the Setting Maul is dealt to his head, the place of our intellect. Similarly, children aware of the true nature of Santa forcefully kill Santa in the minds of other children by ridiculing, often with blistering logic, those who still believe in Santa." (See He approves of this "death of Santa." 

Almost all children will experience three bad events  from being lied to about Santa Claus by their parents:

  • They will be told by older siblings or school companions that their parents lied.
  • They have the trust in their parents broken, and maybe a lingering doubt about what else they lied about--like perhaps God. Parents are seen as hypocrites by telling them "don't lie;" but they themselves lie for children's entertainment.
  • They are angry and wish to destroy the lie in the minds of other children--they have become skeptics at an early age

Why would any parent do this to a child? The Masons may not have created Santa Claus, but they sure know how to use this myth to dislodge Christ from people's minds; especially the minds of children here in the United States.

Santa: A Fairy Tale Made Analogous To God
Consider these parallels:

  • Has white hair like wool (Apocalypse 1:14)--so does Santa
  • Has a beard (Isaiah 50:6) --so does Santa
  • Comes in red apparel (Isaiah 63:1-2)---so does Santa
  • Hour of His coming is a mystery (Luke 12:40; Mark 13:33)--so is Santa's 
  • Omnipotent -- all powerful (Apocalypse 19:6)--Santa can deliver all the world's toys in one night
  • Omniscient -- knows all (Hebrews 4:13; 1 John 3:20)--Santa knows the good and bad deeds of all kids in the world
  • Omnipresent (Psalm 139:7-10; Ephesians 4:6; John 3:13)--Santa has to be everywhere in one night
  • Comes as a thief in the night (Matthew 24:43-44)--enters your home like a thief!
  •  Judges (Rom 14:10)--decides if you're bad or good, but unlike Christ, all will get rewarded

So when they stop believing in the lie they were told, maybe they will (consciously or subconsciously) make the connection to disbelief in God and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.  

The Solution: St. Nicholas

 Don't lie to your children about the existence of a mythical creature with God-like characteristics, and then try to keep Santa's non-existence a secret.  Like in some European countries prior to Vatican II, you can give the gifts on December 6th, the Feast of St. Nicholas. Explain this feast to your children, and keep Christmas strictly religious. Acquaint your children with the historical Saint Nicholas, and most importantly, acquaint them with the historical Jesus. In fact, share with them how Christmas myths like the "little drummer boy" began. Let them know that Jesus wasn't really born on December 25th, but it counters a pagan holiday during the early Church. Let them know Santa isn't real, but unfortunately, some parents have fallen for a Christmas counterfeit that will try some children's faith in God. You can keep giving gifts on Christmas, as long as they know it's in honor of Christ, and in imitation of St. Nicholas. By doing all this, your children will have a stronger, more durable faith as a result.