Monday, November 20, 2017

Mormons, Masons And Moslems


 Judge Roy Moore is running for the United States Senate in Alabama. He was elected to the highest court in the state twice, and was removed from office both times for standing up for his beliefs. Moore, a Protestant, first refused to remove a monument in honor of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse in violation of a federal court order. He was removed from office, only to be reelected by the people of Alabama. He then refused to allow marriage licenses to be issued to sodomites, in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. He resigned after being suspended and announced he was running for Senator. Before the allegations of sexual impropriety with a minor (coming in with the timing and credibility of Anita Hill), one of Moore's most controversial statements was that Moslems should not hold public office. According to Worldnetdaily, he stated, "...common sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine."

When Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota (b. 1963) was elected as the first Islamic member of Congress in 2006, he insisted on taking the oath of office on the Koran (Ellison was a member of the Vatican II sect and graduated from a Jesuit school before converting to Islam--way to go Vatican II). Roy Moore protested by saying, "In 1943, we would never have allowed a member of Congress to take their oath on Mein Kampf, or someone in the 1950s to swear allegiance on the Communist Manifesto,.." You'll get no argument from me on that score.

Moore's biggest detractor, on the Republican side of the aisle, is U.S. Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona.  According to The Hill, Flake refused to endorse Moore from the start because, "A guy who says that a Muslim member of Congress shouldn’t be able to serve, that’s not right." (See http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/357332-flake-says-he-won%27t-back-roy-moore). It's not surprising at all that Flake, a Mormon, would make such a statement. To be certain, every country should be a Catholic country, with Catholicism as the state religion. "Error has no rights." The United States Constitution is a Masonic document, and no one would want the Masonic principle of separation of Church and State more strongly enforced than a Mormon.  Most people think of Mormons as nice people from Utah with strange beliefs, especially regarding polygamy. Few people know that Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, was a Freemason, who incorporated the Craft's Satanic beliefs into his new sect.

 What is the Mormon-Masonic connection? Is it dangerous? These questions will be explored in this post.

The Strange Beliefs of Joseph Smith and His Mormon Sect
Mormonism was founded in New York State, the United States of America, on April 6, 1830 by one Joseph Smith (b. 1805). Smith claimed an angel named Maroni directed him to a buried book of golden plates inscribed with a Judeo-Christian history of an ancient American civilization. Only Smith with the help of two "seer stones" could translate it from the "reformed Egyptian" language in which it was written. (Scholars unanimously agree that there is no such language, or even any evidence of any derivation of Egyptian which would qualify). No one except Smith and possibly his brother Hyram allegedly saw these golden plates which were "returned" to Maroni after he translated them into the Book of Mormon

Mormon beliefs are many and bizarre. Mormons teach that God used to be a man on another world, and that he became a "god" by following the laws and ordinances of his god on his home-world.  He brought his wife to this world, a woman he had married on the other world (a "goddess").  In Mormonism, men and women have the potential of becoming gods. A saying of Mormonism is, "As god once was, man is. As God is, man may become."  

According to "Mormonism In A Nutshell":

Since god and his wife are both exalted persons, they each possess physical bodies.  In their exalted states as deities, they produce spirit children that grow and mature in the spiritual realm.  The first spirit born was Jesus.  Afterwards, Lucifer was born along with the rest of us.  So, Mormonism teaches that we all pre-existed in the spirit realm - having been produced from the union of god and his goddess wife.  Therefore, we all existed in spirit form before coming down and entering the bodies of human babies that are being born on earth.  During this ‘compression' into the infant state, the memories of our pre-existence is 'veiled.'

God the father, who is called Elohim, was concerned for the future salvation of the people on earth. In the heavenly realm, the Father had a plan for the salvation of the world.  Jesus endorsed the Father's plan.  Lucifer did not.  Lucifer became jealous and rebelled.  In his rebellion, he convinced a large portion of the spirits existing in heaven to side with him and oppose god.  God, being more powerful than they, cursed these rebellious spirits to become demons.  They can never be born in human bodies. Those who refused to take sides were cursed with being born having black skin. (This racist tenet was only officially changed in 2013). The president of the sect is considered to be a living prophet, and whatever he says is a new revelation from God.

In the Mormon plan of salvation there needed to be a savior: Jesus.  But Jesus was a spirit in Heaven.  For him to be born on earth, Brigham Young, the second prophet of the Mormon church, said that instead of letting any other man do it, God the Father did it with Mary.  He said that the birth of our savior was as natural as the birth of our parents.  Essentially, what this means is that Brigham Young taught that God the Father came down and had relations with Mary, his spirit daughter, to produce the body of Jesus.  Though many Mormons will not entertain such incestuous, blasphemous thoughts about God and Mary, this is what Brigham Young (the leader of the sect after Joseph Smith died) taught; and as far as is known, this has not been denied by the Mormon church.

Nevertheless, Jesus was born, got married, and had children.In order to reach this exalted state of godhood, a person must first become a good Mormon, pay a full ten percent tithe to the Mormon church, follow various laws and ordinances of the church, and be found worthy.  At this point, they receive a temple recommend, whereupon the Mormon is allowed to enter the sacred temples in order to go through a set of secret rituals: baptism for the dead, celestial marriage, and various oaths of secrecy and commitment. This was all taken from Freemasonry.

Smith was a Mason

 Joseph Smith admitted to being a Mason in his History of the Church, volume 4, page 551. Under the date of March 15, 1842 it reads: "In the evening I received the first degree in Free Masonry in the Nauvoo Lodge, assembled in my general business office." The record for the next day reads, "I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree" (page 552). 

The Mormon houses of worship are known as temples, just as Masons call their dens of evil. Mormon ceremonies and secret handshakes are taken from the evil Craft. Smith was involved in many occult practices, including "money digging." This involved special rituals and ceremonies which were performed for the purpose of obtaining buried treasure thought to be guarded by evil spirits. The "seer stones" he used to "translate" the alleged golden plates, were claimed to have supernatural powers. Maroni, the alleged angel, was actually the name of a dead pagan Indian warrior. 

According to one source, "During this period from 1827 to 1830, Joseph Smith abandoned the company of his former money-digging associates, but continued to use for religious purposes the brown seer stone he had previously employed in the treasure quest. His most intensive and productive use of the seer stone was in the translation of the Book of Mormon. But he also dictated several revelations to his associates through the stone." (See Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, D. Michael Quinn, Signature Books, SLC, [1987], p. 143).

Joseph Smith was one of the biggest frauds and deceivers in history. He made up a religion from Masonry and added other occult practices. He wanted to make himself rich and powerful by adding a "new arm" to the Masonic temple. He considered the U.S. Constitution to be "divinely inspired" just like the Bible, and taught that when God established His Kingdom, it would be multi-denominational and democratic.

Conclusion
Mormonism is really just an offshoot of Masonry, and works towards a one-world religion, in a one-world government. Sound familiar? According to Mormon authority W. John Walsh, "...we do not believe that you must be a member of our Church to go to Heaven.  However, we believe that all men are rewarded in heaven based on their works and the type of lives that they lived in mortality.  There are certain blessings in Heaven which are only available to Latter-day Saints who have been true and faithful to the sacred covenants that they have made with God." You don't receive "godhood" but everyone is saved and is happy. Walsh even states, "Those sent to Hell are released into Heaven as soon as they repent and are cleansed from their sins." So you can do what you want, suffer for a time, and then be happy forever. 

 Is it any wonder that Jeff Flake, a Mormon, is aghast when he hears someone claim that there are absolute standards of right and wrong and not all religions are true and lead to Heaven? Roy Moore is a heretic, and I pray for his conversion. He does, however, believe in absolute truth, and realize the danger that idolatrous sects like Islam pose to the world. Not so with Jeff Flake, the Mormon. This is why Mormons, like their Masonic and Modernist brethren, pose a real threat to the world.  

Monday, November 13, 2017

Distorting Sedevacantism


 The arguments against sedevacantism have grown increasingly weaker over the years. Having been a Traditionalist for 36 years, I've seen the arguments come tumbling down as more and more evidence proves that the See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII. The apologists for the Vatican II sect have increasingly had to resort to "straw man arguments," i.e., "when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished. By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that the real man (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well." (See Hurley, Patrick J. "Informal Fallacies." A Concise Introduction to Logic. 9th ed. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, [2006], pg. 121).

 One of my readers sent me a link to an article entitled, "The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism." (See http://www.saintdominicsmedia.com/against-sedevacantism/).

It is a masterpiece of sophistry. The author, Mr. David L. Gray, has done the only thing left for Vatican II sect apologists to do, especially in the era of Bergoglio: (1) misrepresent our positions, (2) attack and tear down the position/argument they fabricated, and then (3) claim sedevacantism to be proven false.  It's harder and harder for me not to ascribe bad motives to these apologists. In the 1980s, when all this information (and its accessibility)was not available, I could understand how someone might construct poorly sourced and badly conceived arguments in favor of the Vatican II "popes" and then propagate them.  In 2017, the same cannot be said, and in the case of Robert Siscoe and John Salza, they are definitely not in good faith given their education and purposeful deceit in arguing.

I've decided to expose this particular article to (a) show just how much our enemies must misrepresent Traditionalism, and (b) possibly prevent someone doubting the Vatican II sect from staying there due to such false attacks on the True Faith. I would also like to call my readers' attention to the fact that Mr. Gray is what passes as a "theologian" in the Vatican II sect. According to the St. Dominic's media website:  Mr. David L. Gray is an American Catholic Theologian and a Historian on Black Fraternal History. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BS) from Central State University (Ohio) and a Masters of Arts in Catholic Theology (M.A.T.) from Ohio Dominican University. David is a convert to Catholicism by the way of Agnosticism and Protestantism. He currently resides in Columbus, Ohio with his wife and daughters, and is the President and Publisher of Saint Dominic's Media Inc. To learn more about Mr. Gray visit davidlgray.info

The "Four Fatal Errors" Exposed

 1. Disordered Mass Nostalgia. 
Mr. Gray (correctly) contends that sedevacantists hold the New "Mass" ("Novus Bogus" as I like to call it) to be evil and harmful. However, what he says next is incredulous:

Essentially, what Sedevacantists are arguing is that the Mass is evil because it’s not how it use to be. It’s really quite a sophistic and myopic argument once you follow the logic through to is reasonable conclusion. Their argument begs the question whether the Mass prior to the Tridentine Mass was also evil and harmful. Being that the Mass of Saint Paul that we find in 1 Corinthians 10 also lacked the form of the Tridentine Mass, what it also evil and harmful? That Mass, which seems to be very similar to what Justin Martyr (100-165) described in his Apology, seems to have been a simple blessing/consecration of the species; perhaps using same formula of words that the priest uses today from Luke 22:17-20.

I don't know of any sedevacantist (clergy or layman) who holds this preposterous view. The argument that the "Mass is evil because it's not how it used to be" is sophistic and myopic. Luckily, sedevacantists don't advance any such argument; it was manufactured by Mr. Gray. Notice that he doesn't cite to any sedevacantist claiming that the Mass cannot deviate from its structure imposed by Pope St. Pius V without being evil and harmful. The pre-Vatican II Eastern Rite Liturgies were very different from the Roman Rite, but every bit as Catholic. We reject the Novus Bogus for the evil and harmful elements introduced into it. Had "theologian" Gray read the rejection of the New "mass" authored by Cardinal Ottaviani and a group of (real) theologians (in 1969), now famously referred to as The Ottaviani Intervention, he would have discovered the following about the "new mass (sic):" 
  • A new definition of the Mass as an "assembly" rather than as a sacrifice offered to God
  • Omissions of elements emphasizing the Catholic teaching (utterly repudiated by Protestants) that the Mass makes satisfaction for sins
  • The reduction of the priest's role to a position approximating that of a Protestant minister
  •  Implicit denials of Christ's Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation
  • The change of the Consecration from a sacramental action into a mere re-telling of the story of the Last Supper
  • The fragmenting of the Church's unity of belief through the introduction of countless options [in prayers and rubrics--Introibo]
  • Ambiguous language and equivocation throughout the rite which compromise the Church's doctrines
(See The Ottaviani Intervention, Philothea Press, [2010], pgs. 11-12).

Mr. Gray responds to the Sedevacantist objection regarding the change in the Words of Consecration over the wine from "for many" to "for all" and back to "for many" in 2011 as follows:

  Although this issue would now seem to be resolved with the updated English language version of the Novus Ordo liturgy in 2011, in pressing the issue here, Sedevacantists would argue, using quotes from Pope Leo XII, Pope Eugene IV, Pope Saint Pius V., and the Council of Trent about what form of words must to be used to validly consecrate the Holy Eucharist. They argue that originally changing the form to “for all” changed the audience of the sacrifice, which changed the meaning of it, thereby, invalidating the sacrifice. While their issue would seem to have been corrected now, and was NEVER an issue outside of the English language versions of the Novus Ordo Mass, this doesn’t resolve their claim that only a false council could produce an invalid consecration formula. Of course the counter-argument to their time machine case is that the bad English language translation never intended to say something that was not union with the Universal Church or something other than what had been said in Latin prior to the Novus Ordo. Nor could they prove that Jesus stopped coming to the English language Novus Ordo Mass for 45 years as the Holy Eucharist, while that bad translation was in place.

Where to begin? First, since all the sacraments have been invalidated in the Vatican II sect except (some) baptisms and (some) marriages, there are very few valid priests left, so it doesn't matter what words a layman recites; they're all invalid. Second, it's just plain false that the translation of the Consecration was never an issue outside English speaking countries. Italy (to give but one example) also changed the words to "per tutti" (for all). Third, pre-Vatican II treaties on invalidating defects that occur in the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist, insist that the Words of Consecration must not be recited as part of an historical narrative. This is exactly how it is now done in the Novus Bogus "Institution Narrative" of the "Eucharistic Prayer." 

According to theologian/rubrician O'Connell: "Defects in the Form of the Sacrament...Any change in the form, by omission, addition or interpolation which would alter the meaning would make the consecration invalid...The Words of Consecration have to be said not merely as an historical narrative of words once used by Our Lord---as the Celebrant recites them, e.g., in the accounts  of the Last Supper which are read in the Mass during Holy Week.....but in a present affirmation, speaking in the person of Christ, and intending to effect something here and now, by pronouncing these words."
(See J. O'Connell, The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal   [Milwaukee:Bruce Publishers], 1941), pgs. 225-226)

Mr. Gray's objection might work against the "recognize and resistors" of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), who recognize Bergoglio as pope and his sacraments as valid. You could try and paint their Mass as nostalgia, because if a true pope promulgates a valid mass, all you have is a matter of preference, or you're claiming that a true pope can give a valid yet evil Mass (which is impossible due to the Indefectibility of the Church). However, his argument has no applicability to sedevacantists whatsoever.

 2.  Repetition of the Protestant Error
Here, Gray means the Protestant error of a non-visible Church. His objection is brief (and citation free!):

It appears to non-Sedevacantists that this teaching of theirs is essentially arguing that Jesus lied; that the Gates of Hell (Cf. Matthew 16:18) actually did prevail against the Church. Sedevacantists would attempt to sidestep that clear conclusion of their teaching by saying that the true Church is still without error, but that Church is no longer the institutional Church that is in union with the Pope.

By using that defense to avoid their first conclusion of their teaching against Vatican II, Sedevacantists only then fall into an even more grave conclusion. That is, if the true Church of Jesus Christ was not prevailed against by the Gates of Hell, but is actually still here, then where is it? Certainly, if the Catholic Church still contains the four theological marks of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and still contains the seven historical marks, then Sedevacantists should be able to point to it and say ‘there it is’.

Being that Sedevacantists cannot point to the true Church of Jesus Christ and tell us where it is now, then errantly they fall into the Protestant false teaching of the unscriptural invisible church.

It is theological ignorance to suggest that you need a living pope on the throne of St. Peter as a  necessary requirement to have a visible Church. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

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

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


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

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

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

3. Sedevacantism is Unlikely to be Resolved

Here, Gray rejects the position because he doesn't like the result. If the position is true, we must deal with the consequences as they are, not reject a correct position itself and put our heads in the sand. He writes:

If Sedevacantism wants to tell us that it is a reformation movement, then it also has to tell us why it is quite different than every other just reformation movement of the Church. It is different in the first place because it breaks unity, and it is doubly different because it offers no path to heal the disunity it caused. That is, by holding that the Second Vatican Council was in error, the only resolution for Sedevacantism is for some future Pope or Ecumenical Council to decree that the Second Vatican Council and/or its particular documents and the new Mass were in error. That seems quite unlikely.

First, Traditionalists are not a "reform movement," we are what is left of the One True Church of Christ. Second, the Church never lacks unity because others fall away. Third, sedevacantism will be resolved either by the restoration of the papacy via imperfect general council, or perhaps sedeprivationism proves true, OR Christ will come again if these prove to be the end days. God resolves all problems eventually.

4. Repetition of Claimed Evil
Gray writes:
Sedevacantism posits that the new Mass is evil, but then it goes ahead and purports another evil itself by telling its adherents to avoid going to Mass and receiving the Sacraments in a Church that is in union with the Pope.

Am I the only one who sees the utter stupidity of this statement? It can be reduced to this: "People who reject Bergoglio as pope for sound theological reasons are themselves evil for telling people not to go to the Churches of Bergoglio, because he is the pope." If  Bergoglio is rejected as pope, why would his churches be considered in union with the pope? Gray claims sedevacantists are evil for rejecting the churches "in union with the pope" which begs the very question as to whether Bergoglio is pope, and he makes no attempt to refute the theological arguments that he cannot be pope. 

He then goes on:
Of course Sedevacantists would argue that the Sacraments of the institutional Catholic Church are no longer valid since Vatican II was in error and the new Mass is evil and harmful, but being that there is no way for them to prove that God hasn’t sustained His Sacraments (ex opere operato) even if the council was invalid, then there is no just cause for them to teach Catholics to avoid them. In fact, it makes this teaching of Sedevacantists the gravest of all evils.

Ex opere operato, means the sacraments work "by the very act of correctly performing them" and not on the beliefs or moral disposition of the minister or recipient of the sacrament. It does not mean that you can change the matter, form or intention of the sacrament (as the Vatican II sect did), and God will still make the sacrament valid. If this novel principle were true, then a priest who uses chocolate chip cookies and milk in place of bread and wine at Mass would offer a valid Holy Sacrifice, and the milk and cookies would become the Sacred Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. I know of not one theologian who teaches this absurdity, except "theologian" Gray himself.

Finally, sedevacantism is the "gravest of all evils"?  Really? How about:

  • "communion" for adulterers
  •  praying with witch doctors and all the false religions for "world peace"  
  • stating atheists can go to Heaven
  • claiming proselytism is nonsense
I guess they're not so bad! 

Conclusion
The ersatz "theologian" of the Vatican II sect, David Gray, has distorted sedevacantism beyond recognition. Traditionalists do not reject the Novus Bogus "mass" because it is not "like the Mass used to be." We do not repeat the Protestant  error of an invisible Church, as the teachings of the pre-Vatican II theologians clearly show. The situation will be resolved someday, and the fact he doesn't like the consequences does not make sedevacantism untrue. Lastly, how can we be guilty of telling people to stay away from churches in "union with the pope" when we reject Bergoglio as pope in the first place? 

Ironically, Mr. Gray's "Four Fatal Errors" are themselves fatally flawed.  Before the Great Apostasy, theologians could only be clerics of the highest learning. Now, a married layman with a Masters degree can purport to be a "theologian." He misrepresents his opponents' position, and has almost no citations to any authorities except a couple of Bible passages and his own ipse dixit.  Does Mr. Gray really think as poorly as his slipshod article? I don't know, but I actually (and charitably) hope he does. If he falls into the bad faith category with Siscoe and Salza, I wince thinking of their fate when I recall the words of Our Lord, "He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God." (St. John 8:47). 

Monday, November 6, 2017

Singing For Satan---Part 4


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.



Eminem

 Without question, the undisputed king of rap/hip-hop is Eminem (b. Marshall Mathers III in 1972). From his humble start in music during the mid-1990s, Eminem became the best selling artist of 2000-2010, having sold an incredible 47.4 million albums in the United States alone, and he is listed as #83 in Rolling Stone magazine's "100 Greatest Artists of All Time." He was born to a dysfunctional family. His father left home when he was young, and his mother Debbie (whom Eminem despises), raised him. Eminem spent most of his youth growing up in a very poor, predominantly African-American community in Detroit, referred to by some as "8 Mile" because of 8 Mile Road that separates the poor from the rich. 8 Mile would become the title of his box office smash movie in 2002, basically telling his story. He derives his stage name from his initials, "M and M." Recently, Eminem made headlines when he denigrated U.S. President Donald Trump at the BET Hip-Hop Awards with a profanity filled rant he called "The Storm." 

I took an interest in Eminem when he started and followed his career. He is one of the most vile, obscene, anti-Christ artists in the world. He embodies all seven of the evil elements in today's music. He is friends---and collaborated with---open Satan worshipper Marilyn Manson. WARNING! The lyrics of this artist are extremely vile and disturbing. I've censored them as much as possible.

Channeling A Demon

 His first album in 1996, Infinite, didn't do too well, and some suggested that since he was Caucasian, he should try rock and roll music and not attempt to make it in the overwhelmingly African-American hip-hop genre. His burst into fame came after he created an "alter-ego" he named "Slim Shady." In Spin magazine's cover story ("The Devil and Mr. Mathers..."), the rapper admits that he encountered an "entity" in his bathroom mirror which identified itself as Slim Shady. When Slim Shady started writing his lyrics, he became a superstar. In his song My Darling, he raps about his encounter:

And the dark shall emerge from the fiery depths of hell
Then swallow the shell, all the hollow who dwell
In the shadows of all who are willing to sell their souls
For this rap game and it g-g-goes
One-two-three, chk-chk, one-two-three
Chk-chk, one-two-three, that ain't the hook, now follow me
There's nothing else for me to say, my public adores me
Everybody bores me, they're just so corny
So at night before I sleep, I look in the mirror
The mirror grows lips and it whispers: "Come nearer!"...

He then tells of the price he had to pay. Slim Shady speaks to him as follows:

You remember that night you, prayed to god (sic)
You'd give anything to get a record deal, well Dre signed you
This is what you wanted your whole life Marshall, right through
Look at this house, look at these cars, I'm so nice, wooo!
Oh, but you didn't know, fame has a price too

Just a publicity stunt? According to Marcia Dawkins' biography, Eminem: The Real Slim Shady, Some scholars believe that Eminem uses his music to dramatize a deep and intense spiritual battle. He admits as much in "Must Be The Ganja" (2009) where he confesses he can identify with both the Dalai Lama (good) and Jeffery Dahmer (evil). As he seeks deeper spiritual commitment, Marshall Mathers, the redeemed or spiritual Everyman wrestles against the sinful Slim Shady persona. In Rap and Religion: Understanding the Gangsta's God, Ebony A. Utley suggests that the Slim Shady persona is downright demonic. Utley writes that, 'In the introduction to the Slim Shady EP, a foreboding voice not unlike the one attributed to the Devil in 'My Darling' taunts Eminem even though he repeatedly states, 'I thought I killed you,' 'What do you want from me?' and 'Leave me alone." (pg. 81; Emphasis mine). The Dalai Lama is evil, leading souls to Hell, and so is Dahmer for obvious reasons. There is no one Eminem identifies with who is truly good. Dawkins writes, "In fact, as Slim Shady, Eminem is known for being at odds with everything sacred and being passionate about anything profane." (pg. 79).

While Spin magazine reported that he first met the spirit of Slim Shady when he was in the bathroom, in his song, Low, Down, Dirty, he sings about "Hearing voices in my head while these whispers echo, 'Murder Murder Redrum" (redrum is murder backwards and made famous in the movie The Shining, where actor Jack Nicholson portrays a writer whom is driven insane by demonic forces).

In his song Guilty Conscience, Slim Shady battles with different characters encouraging them to commit robbery, rape, kidnapping, and murder. In one stanza, a man finds his wife cheating with another man, and Slim Shady advises:

F*** that sh**, you just caught this bi*** cheatin'
While you at work she's with some dude tryin to get off?!
F*** slittin' her throat, CUT THIS B****'S HEAD OFF!!!
(Profanity censored by me).

In The Monster, Eminem raps:

Cause I need an interventionist / To intervene between me and this monster… / Keep knocking, nobody’s home, I’m sleepwalking / I’m just relaying what the voice in my head’s saying / Don’t shoot the messenger, I’m just friends with the.

Rihanna then sings the hook: I’m friends with the monster that’s under my bed \ Get along with the voices inside of my head.

Finally, Eminem writes in Demon Inside that what he is doing comes from demons and will land him in Hell:

I’m possessed by evil demons that torture me while I’m sleeping \ I keep dreaming of death and I’m hearing people screaming \ The devil’s spirit’s trapped inside me and I want it out… \ It got silent, then all these voices said \ ‘Come follow me into the pits of Hell’… \ And told me that’s just for starters, Satan’ll be in to see me later \ To see if I’m interested in being partners.

Tongue in cheek, or a man driven mad by demons as an unbelieving world just  laughs and thinks he's "cool" and to be imitated?

More Violence and Drugs

In his song I'm Back, Eminem praises the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, in the following words:

I take seven kids from Columbine, stand 'em all in line /Add an AK-47, a revolver, a nine
A Mack-11 and it oughta solve the problem of mine /And that's a whole school of bullies shot up all at one time /Cause (I'm Slim) Shady, they call me as crazy

Eminem tries to justify the lyrics by saying that no one ever looked at Columbine from the point of view of the kids who were bullied. Yeah. Let's write a song that looks at things from the point of view of Charles Manson or Adolph Hitler. Just because they "have a point of view" doesn't make it accurate, correct, or laudable.

Role Model asks his listeners to emulate him:

You can try this at home, you can be just like me…Follow me and do exactly what the song says: smoke weed, take pills, drop out of school, kill people and drink… Now follow me and do exactly what you see.

He raps about catching his wife, Kim, cheating on him and then brutalizing her with graphic sounds of domestic violence in the song of the same name:

Sit down b****! You move again, I'll beat the sh** out of you/ Don't make me wake this baby/ She don't need to see what I'm 'bout to do/ Quiet b****/ Why you make me shout at you…

The song ends with a vivid fantasy of the rapper slitting his wife's throat:

Don't you get it b****, no one can hear you?/Now shut the f*** up and get what's comin' to you
You were supposed to love me/Now bleed! b**** bleed!/Bleed! b**** bleed! bleed!

Conclusion

Foul-mouthed, demon possessed Marshall Mathers channels demonic forces to propel him to fame while dragging others to Hell. Those who scoff at his being possessed, consider this; do you want teens listening to this garbage? It desensitizes them to murder, domestic violence, profanity/vulgarity, drug and alcohol abuse, and a host of other evils (including spiritism). In his song Who Knew? Eminem mocks those who claim to be surprised at the negative influence of his music:

Cause I never knew I, knew I would get this big. I never knew I, knew I'd affect this kid. I never knew I'd, get him to slit his wrist. I never knew I'd, get him to hit this b****

Pray for Marshall Mathers that he might turn to Christ and His One True Church, receive exorcism, and be rid of Slim Shady. If you listen to his garbage music, when the demon influences you, you won't be able to say, "Who Knew?"

Monday, October 30, 2017

An Age Old Problem


 When I was growing up, my mother had some interesting expressions. When I wasn't moving as quickly as she'd like, I was told I was "as slow as molasses in January." The slow-moving liquid is virtually immobile in cold weather. And whenever she saw something that looked old and worn out, she'd exclaim, "That looks older than Methuselah!" Unlike molasses, I had no idea who or what Methuselah was until I was about 13 and discovered that he was a person mentioned in the Old Testament who lived to be 969 years old. (See Genesis 5:27). We also find that Adam lived to be 930 years old and Seth was 912 years old when he died. For at least the last (approximately) two thousand years, the idea of anyone living beyond 125 years old (give or take a couple of years) is unheard of--you would be considered mad if you seriously claimed someone alive today was over 900 years old. The question arises: Did people in the Old Testament really live to be hundreds of years old? If so, why don't we live that long today? If not, what of the inerrancy of Holy Scripture, and what must a Traditionalist believe? These are the questions I will tackle in this post.

Is the Biblical Year Different from Our Years?

One attempt to understand the great ages in Genesis is to present the word year as not literal, just as the word day in Creation does not need to be taken in the literal sense. 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."

 However, this does not seem to be the case with the word year. There is no on-point decision from the Holy Office, a Roman Congregation, or papal decree which (to the best of my knowledge and belief), teaches the same regarding the years of those recorded in the book of Genesis. Furthermore, there are no extra-biblical records, antediluvian or after, which suggests that years were calculated substantially different from modern years. The Biblical word written by Moses under Divine Inspiration in the Creation account was yom, meaning "a period of time." It was incorrectly rendered as "day." God created the universe in six time periods, not necessarily six 24-hour periods of time. No such confusion occurs in regard to years. Even assuming that the ancient calendars were 10% shorter, that would still make Methuselah well over 800 years old.

The attempt by some modern scholars to reduce the Biblical year to one-tenth of a current year, fails miserably. If this were true, Methuselah lived to be about 97 years old, which seems reasonable. However, it simply doesn't comport with the ages given for fathering children, which in some cases (Enoch fathering Methuselah) was 65. That would make him an incredulous six and one-half years old! Akkadian and Sumerian records also report life spans in the hundreds of years. The reality seems that some people in Old Testament days really lived close to a millennium. Does this mean God performed miracles on these people?

Three Kinds of Impossibility

When we speak of something being impossible, it can imply one of three things, namely it is (a) logically impossible, (b) scientifically impossible, or (c) physically impossible. The logically impossible is that which is self-contradictory by its very terms, e.g. Have God make a square circle. A circle by definition rules out having sides, and a square must have four equal sides, also by definition. A "square circle" says nothing about reality. It cannot be done because it is meaningless. God cannot do the logically impossible or anything that goes against His Perfect Divine Nature, e.g. God cannot lie. As the First Vatican Council taught:
This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived. (See Dei Filius, Ch. 3; Emphasis mine).

The scientifically impossible is that which people cannot yet achieve, but could if the technology was available. Hence, in 1920 it was impossible for a man to walk on the moon. On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong proved it was now possible from that point going forward. The physically impossible is that which goes contrary to the known laws of physics and other scientific disciplines. A scientific law is descriptive of the universe. It is not like a law of the legislature, or something written down. The law of gravity simply describes the way things we observe behave, and have always behaved at least as far as we can tell. We assume the future will be a constant repetition of the past, so we think the law of gravity will always hold true, but there is no scientific justification for this idea. God, Who ordered the universe, could make it function differently in general or in a specific instance (allowing someone to levitate, like certain saints did). These are miracles.

So, does living to be 969 years old, constitute a miracle? A miracle is a deed that is sensible, extraordinary, and of divine origin. Under this definition, it could be considered such, but not if it were a general rule--it wouldn't be extraordinary.

Eat Right, Exercise, and...Live To Be 900?

There are many factors that limit a human lifespan. Here are but ten of such major factors:
  1. Murder
  2. War
  3. Accidents
  4. Diseases
  5. Stress
  6. Obesity
  7. Inadequate exercise
  8. Environmental Stress
  9. Exposure to Radiation
  10. Telomerase Activity (chromosome shortening)


Early humans did not eat the processed foods of today, or lack exercise. Obesity was most likely extremely rare. There were far less pollutants and chemicals in use. This would cross off numbers six and seven above, and greatly reduce number four. However, there seem to be two factors in particular that could account for life spans dropping from about 900 to about 85 with an upward limit of approximately 125: (a) exposure to radiation, from space and within the Earth, and (b) telomerase activity.

Radiation

Coal burning, building materials, paved roads, and even granite countertops in kitchens, guarantee our exposure to igneous rocks. There is decay of radioisotopes in those igneous rocks (uranium, radium, and thorium, for example) that causes small amounts of radiation. Multiply the amount of constant exposure to that of ancient peoples and there is a huge amount of radiation as compared to way back in history. Cosmic radiation (not all of which is damaging) was thought to be constant throughout Earth's history. In 1995, Russian astronomer Dr. Anatoliy Erlykin, challenged this idea when he noted an anomaly in the very high-energy region  of the cosmic ray spectrum. (See A.D. Erlykin, "Around and Above the Knee"Nuclear Physics B--Proceedings Supplements 39 [February 1995]: 215-227).

In 1997, Sir Arnold Wolfendale, a British astronomer, joined with Erlykin and were able to show a significant increase in harmful cosmic rays showering the entire Earth arising from a single supernova in the recent past (i.e. sometime less than 100,000 years ago). (See Erlykin and Wolfendale, "A Single Source of Comic Rays in the Range 1015-1016 eV," Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 23 [August 1997]: 979).

Telomerase Activity

Our cells can only replicate a limited number of times. For the somatic cells that make up our organs, the telomere region of the chromosomes is incompletely replicated during cell division. Eventually, the chromosomes become so short that important genes fail to get replicated leading to the inability to replace damaged cells, resulting in organ shut-down and death. There is an enzyme, telomerase, which adds nucleotide base pairs to the ends of DNA to counteract the shortening process. There is one huge drawback: If cancer should occur, the tumors would grow unchecked and virtually unstoppable no matter what kind of cancer. Too much telomerase activity will bring about an early death from cancers and tumors; too little results in earlier death from organ failure. (See, e.g., E. Blackburn, "Telomere States and Cell Fates," Nature 408 [November 2, 2000]: 53-56).

Putting It All Together

After the Fall of humanity, exposure to radiation was significantly lower, and telomerase could function at much higher levels without the presence of the carcinogenic radiation and other toxins we put in the atmosphere and in ourselves. This coupled with the absence of other life shortening factors, could indeed result in super-long life spans. When the radiation levels increased after the supernova, God could have intervened to limit telomerase activity to protect people, but with the result of much shorter life spans.  In the state of Original Justice, humans were to be immortal. By sin, death entered the world. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." (Romans 5:12). The shift from immortality to mortality might have necessitated longer life spans at first. Shorter lives would also have a limiting effect on the evils the majority of people in their fallen state could bring upon the world, and get people thinking about the things of God sooner, having less time on Earth.

Conclusion


 I have attempted to demonstrate that the long life spans in the Bible are entirely plausible, and should be believed, unless the Church decides to the contrary. We have support from modern science that such is not impossible, much to the consternation of atheists, agnostics, and Modernists. The exact reason for God allowing such long lives and then limiting them, is known but to Him. I can only echo the words of theologian Haydock: "...the sole satisfactory reason for their [Old Testament people] living almost a thousand years, while we can hardly arrive at 70, is because it so pleased God, in Whose Hands are all our lots." (See The Douay-Rheims Old Testament of The Holy Catholic Bible with a Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, pg. 20).



Monday, October 23, 2017

Apostasy In Our Time


 One of the most pernicious documents ever to come out of the Modernist Second Vatican Council was Nostra Aetate ("In Our Time"). Promulgated on October 28, 1965 by Montini ("Pope" Paul VI), it deals with the relation of the Vatican II sect to non-Christian religions. It specifically names four of the largest such sects, to wit: Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Much has been said concerning the evils of Islam and modern day Judaism. In this post, I will focus on two less discussed pagan sects, Hinduism and Buddhism, and how Vatican II facilitated their acceptance in our Western Society.

Nostra Aetate, Hinduism and Buddhism

 In paragraph # 2 of Nostra Aetate, we read, "Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust.Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself." Is this an accurate description of Hinduism and Buddhism? Should we "regard with sincere reverence" those precepts and teachings "that...reflect a ray of Truth"?  Is it possible to do so while proclaiming Christ as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life?" 

1. Hinduism
Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world today with about 800 million adherents. Hinduism does not have an individual founder.  Scholars typically trace its origins to around 1500 B.C. in what is now known as India.  It began as a polytheistic and ritualistic family of religions with various sacred rites performed by the heads of particular households or tribes. Around 800 to 300 B.C. the Upanishads were written.  The Upanishads might be very loosely considered Hinduism's equivalent of the New Testament.  This book expounds on the idea that behind the many gods stands one ultimate reality known as Brahman.  Brahman is an impersonal essence that is the basis of all existence.  Hindu thinkers of the time began to understand Brahman as "nirguna," which means "without attributes or qualities." 

Herein lie the three major false teachings within Hinduism: (a) it is polytheistic, (b) it is pantheistic, and (c) it is inherently immoral. 

2. The Teaching of the Church
The First Vatican Council decreed in the Dogmatic Constitution On The Catholic Faith ("Dei Filius") Chapter 1: 
"The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, Almighty, Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, Infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, who, as being one, sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual substance, is to be declared as really and essentially distinct from the world, of supreme beatitude in and from Himself, and ineffably exalted above all things which exist, or are conceivable, except Himself." 

Hinduism is polytheistic, believing in a multiplicity of "gods." These so-called gods are part of the ultimate impersonal reality of Brahman. This is a form of pantheism which teaches that "God" and nature are the same thing. Pantheism comes from two Greek words, pan meaning "all" and theos meaning "god."  Since God is the Supreme Being, it is illogical to assert more than one "god," unless you lower the definition for "god" which is exactly what Hindus have done. The "gods" have power over certain things and sometimes even need things from us. This is not God. 

Pantheism, either asserts that the universe and God are identical (which is basically atheism with reverence for nature), or nature is an integral part of God (for example, my heart is not me, but an essential part without which I cannot survive). Now, read again the definition of the First Vatican Council. It is unambiguously monotheistic (One True God distinct from the universe He created). To what "god" do Hindus take "a flight to God with love and trust" as Vatican II taught? 

Hinduism is inherently immoral. There can be no Divine Commandments. Hindus consider "everything to be sacred." Sacred to whom? If everything is "sacred" how do I survive by eating meat or vegetation which are also "sacred"? If there is no objective standard outside yourself, there are no objective moral standards either. To kill someone or not to kill someone is therefore a mere matter of preference or dislike. Who, or what, determines that which would be "sacrilegious"? This is a blueprint for moral relativism and chaos. Hinduism's teaching on reincarnation leads to a "caste system" where poor people are in that state allegedly because of their past life of which they have no remembrance (since it's not true). Eventually the soul will become "one with Brahman."  

Infallibly taught by Vatican I:
1. If anyone shall deny One true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible; let him be anathema. 

2. If anyone shall not be ashamed to affirm that, except matter, nothing exists; let him be anathema. 

3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema. 

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema. 

3. Hinduism Grows in Influence
 As a result of Vatican II, Hinduism has gained a strong foothold here in the West. According to The Yoga Tradition. Its History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice by Georg Feuerstein, PH.D. (Hohm Press, Prescott, Arizona, [1998], xviii), "Yoga is the union of the individual psyche with the transcendental Self."  The "god" expressed in Yoga is spoken of as the Absolute, Higher Self, Ultimate, Divine Consciousness, Transcendental Self, and a plethora of other titles that speak of an impersonal, pantheistic deity that is in all things, though transcendent beyond them. Yoga is pushed during Vatican II retreats, and is even offered in their schools and churches. 

Pantheism is surreptitiously advanced in popular movies such as Avatar (2009), and the Star Wars franchise ("May the Force be with you"--an impersonal energy that pervades the universe). 

4. Buddhism
Buddhism began as a reform movement within Hinduism. As of 2010, it has approximately 500 million adherents. It started with Siddhartha Gautama (Buddha is a title meaning "enlightened one"). His basic beliefs are summed up in the Four Noble Truths:

  • Life is suffering
  • Suffering is caused by desires for pleasure and prosperity
  • Suffering can be overcome by eliminating desires
  • Desire can be eliminated by the Eightfold Path
The Eightfold Path teaches: (1) right knowledge ("Four Noble Truths"), (2) right intentions, (3) right speech, (4) right conduct, (5) right occupation, (6) right effort, (7) right mindfulness, and (8) right meditation (Yoga again). It suffers from all the same defects as Hinduism, but with atheistic and profound sounding nonsense ("What is the sound of one hand clapping?"). The goal of all Buddhists is not Heaven, because there is no God in Gautama’s teaching. Rather they seek Nirvana, the elimination of all suffering, desires, and the illusion of self-existence. Buddhism, like Hinduism, teaches a cycle of births and re-births (reincarnation) until one's "karma" which is generally defined as "the sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences" is good enough to acquire Nirvana. 

The problems with Buddhism's teachings are manifold. In addition to those of Hinduism, since Buddhism denies a spiritual soul, what exactly gets "reincarnated"? Since there is no God and all is "One," who judges what is good karma and bad karma when you die? 

5. Vatican II "popes" and paganism

  • Almost exactly 21 years after Nostra Aetate, on October 27, 1986, with permission of John Paul II, the Dalai Lama and the  Tibetan Buddhist monks of his sect placed a small statue of Buddha over the tabernacle of St. Peter Church in Assisi at the first Assisi Prayer Meeting for Peace with all the false religions. 

The True Church teaches: "And if you forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish," (Deuteronomy 8:19).


  • Upon his arrival to celebrate a "mass" at a stadium in New Delhi, India, John Paul II receives a "blessing" from a Hindu religious woman for protection from their demon "gods." 

The True Church teaches: "Far be it from us that we should forsake the Lord to serve other gods," (Joshua 24:16).

  • Under Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI), The "Pontifical Council For Interreligious Dialogue" wrote in 2007: "As Diwali approaches, your religious feast, I am sure all of you in your respective families, neighborhoods and communities will be taking time to share your joy with one another. On behalf of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue I am happy to have this opportunity, for the first time since taking office, to send you my greetings. Sensitive to your religious feelings and respectful of your ancient religious tradition, I sincerely hope that your search for the Divine, symbolized through the celebration of Diwali, will help you to overcome darkness with light, untruth with truth and evil with goodness." (Emphasis mine)
"Diwali" is the pagan Hindu festival of lights celebrated in autumn each year (October 19, this year of 2017). It symbolizes the victory of "light over darkness." Yet the light of Christ has no place in their demonic religion. "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14). 


  • Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) "canonized" Wojtyla ("Pope" John Paul II). 
"Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. " (Isaiah 5: 20). 

Conclusion
The growth of paganism and its ideas continue to grow unabated after Vatican II. Not only are there more adherents to these false religions, but their evil teachings, such as reincarnation, have reached an acceptance in the West unthinkable 50 years ago. The basic principle enunciated in Nostra Aetate is wicked, namely, to "reject nothing that is true and holy" in these religions (Judaism and Islam, as well as Hinduism and Buddhism). On that basis, one could esteem and respect Satan worship, because they believe certain things that are true. A car that has all working parts except the battery has many "true parts" of a car. However, you shouldn't put your faith in it to get you where you need to go. Only the Truth, entire and unadulterated, has the ability to save you and bring you to Heaven. This Truth is found in the only Ark of Salvation, the Traditionalist Catholic Church. Hold fast to the True Faith, for many souls are being damned in false religions with the approval of the Vatican II sect "in our time." 

Monday, October 16, 2017

The Father Of Modern Perversity


 On September 27th, the "Father of Pornography," Hugh Hefner, died at age 91. The founder of Playboy magazine contributed to the corruption of countless minds, bodies, and souls. He has now gone to Judgement. I would hate to imagine the fate that wretch most likely received. As bad as Hefner was, the pornography industry, and all the other pagan evils that afflict modern society--from sodomite "marriage" to "transgender bathrooms"--come to us not from Hefner, but Dr. Alfred Kinsey. Indeed, Playboy and the other pornographic magazines wouldn't have been nearly as successful or pervasive if it had not been for Kinsey and his pseudo-scientific "research." A 2004 movie entitled Kinsey, staring Hollywood superstar Liam Neeson makes Kinsey a "hero" by omitting or glossing over his morally reprehensible actions (e.g., sexual abuse of children in his studies that were filmed) and by sending the message that those who believe in traditional morality are "repressed" and suffering from some emotional/mental illness as a result.

 The truth behind the man Kinsey and his work will be examined in this post.

Kinsey's Background

 Alfred Charles Kinsey (b. 1894), was raised the son of a strict Methodist Sunday School teacher. He went to Bowdoin College where he majored in zoology, and developed a fascination with insects. He continued his studies at Harvard after graduation. He eventually severed all ties with his parents, and declared himself an atheist. Some of his biographers portray him as shy and disinterested in sex, but later biographers unearthed Kinsey's personal correspondence, wherein it was revealed he was a bisexual with a strong sexual desire for young boys.

His career as a "sexpert" began when the Association of Women Students at Indiana University (where he taught zoology/biology) asked him to teach a marriage course on human sexuality for engaged and married students. Kinsey went to great lengths to keep his personal dark predilections a secret. When Ralph Voris, one of his best friends, died, Kinsey drove from Indiana to Ohio with his wife Clara. He had a wife and kids as a "cover" for his deviance. Once in Ohio, he removed correspondence from Voris' office in which Kinsey brags to Voris about his collection of "gorgeous" photos of homosexual men. 

Kinsey's Immoral and Unscientific "Research"

  Kinsey revolutionized the world with the publication of his books Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (published in 1948 and 1953, respectively). It was based on 350 questions on a questionnaire that asked such things as when (not if ) the interviewees had participated in sado-masochism, homosexual acts, pedophilia, and bestiality. His assistants, Clyde Martin, Paul Gebhard, and Wardell Pomeroy, were all required to be filmed performing sex acts with others either at the university or in the attic of the Kinsey home. 

 The questions were so sick, that most of the respondents were either those who engaged in unnatural sex acts or were incarcerated sex offenders. The peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet decried the research as having "questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of normal sexual behavior." In a 1992 telephone interview, Paul Gebhard, one of Kinsey's assistants, admitted that some of the men interviewed were convicted pedophiles. They would ask them how many children they had "done it with," the child's age, and whether or not they thought the child had come to climax. He further admitted that he was aware of the child abuse inherent in Kinsey's work. Kinsey even had help from Nazi pedophile Dr. Fritz Van  Balluseck who contributed to Kinsey from 1936-1956. Not only did Von Balluseck rape his own daughter, he raped the eleven-year-old son of a minister and forced the boy to write down his experience for Kinsey. Van  Balluseck was tried in Berlin in 1957 for the murder of a ten-year-old girl, Loiselotte Has.

Kinsey was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and one of the organizations founders, attorney Morris L. Ernst. With the help of influential people, and by covering up much of how the data had been both manipulated and obtained, eleven renowned intellectuals supported Kinsey's work. They bought his "bill of goods" that he was a genuine scientist with factual data wanting to dispel myths about a hitherto taboo subject. 

Kinsey: Evil Beyond Description

  •  Based on Kinsey's pseudo-scientific research, the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code ("MPC") loosened the penalties for sex crimes. The drafters didn't want to put "95% of the male population in jail." The U.S. Supreme Court and every American law school accepted the 1955 MPC as authoritative, setting up America for a major cultural shift.


  • Kinsey considered rape a crime "easily forgotten" by women, and said "the only difference between rape and a good time depends on whether the girl's parents are awake when she finally came home." 


  • Kinsey claimed children are sexual by birth, giving "scientific" credibility to the loosening of penalties for pedophilia and incest. The lighter sentences resulted in these predators being released back into society sooner to victimize others.


  • The MPC led to decriminalization of laws against adultery, fornication, and sodomy. This weakened the sacrosanct character of marriage (not worthy of protection) and led to the abomination of sodomite "marriage."


  • The MPC contributed to legalized abortion. Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the death sentence for unborn children in Roe v. Wade, cites to the draft of the MPC where Dr. Mary Calderone of Planned Parenthood states that Kinsey's research "proves" that "90 to 95% of pre-marital pregnancies" are aborted. It is now known that Kinsey's "data" comes from prostitutes and sexually deviant women, which he the tried to pass off as indicative of the general population. Millions of pre-born babies have been killed by this junk "science." 

  • Kinsey was inducted into the "Legacy Walk, " a public display which "celebrates"  so-called "LGBT" history and people in 2012.
All information presented in this post is taken from the work of Dr. Judith Reisman, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences (Crestwood, KY:The Institute for Media Education, [2000]). Dr. Reisman meticulously documents all the sources and references. I highly recommend the book to anyone wishing to find out more.

Conclusion

Alfred Kinsey was the "Father of Modern Perversity." Once unnatural behaviors were regarded as "normal" the societal disapproval of them was transformed into tolerance, and finally, acceptance. It has come to the point where you can choose your own "gender identity" and share bathrooms with people who have different genitalia.

 The only force that could have prevented the flood, the Roman Catholic Church, was driven underground by the emergence of the Vatican II sect. 

Bergoglio is following in Kinsey's footsteps by giving "communion" to adulterers. It makes sense that someone who says "Who am I to judge?" and "Atheists can go to Heaven" would push the agenda of an atheistic sexual pervert like Alfred Kinsey.

Monday, October 9, 2017

500 Years Of Twisting Scripture


 On October 31st, Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) and his Modernist minions at the erstwhile Vatican, will "celebrate" five centuries of Protestant heresy. The Protestants, of course, are the ideological forefathers of the Modernists. The intellectual, moral, and religious decline in the West began with Protestantism, then proceeded to Modernism, and finally it will culminate in atheism (either in its "pure" form, or a world-wide ecumenical sect where anything goes). According to a Pew Research poll, "Majorities or pluralities of adults (including Catholics (sic), Protestants and people with no religious affiliation) in all 15 countries surveyed across Western Europe say Catholics and Protestants today are 'religiously more similar than they are different.' Likewise in the United States, 57 percent of Protestants and 65 percent of Catholics (i.e., Vatican II sect)—believe the two are "more similar than different, religiously." No one could have seriously maintained that prior to Vatican II.

 Frankie said, "Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he [Luther] did not err." Really? Then Bergoglio is claiming that the Holy and Ecumenical Council of Trent erred! (Are you listening SSPX?). Martin Luther, the apostate priest, was mentally unbalanced, and an anti-Semite, yet sly as a fox. He combated the authority of the Church with the twisting of Scripture. No longer was the Bible one of the two sources of Revelation to be guarded and interpreted by the Magisterium, it was the "sole rule of faith."

 As I will demonstrate below, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") is the basis for all of the other errors which Luther and the so-called "reformers" devised. It is most aptly exhibited by the modern day Jehovah's Witnesses sect. First, you decide what you want to believe, then you twist the Bible to prove your point correct.



Luther Alone

 Martin Luther appealed to himself as the authority in the interpretation of Scripture. According to Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, [1910] 7:362), when people protested Luther adding the word alone to his German translation of Romans 3:28 ("For we account a man to be justified by faith [alone], without the works of the law."), he responded by saying, "If your Papist makes much useless fuss about the word sola, allein, tell him at once: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so.'" 

 Hence, Luther attacks and twists various passages of the Bible to fit his heterodox ideas, and bases it on his own authority.

1. In Jesus' blessing of "the pure of heart" (St. Matthew 5:8) Luther attacks monasticism which he claims preaches a false view of such pureness of heart. He wrote: "And you should realize that when a monk in the monastery is sitting in deepest contemplation, excluding the world from his heart altogether, and thinking about the Lord God the way he himself paints and imagines Him, he is actually sitting--if you will pardon the expression--in the dung, not up to his knees, but up to his ears. For he is proceeding on his own ideas without the Word of God." 

2. In the parable of the Last Judgement found in St. Matthew 25: 31-46, we read:

 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall He sit upon the seat of his majesty. And all nations shall be gathered together before Him, and He shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on His left.Then shall the King say to them that shall be on His right hand: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took Me in: Naked, and you covered Me: sick, and you visited Me: I was in prison, and you came to Me."

Then shall the just answer Him, saying: "Lord, when did we see Thee hungry, and fed Thee; thirsty, and gave Thee drink? And when did we see Thee a stranger, and took Thee in? Or naked, and covered Thee? Or when did we see Thee sick or in prison, and came to Thee?" And the King answering, shall say to them: "Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these My least brethren, you did it to Me." 

Then He shall say to them also that shall be on His left hand: "Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave Me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave Me not to drink.I was a stranger, and you took Me not in: naked, and you covered Me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit Me." Then they also shall answer Him, saying: "Lord, when did we see Thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to Thee?" Then He shall answer them, saying: "Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to Me." And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

Here, Christ separates the sheep (good) from the goats (bad). Theologian Haydock comments on this passage as follows: "By setting forth to all the world the good works of His faithful servants, the Sovereign Judge silences the murmurs of the reprobate, who might otherwise object that they had it not in their power to do good...We may take notice that the wicked, at the Day of Judgement, are said to be condemned for having omitted to perform good works...however just a man may be, still he has many failings to atone for, on account of which the Kingdom of Heaven might be justly denied him: but because he has shewn mercy to his neighbors he deserves to have mercy shewn to him." (See The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with a Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, pgs. 1304-1305).

Luther changes this accepted meaning from the beginning of the Church to fit his perverse heresy of justification by faith alone. He writes, "Christ will say to the pious and God-fearing: 'You came to me (sic) and believed in me (sic)...I will not cast you out, and to the goats Christ will say:'You did not want me (sic) and did not belive in me (sic)." (See D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar, 1898, 5: 407). The Church always taught this parable referred to good works, but now it refers to faith, according to Luther on his own (non-existent) authority.

3. The twisting of Scripture led to diverse interpretations. The "plain meaning" of the Bible isn't so plain, which led many Protestant leaders to claim that their interpretation was right based on some "inner prompting or illumination" from the Holy Ghost. Two problems quickly arise: (a) how does God contradict Himself, because if it were true, wouldn't everyone have the same "illumination"? (B) Even if the principle were correct, how do you determine the "true illumination" from the false? According to The World Christian Encyclopedia (NY: Oxford University Press, 1982, pg.292) there are over 28,000 distinct denominations (claiming to be Christian) in the world as of the early 1980s. I can only wonder how many more have sprung up in over 35 years!

Protestant Tradition?
While attacking Sacred Tradition as a source of Revelation, the Protestants all have a tradition even if they deny it. If a Calvinist were to interpret the Bible as meaning it is possible to fall from grace and eternal security, his fellow Calvinists would tell him his interpretation is wrong, based on the teachings of John Calvin. If a Baptist pastor interpreted the Bible as allowing for infant baptism, he would soon find himself out of a job. 

Finally, sola scriptura is not taught by the Bible and is therefore self-refuting. The classic passage cited is 2 Timothy 3: 15-17:  "And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work." Since the Bible is good for all these things, they argue it must be good for everything as the sole rule of Faith. One does not logically follow from the other. The Bible is necessary but not sufficient for Revelation. To be "furnished for every good work," does not exclude other teaching from Sacred Tradition. If it did, St. Paul (and God, Who is the Author of Scripture) contradicted what was written. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 reads, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter."

Conclusion
Nero fiddled while Rome burned down, and Bergoglio celebrates it. He celebrates the Eternal Rome burned to the ground in the wake of Vatican II. Martin Luther brought doctrinal and moral evil into the world as never before. He did it on the pretext of using the Bible. Of course he had to jettison the Magisterial authority of the Church, and the teachings of Her approved theologians. While no Traditionalist worth the name would fall for Protestantism, many fall for those who follow Luther's methods. The SSPX will decide which teachings of the so-called Magisterium they will accept, and which they will resist. Mike Bizzaro will tell you that the last pope was St. Pius X based on papal teachings purposefully pulled out of context to make it say something other than what it did. The Dimond brothers will interpret the teachings of the Church for you, especially in regard to Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Certain clerics will tell you what you MUST believe in matters never settled by the Church, and somehow their opinion has binding force on your conscience.

 These are the progeny of Luther. The methodology of twisting Scripture, and now applied to the Magisterial teachings of the Church during the Great Apostasy, continues after five centuries. Let's "hold fast to the traditions" of the One True Church and not waver from the teachings of Her approved theologians. To do otherwise is to imperil our souls.