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.

Monday, January 2, 2017

Was Padre Pio An Ecumenist?

 I have never written a post on Padre Pio, whom the Vatican II sect has declared a "saint." There is so much conflicting testimony about him ( ranging from claims that he was a staunch Traditionalist, to claims he was a Modernist and a fake) that it is very confusing to know what to believe. Padre Pio, born Francesco Forgione on May 25, 1897, was a Capuchian priest ordained in 1910. It is claimed he had received numerous spiritual gifts, including bi-location and the visible wounds of Christ in his hands (called the "stigmata"). He died September 23, 1968--about four years into the creation of the Vatican II sect, which took off when "Pope" Paul VI signed the heretical document Lumen Gentium. Wotyla (John Paul the Great Apostate) "beatified" Padre Pio in 1999, and "canonized" him in 2002.

 I asked my spiritual father, the great Fr. Gommar DePauw (who founded the Traditionalist movement to preserve the True Faith in 1964), what he thought of Padre Pio. His reply was most interesting. Father's older brother, Fr. Adhemar DePauw, OFM, had been commissioned by Pope Pius XII in the 1950s to investigate the Capuchin in Italy. Fr. Adhemar was sworn to secrecy, and never revealed what he discovered to anyone but the pope. Fr. DePauw said that his brother never wanted to speak of him, even in those things which were of common knowledge and not related to his investigation and vow. This led Father to conclude his brother did not think highly of him. He went on to tell me that he had heard from high ranking sources at the Vatican (back in 1962, when he was a theological expert, or peritus, at Vatican II) all kinds of conflicting reports and testimonies, and he honestly did not know whom (or even what) to believe about Padre Pio. He concluded by saying, "He will never be one of my favorite so-called saints."

 So why a post now? I've always had misgivings about Padre Pio. I never give any credence to anti-Catholic sources, however Archbishop Pasquale Gagliardi (1859-1941), claimed that Padre Pio faked his stigmata using carbolic acid which he had purchased. The Modernist Vatican dismissed the claim, stating that the acid was used to sterilize needles that Padre used for injections against the Spanish Flu, which was raging at the time and there was a shortage of doctors. Also, there are allegations that Abp. Gagliardi was quite immoral and persecuted Padre Pio (See  Once again, conflicting accounts. There are two opposite and believable stories about a photo where Padre is kissing Archbishop Lefebvre's ring. According to one source, he predicted the Archbishop "would divide the Church." According to other eyewitnesses, nothing of the kind was said. Pope Pius XII allowed people to visit Padre, but it was Montini the false pope ("Pope" Paul VI) who dismissed all charges against him. I have come across some information, which if true, would expose him as a non-Catholic.

A reader of my blog, Mr. Frank Rega (a good and sincere man) has written a book on Padre Pio, and has great devotion to him. However, what Mr. Rega wrote on his own blog, "The Shield of Faith," would make Padre an ecumenist heretic. Since it was written by a great devotee of Padre Pio, I can't dismiss it as biased against him. What follows is the post he wrote entitled, "Padre Pio was not a rigid Traditionalist." (See

 The title alone gave me pause. A Traditionalist is simply a true Catholic in this age of the Great Apostasy. We recognize the state of sedevacante, and reject the Vatican II Robber Council, as well as the man-made sect it spawned. Mr. Rega rejects sedevacantism, and is a "conservative" member of the Vatican II sect. Even the conservatives are infected with the heresy that you can be "Catholic in degrees." This is an outgrowth of Vatican II's heretical ecclesiology. Let's examine what was written.

Evidence of Ecumenism

From "The Shield of Faith:" 

The following documented cases are presented as evidence that Padre Pio believed that non-Catholics could be saved and even receive the sacraments.

Adelaide McAlpin Pyle, a Baptized Protestant
“She will be saved because she has faith.”

Most of the information for this first account comes from the English version of the book Mary Pyle, by Bonaventura MassaThis work was diligently compiled from written documents and taped oral testimonies, kept on file in the archives of Padre Pio’s friary in anticipation of the process for Miss Pyle’s Cause for Beatification.

The wealthy Presbyterian, Adelaide McAlpin Pyle, was the mother of Mary Pyle, a well-known convert to Catholicism who renounced her family fortune in order to spend her life near Padre Pio. The Pyle family was related by marriage to the Rockefellers, and made their fortune in the soap and hotel business. After Adelaide found out that her daughter Mary had chosen to move to southern Italy to learn about God from a saint, curiosity impelled her to travel from her plush New York townhouse to medieval San Giovanni Rotondo, in order to meet this holy man. 

In spite of an unpleasant initial encounter, Adelaide eventually became quite friendly with Padre Pio. She made numerous journeys from America, beginning in the mid-1920s, to visit her daughter Mary, and to meet with the Padre. Mary often tried to convince her mother to convert to Catholicism as she herself had done, but Adelaide reportedly said in Padre Pio’s presence, “I would rather allow myself to be burned alive for my religion!” Padre Pio advised Mary not to push her mother to convert: “Let her be! Don’t upset her peace.”  However, Mary continued to worry because her mother was not a Catholic, and Padre Pio counseled, “Let’s not confuse her. She will be saved because she has faith.”

In 1936, Adelaide, who had grown older and was nearing death, made one last trip to San Giovanni Rotondo. As she said good-bye to Padre Pio at the end of this visit, the saintly priest pointed heavenward, saying to the Protestant Adelaide, “I hope we will see each other again soon, but if we don’t see each other here, we will see each other up there.”  She passed away in the fall of 1937 at the age of seventy-seven.  Her daughter Mary then became pre-occupied about her mother’s salvation. After dreaming that her mother was in Rome standing in front of the Vatican, she poured out her anxiety to Padre Pio. He replied, "And who told you that your mother could not be saved?”   (Emphasis mine)
Now you might be thinking that maybe she converted secretly (known but to God) on her deathbed, and so died as a Catholic. Nothing wrong (or heretical) with that--everyone should pray for such wonderful conversions. But what is written next expressly denies this is what happened or what Padre Pio meant.

Did Padre Pio receive a revelation that Adelaide Pyle had secretly ‘in pectore” converted to the Catholic Faith? If that were true, he most certainly would have told this to her daughter Mary, who was obviously distraught from worrying over her mother’s salvation. Further, it seems likely that if Adelaide had converted, she would have shared this good news with her convert daughter. It is reasonable to conclude then that Padre Pio believed that this particular person who died outside the Church could be saved. In addition, there is evidence that Padre Pio would have been willing to hear Adelaide’s confession, and grant her sacramental absolution. On one occasion, she had confided to her daughter her great desire to kneel before Padre Pio in his confessional, but she lamented that her inability to speak Italian made this impossible. When Padre Pio heard of this, (apparently it was after her death), he bemoaned, “Oh! If she had only done it! As for the language, I would have taken care of that!” (Emphasis mine)

 This is sheer heresy, for no one outside the One True Church can be saved, nor can non-Catholics be given the sacraments. There are two more scenarios given: Padre Pio asks people to pray for a soul about to appear before God. That soul turns out to be the Anglican King George. He does not pray for his conversion. According to "The Shield of Faith," However, it is not recorded or implied that he asked his confreres to pray for the deathbed conversion of the king – an important intention that Padre Pio in all likelihood would have explicitly stated, if such were his purpose. Although he mentioned the king to his priest colleague, he did not tell the friends in his room that they were praying for a non-Catholic until they had finished their prayers. One cannot therefore say that it is to be assumed that as Catholics they were praying for the king’s conversion...Of course this scenario would not be acceptable to one who holds that Padre Pio subscribed to a literal extra ecclesiam nulla salus position. Those who hold that position are left with the unlikely alternative that they were praying for a Catholic, and that Padre Pio had requested the prayers because he was given a private revelation that King George V of England was secretly a Roman Catholic, loyal to the Pope!

Finally, there is this scenario about a Jew, Julius Fine, whom Padre Pio claimed was saved, but Padre never mentioned Baptism of Desire, or that Mr. Fine had converted to to the Faith. Mr. Rega concludes, His ingenuous openness to the plenitude of God’s mercy anticipated the explicit declarations of the Church during and after the Second Vatican Council on the possibility that non-Catholic churches can be a "means of salvation,"  and on the reception by non-Catholics of the sacraments in certain cases. Padre Pio actually believed that the gospel of Jesus Christ was Good News! Heresy is never "good news."

What the True Church Teaches about Salvation and Sacraments for Non-Catholics

1) No one who dies outside the One True Church can be saved. (De Fide)
 According to theologian Tanquerey, "Outside the Church there is no salvation...Whoever culpably remains outside the Church to the end of life cannot be saved; he is culpable who does not seek the truth when he is in serious doubt, and, a fortiori, he is culpable who knowingly and willingly does not enter the Church when he recognizes it as true...Whoever inculpably remains outside the Church can be saved provided he belong to the Church through faith and charity, or perfect contrition " (Dogmatic Theology 1:138-139; Emphasis mine). 

"There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

2) The Sacraments may not be given to non-Catholics. 

"It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church."

(See Pope Benedict XV, Code of Canon Law [1917], Canon 731, section 2)

"In the case of those [non-Catholics] who are in good health, the prohibition [to receive the sacraments] is absolute; no dispute on this point is possible in view of the repeated explicit declarations of the Holy Office." [e.g. decree of Aug. 28, 1669].
(See canonist Woywod, A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, rev. by Rev. Callistus Smith, Vol. I [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1952], n. 625; Emphasis mine)

"In danger of death a heretic or schismatic may be absolved conditionally if he is in good faith and cannot be convinced of his error. As far as possible scandal most always be avoided." (See theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1962], pg. 394; Emphasis in original)

Padre Pio remains an enigma. Is it possible that Mr. Rega simply interpreted the actions of Padre incorrectly, or that the sources are flawed? Perhaps. If what he states about Padre Pio is true, then he was not a Catholic, but a heretic. If he thought there is salvation apart from the Church so that non-Catholics--as non-Catholics---can be saved, that is heretical and false. If he intended to give the sacrament of Confession to a non-Catholic who simply wished to confess without rejecting her errors, that is a grave sacrilege; and if he believed there was nothing wrong with this, he is heretical. 

I always felt something remiss about Padre Pio. He accepted the wicked Montini as "pope" yet allegedly had such great spiritual gifts of discernment. What makes me most skeptical is his adulation by the Vatican II sect and his "canonization" by the wicked Wotyla. Mr. Rega's explanation of these words and actions by Padre Pio would go a long way in making sense of it. He would be an ecumenist just like them. I hope Mr. Rega, a good man, will now see the errors of the Vatican II sect and convert. Yes, I will pray for his conversion, because to be "partially Catholic" means to be totally lost. 

Monday, December 26, 2016

The Book's Name Is Heresy

 Jorge Bergoglio published a book in January on (what else?) God's mercy. Entitled The Name Of God Is Mercy, it is more of the over-the-top emphasis on a false idea of "forgiveness" without amending one's life as it should be. Written as a rambling interview with journalist Andrea Tornielli, I wonder if someday the word "interview" will become synonymous with "apostasy." It is painful to read (which is why this post comes almost a year after its release), and has major errors to lead the members of his sect even further away from the truth. I will outline just two pertinent errors that permeate the false pope's book.

 According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: "Presumption is here considered as a vice opposed to the theological virtue of hope. It may also be regarded as a product of pride. It may be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly regulated reliance on God's mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them." (Emphasis mine). Bergoglio's book engenders such presumption.

"Go and Sin No More"--after a while

 The book starts from the principle that a human being converts progressively and that he has trouble living completely according to the Catholic morality. This contradicts the infallible teaching of Trent, "CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema." Of course, no person goes from being a notorious sinner to a great saint overnight. Nevertheless, the book claims that because some see the Commandments (especially the Sixth and Ninth) to be "ideals" that are impossible to put into practice, the moral law applies to them in "degrees" according to how far they have "grown morally." This is rank heresy. This makes the Commandments subjective according to the whim (or bad conscience) of the individual as to "how much the law applies and he can follow." 

 Now you can see why Vatican II sect "communion" for adulterers can be permitted. They are not yet "fully moral" by giving up living in sin with their concubine. Yet, they are gradually going that way according to the dictates of their "conscience." Since they cannot fully live up to the Law of God, it is enough for them to try to do it partially, perhaps by having adulterous relations less frequently. This (allegedly) makes them "worthy to receive" their Novus Bogus communion cracker. 

Do you see how the heretical Vatican II ecclesiology has invaded every aspect of Bergoglio's sect? Vatican II puts a false dichotomy between the "Church of Christ" and the Roman Catholic Church. The two are no longer one and the same. The Church of Christ is some mysterious entity which "subsists" in the Roman Catholic Church (and in other sects). This Church of Christ is present according to how many "elements" of it are present. To have all the elements (as The Roman Catholic Church) is best, but to have just some elements is good too and leads to salvation. Hence, Vatican II tells us of false sects that "... the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." (See Unitatis Redintegratio, para. # 3).

 Likewise, just as you can be "Catholic" partially or fully, so too you can be partially or fully moral. To be fully moral is best, but to be partially moral is good too, and you can receive "communion." This explains why in the Vatican II sect almost no one goes to Confession (which they call "Reconciliation"), but nearly everyone goes to "communion." Even though there's more evil prevalent than ever before, "sainthood" seems commonplace when they "come together as Church" to "celebrate Eucharist" as they like to intone (always devoid of definite articles!). 


 On pg. 33 of Bergoglio's book, there is a case described of a priest confronting a Vatican II sect member who is on his death bed. The penitent declares to the priest that he would commit the sin (of fornication) again if he had the opportunity. Despite this statement, the priest ends up absolving the penitent, because (get this) he's sorry that he isn't sorry! 

 Can a priest absolve someone from sin who is regretful that he has no contrition (or even attrition), and has no resolve to stop an act he knows to be wrong? It's outright absurd to think that regret for not having contrition is a substitute for contrition or attrition! What does Frankie have to say?   "It’s a good example of the lengths to which God goes to enter the heart of man, to find that small opening that will permit him to grant grace." Therefore the fact of regret for not having sorrow for sin and a firm resolve not to sin again is a partial step in the right direction, and is sufficient to receive absolution. Now that's a sorry state of affairs!

 Absent from his book is any mention of the temporal debt due to remitted sin, and blotted out through the use of indulgences. There's no mention of the need to avoid the near occasion of sin, and of God's particular judgement of the soul at the moment of death. All of this will lead readers towards the sin of presumption; a sure road to Hell. 

More heresy from the papal pretender is spread throughout his book. Don't waste your eyesight or money on this trash. Read something edifying from the true saints prior to Vatican II (i.e. no "St." Wotyla, etc.). Bergoglio wants us to think that God's mercy is so great, He keeps everyone out of Hell, even those who are only "partially sorry." If true, wouldn't God's justice keep everyone out of Heaven, for no one deserves eternal bliss who has sinned? Remember the sobering words of St. Paul in Philippians 2: 12, "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation." Mr. Bergoglio's name is apostasy.  

Monday, December 19, 2016

The Evil Of Cremation

 On August 15, 2016, the Vatican II sect's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (sic), issued a decree entitled,  Ad resurgendum cum Christo ("To Rise with Christ"). The decree, approved by arch-Modernist "Cardinal"Gerhard Muller, is a condemnation of certain "abuses" in the process of cremation. Cremation is the incineration of a human cadaver and the preservation of the ashes. There have been reports of people who have their ashes scattered at sea, preserved in jewelry, or made into a "memento." (All of which were duly noted in the Modernist Vatican's decree). According to the "Cremation Association of North America" (See CANA at, in the United States, approximately 15% of people who died in 1985 were cremated. In 2015, an astounding 44.42% of the deceased that year were cremated, with a projection that by the year 2025, just over 55% of people will be incinerated to ashes as opposed to being buried in the ground or a mausoleum.

 The True Church always considered cremation to be a great evil. It goes as far back as  1300 AD, when Pope Boniface VIII declared any Catholic who procures cremation for himself excommunicated. On December 15, 1886, His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII,  decreed that if someone has made a public request to be cremated and dies without retracting this sinful act, it is forbidden to give him an ecclesiastical funeral and burial. The 1917 Code of Canon Law made the teaching of the Church very clear. Canon 1203, section 1, states, "The bodies of the faithful must be buried and their cremation is wholly condemned. (reprobata)" Canon 1240, section 5 denies ecclesiastical burial (and as a consequence a Requiem Mass) to those who order their own cremation, even if the order wasn't carried out, unless such order was retracted prior to their death. What's wrong with cremation? Why did the Vatican II sect permit it? These questions will be answered in this post.

The True Teaching On Burial Of Human Bodies

There are several reasons why the Church requires burial:
  • Out of respect to the body as the temple of the Holy Ghost. It has a twofold significance in being buried; (a)  showing the cessation of temporal life on Earth and (b) the beginning of life beyond the grave. As stated by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:36, "Thou fool! The seed you plant does not come to life unless it dies,"
  • Pope Boniface VIII condemned the horrible practice of ripping the flesh from the bones of the deceased (and cremation) as desecration of the body
  • The Church's condemnation does not mean cremation as such is prohibited by the natural law or Divine positive law, but She prohibits the practice as one propagated by the enemies of the Church as a means of gradually paving the way to materialism by "removing from the people's mind the thought of the dead and the hope of the resurrection of the body." (Instruction of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office; June 19, 1926)
  • For serious reasons that affect the public welfare, the Church permits cremation (e.g., to prevent the spread of a deadly plague).
(The above was condensed from canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 1:470-471;496). 

Why Do People Choose Cremation Over Burial?
Popular reasons given are as follows:
  • Lower cost
  • Less space is wasted. 
  • The remains can be taken along by the family if they move away from the cemetery
  • Alleged psychological benefits in expressing the finality of death to the mourners, and that disposal is quick and clean unlike a slow and foul decomposition after death. 
The Real Impetus Behind Cremation: Enemies of Catholicism

The popular reasons enumerated above may be the rationale for certain people being cremated. However, they are  not viable at all for a Traditionalist. 

  • Response to the lower cost argument. Just because something is cheaper, doesn't make it moral. It's cheaper to have an abortion than to raise a child, but does less expense absolve from murder? Obviously not, and we should not desecrate a body for reasons of money either. Sin, of any kind, can not be excused because you want to save money.There are still cost effective means of burial for the indigent.
  • Response to the less wasted space argument. This is plain false. Over 1,000 people can be buried in just one acre of land. Bodies can also be layered in the same grave, and using multi-layered mausoleums prevent any so-called "wasted space." These are the same Neo-Malthusian  jokers who push for birth control due to alleged "overpopulation."
  • Response to the "take the remains along" argument.  If you can't visit the cemetery, it's better to pray for the soul of your deceased loved one knowing he is resting in peace, as opposed to having his desecrated remains with you. Do you really want what's best for the deceased, or what's best for you?
  • Response to the "psychological  benefits" argument. It is debated among psychologists as to whether cremation is better than burial for mourners. There are some who argue that seeing the body helps people accept the reality of death better--both the reality of the loved one who has departed, and the realization/acceptance of the mourner's own mortality. Also, what is therapeutic is not always moral. You might feel better taking revenge on an enemy, but this is not justification for the act.
The real reason cremation has been pushed since the French Revolution (and most especially since the late 19th century) can be summed up in one word: Freemasonry. A circular was put out by the Masons in the latter part of the 1800s stating thus:

"The Roman Church has issued a challenge by condemning cremation. The Freemasons should employ every means to spread the usage of cremation. The Church, by forbidding the burning of corpses seeks to maintain its rights over the living and the dead, over consciences and bodies, and seeks to conserve in the masses of the people the old beliefs, today dispelled by the light of science, extending even to the spiritual soul and the future life." 

The word cemetery comes from the Greek meaning dormitory. In the cemetery souls "rest," waiting in the afterlife as it were, until they are reunited to their bodies and awake to another life (think: resurrection). Cremation suppresses this symbolism and the truths they convey. The corpse is like the grain of wheat that gets buried, and seemingly dies, but sprouts up in new life. A burnt grain of wheat will never do that; a burnt body seems like death has the final say and is definitive.

The Vatican II Sect and Cremation

As noted in paragraph #1 of the Modernist Vatican's latest declaration on cremation, "With the Instruction Piam et Constantem of 5 July 1963, the then Holy Office established that 'all necessary measures must be taken to preserve the practice of reverently burying the faithful departed', adding however that cremation is not 'opposed per se to the Christian religion' and that no longer should the sacraments and funeral rites be denied to those who have asked that they be cremated, under the condition that this choice has not been made through 'a denial of Christian dogmas, the animosity of a secret society, or hatred of the Catholic religion and the Church.'  Later this change in ecclesiastical discipline was incorporated into the Code of Canon Law (1983) and the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches (1990)."

Indeed, it was one of Montini's ("Pope" "Blessed" Paul VI's) first acts to lift the absolute ban on cremation. Wotyla ("Pope" "Saint" John Paul II) enshrined this Masonic practice in his new 1983 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1176, section 3, states, " The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the deceased be observed; nevertheless, the Church does not prohibit cremation unless it was chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine." (Emphasis mine). And we would know it was chosen for "reasons contrary to Christian doctrine" The floodgate is open wide. They did the dirty work of their infernal master.

 The results are now manifest. In 1963, cremation was virtually non-existent among Catholics. As of 1989 (the most recent statistics I could find) an amazing 26% of all cremations were performed on Vatican II sect members! That's more than one-in-four. I can only imagine what it must be for 2016. I had to shake my head in disbelief and hold back laughter when I read paragraph # 4 of "Cardinal" Muller's decree approved by Frankie:

 "In the absence of motives contrary to Christian doctrine, the Church, after the celebration of the funeral rite, accompanies the choice of cremation, providing the relevant liturgical and pastoral directives, and taking particular care to avoid every form of scandal or the appearance of religious indifferentism." (Emphasis mine).  "Avoid religious indifferentism"? You mean like John Paul the Great Apostate did at the Assisi abominations of 1986 and 2002 praying with all the false religions of the world? You mean like Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) who gave "communion" to a known Protestant? You mean like Frankie, who tells us "There is no Catholic God"?  What a farce! 

 The Masonic chickens have come home to roost for Mr. Bergoglio and his worthless "Congregation to Destroy Whatever Remains of The Faith." They are attempting to appease some "conservative" members of the sect who are (rightly) scandalized by the number of cremations, and how the ashes are used. The naturalism of Masonry has been promoted and aided greatly in destroying belief in the resurrection and personal immortality after death. We are seeing the rise of materialism and atheism like never before, and cremation helps that process.

There is an undeniable link between symbolism and one's beliefs. Modernists and Masons understand this all too well. The Novus Bogus "mass" has destroyed all reverence for (what they still call) the Eucharist. Men dress like slobs, and women are dressed not just immodestly, but many times immorally. Anyone can hand out and touch the "consecrated" cracker. You take it from whomever wants to distribute it while standing up and putting it in your hand. The tabernacle is relegated to some hole in the wall, and no one genuflects. According to a study published in America magazine,  37% of Vatican II sect members don't believe in the Real Presence (which, ironically, they don't have anyway).  That's nearly one-in- four, a percentage unthinkable just 52 years ago. They are now believing according to the new rites.

Due to its symbolism, cremation carries with it a new way of thinking about life and death. Man is master of his destiny; an animal just like any other on this planet with no immortal soul or hope of an afterlife. The only goal after being reduced to ashes is to return to "Mother Earth" in anyway that person chooses. When people think this life is all there is and they are just animals, why does it come as a surprise when so many now act that way?

Monday, December 12, 2016

The Strange Ideas Of Fr. Leonard Feeney

 After reading the title of this post, you might be thinking, "Not another discussion of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB)." Not to worry, it's not really going to be a discussion of that topic, but a related matter. Most people may not be aware that heresy is rarely ever limited to one topic. Deny one doctrine of the Faith, and you fall away completely from the Church and God's protection from error. The so-called "Boston Heresy" case involving Fr. Leonard Feeney is a perfect example.

 In brief, Leonard Feeney was born on February 18, 1897, in Massachusetts. He entered the novitiate of the Jesuits in 1914 and was ordained a priest on June 20, 1928. In the 1930s, he was literary editor at the Jesuit magazine, America. He became a professor at Boston College, and soon became the chaplain at the Catholic Saint Benedict Center at Harvard Square in 1945. Reacting against the Modernist heresy that was beginning to surface after Pope St. Pius X had driven it underground, he began denying that BOD and BOB  were part of the Church's teaching regarding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (i.e., "Outside the Church there is no salvation"). He gained a large following. His Jesuit superiors ordered him to leave the Center for a post at the College of the Holy Cross, but after initially going there, he returned to the Center and repeatedly refused to comply with the order. Feeney was summoned to Rome to answer for his teachings, but he staunchly refused to go. On February 13, 1953, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII for disobedience in refusing to go to Rome to answer the charges against him. Prior to his excommunication, Feeney set up a community called the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He was "reconciled" with Montini (Paul VI) and the Vatican II sect in 1972, but was not required abjure his errors, causing his followers to rejoice and claim "his teachings were vindicated."

 Interestingly, the heresy he left as his legacy, and which bears his name ("Feeneyism"), was never taught as 99% of his adherents teach it today. There are other disturbing facts about the teachings of Fr. Leonard Feeney, which will be the subject I address below.

Fr. Feeney was never a theologian or canonist

 Despite the claims of many of his followers that he was some learned scholar, Fr. Feeney never held either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD), or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). His early writings were devotional works. In 1934 he published a collection of essays entitled Fish on Fridays which became a best seller. In it, he made it known he believed that it was possible for a Protestant to be saved (but not as a Protestant, of course, but as a Catholic received in the Church by that rare miracle of BOD). His later works, most notably Bread of Life (1952), set forth his false teachings. Theologian Salaverri, makes it clear that to be considered a theologian, that cleric's works must be known for "...orthodoxy of least to this extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the schools, with the knowledge of and with no opposition from the Magisterium of the Church."(See Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. IB, pg. 327, #857). Obviously, Fr. Feeney, a gifted writer, could not be considered either a theologian or canonist ( i.e., Church-approved expert in Canon Law).

 Justification and Salvation

Justification is the passage from the state of sin to the state of sanctifying grace; salvation is the passage out of this earthly life and persevering to the end in the state of sanctifying grace so as to merit Heaven (either directly, or after time in Purgatory). The Sacrament of Baptism imparts an indelible character on the soul, such that it cannot be repeated. Feeney taught that the character was necessary for salvation. This has never been the teaching of the Church. If a validly baptized person commits mortal sin, they retain the baptismal character, but not sanctifying grace. The two are distinct and separable. In Bread of Life, pg. 118, Feeney writes, "Justification is now being turned into salvation with the aid of water." 

 If someone is justified, they have sanctifying grace. Baptism cannot turn anything "into salvation." This would mean you are somehow assured of going to Heaven as "justification by faith alone" Protestants falsely teach. On pg. 25 of his book we read: "...Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved." Finally, as a "Q and A" format, Feeney presents his heretical teaching very clearly: 

"Q. What does 'Baptism of Desire' mean?
A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.
Q. Can 'Baptism of Desire' save you?
A. Never.
Q. Could 'Baptism of Desire' save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.
Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.
Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of 'Baptism of Desire,' and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never."

 In other words, you can have sanctifying grace, but die and go to Hell unless you receive Baptism by water! A person in sanctifying grace is a child of God with the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in his soul. How could such a person go to Hell? They can't. Fr. Feeney on pg. 125, "I myself would say, my dear children, that a catechumen who dies before Baptism, is punished." Really? The 1917 Code of Canon Law states in Canon 1239, section 2, "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without baptism, are to be treated as baptized." The commentary on this canon expressly states the reason. "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through baptism of desire." (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 493).  Moreover, the True Church has a special Mass for such catechumens. Fr. Feeney would have to reject such a Mass as impious. However, the Council of Trent infallibly declares, "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."

 Modern day Feeneyites, such as the Dimond "Brothers" realize the illogical position of Feeney, and so teach that without Baptism of water, no one is saved or justified. While more logically consistent (although totally false), they do not believe as Fr. Feeney did, but "improve" upon his teaching, a teaching demonstrably illogical as well as out of line with the teaching of the Church.

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary--Serious Problems Abound

 Fr. Feeney established the "Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (known by the Latin initials "MICM") without ecclesiastical approval and aided by a married laywoman, Mrs. Catherine Clark, on January 17, 1949. She took the name of "Sr" Catherine, and continued to live with her husband, Hank. Most of the members of the MICM were married and had children. They took vows of obedience and chastity. I'm sure you can see the problems already, without my commentary, but comment I will. Canon 542 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law makes it very plain that "Married persons for the duration of their marriage" "are invalidly admitted to the novitiate." (See Abbo and Hannan, op. cit., 1: 559, 558.) This means that they cannot become religious as long as their spouse is alive even though they may be "separated" and even if "the other spouse consents that his spouse may enter religion." (Ibid., 1: 560). And what of these ersatz "religious community's" children?

 According to Feenyite author Gary Potter, in his book After the Boston Heresy Case, "The children's parents effectively ceased to exist as parents to the children, and more so as a child grew from three to five to ten and older. Care was taken that the children had no direct or special contact with their parents, save on a half-dozen major feast days during each year when the entire community would gather for socializing. On these occasions the children might chat with their parents, but after a certain time, the parents were seen by the children as scarcely more than another Big Brother or Big Sister." (pg. 171; Emphasis mine). It would be interesting if a study were ever to be done on what became of these poor children when they grew to adulthood. What happened to them can justly be deemed child abuse. Children have a right by natural and Divine Law to be raised by their married parents, and not reared as "siblings" of wannabe "nuns" and "brothers." 

More Wacky Theology

 In Bread of Life, pgs. 97-98, Fr. Feeney writes these most disconcerting words, "I think baptism makes you the son of God. I do not think it makes you the child of Mary. I think the Holy Eucharist makes you a child of Mary. What happens to those children who die between baptism and the Holy Eucharist?...They go to the Beatific Vision. They are in the Kingdom of Mary, but they are not the children of Mary. Mary is their Queen, but not their Mother. They are like little angels. There was a strong tradition in the Church that always spoke of them as 'those angels who died in infancy.' They have the Beatific Vision, and they see the great Queen, but not move in as part of the Mystical Body of Christ...I say: If a child dies after having received baptism, he dies the son of God, but not yet as the child of Mary..."

Baptism makes you part of the One True Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, yet Feeney talks of infants who die after baptism as not moving in Heaven as "part of the Mystical Body of Christ"? They are not true Catholics? Isn't Fr. Feeney contradicting his so-called "strict interpretation" of "Outside the Church no salvation"? The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of Christ, the Invisible Head of the Church, and by extension, to each member of His Mystical Body. How dare Feeney call baptized infants who die before First Communion as "not a child of Mary." Note well he never cites to even one approved theologian, canonist, Encyclical, or other authoritative Church declaration in support of his novel ideas--and with good reason: there aren't any. More heresy.

Reconciliation with Montini and the Vatican II Sect

Fr. Feeney died "reconciled" to the false Vatican II sect under Paul VI (Montini). He was never made to recant his errors. This "hero" of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus refused to acknowledge that BOD and BOB are part of that very same dogma! He now finds favor with false pope Paul VI and was spoken of in glowing terms by arch-heretic "Cardinal" Avery Dulles. These heretics promulgated documents which, among other errors, declare false sects to be "a means of salvation." Yet just as Feeney could hold inconsistent views on other topics, so too, he was able to embrace the false sect of universal salvation and offer the Novus Bogus "mass." Leonard Feeney and the Law of Non-Contradiction, never were on speaking terms. ( The Law of Non-Contradiction maintains that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time, e.g. "It is raining in NYC right now" and "It is not raining in NYC right now"). 

Summary and Conclusion

Rarely does heresy stay isolated. Those who deny Catholic teaching on BOD and BOB hold up as a modern day "savior" the late Jesuit, Fr. Leonard Feeney. This is a priest who:
  • was never qualified as a theologian or canonist  
  • was disobedient to his lawful superiors and refused to report to the Holy See during the reign of Pope Pius XII and defend his teachings. He was subsequently excommunicated by Pope Pius XII. 
  • taught a strange, mixed-up notion of Justification and Salvation which is rejected even by his modern day followers
  • started a "religious order" consisting of married couples with children without ecclesiastical approval and in violation of Canon Law
  • abused the children of those "religious" by raising them communally and depriving them of their mother and father as God intended
  • taught that baptized infants were not somehow in the Mystical Body of Christ and could not be considered "children of Mary"
  • sought and received reconciliation in the false Vatican II sect which will accept ANY teaching as long as it isn't the teaching of the One True Church. 

Notice how their most ardent supporters, the so-called Dimond "Brothers" have many of the same problems, they:
  • Claim to be Benedictines, yet are sedevacantists. Having been born in the 1970s, they could not be members of the Traditional Benedictines, so they either are "self-appointed" or were made such by someone in the Vatican II sect they claim to abhor. More phony "religious."
  • Have no formal ecclesiastical training or degrees, yet pontificate on every topic and damning to Hell anyone who disagrees
  • Used to tell people they can attend the Mass of sedevacantist priests who are "heretics" (believe Church teaching on BOD and BOB), as long as they don't contribute money. By the same logic you could attend the Mass of an Eastern Schismatic/Heretic as long as you don't contribute money!
  • Claimed that a Mass with the name of the false pope in the Canon (such as by the SSPX) is a grave evil to attend, yet for years attended the "mass" of the Eastern Rite Vatican II sect which always puts the name of the false pope in the Anaphora (their Canon)
  • Currently tell people they can go to Traditionalist priests for Confession, but not for Mass and Communion, and of course, anyone who disagrees is damned to Hell. They are like the Jehovah's Witnesses sect whose teachings change frequently and often contradict prior teachings
  • Have claimed to know that certain people who died were in Hell (we cannot know, except by special revelation who is in Hell except for Judas Iscariot)
  • Have an unhealthy fascination with UFOs, and material that's fit to be published in supermarket tabloids

 A Traditionalist friend of mine said that Feeneyites have a certain "sickness of soul." I agree. This sickness is present in all who reject the Church, and wind up far removed from the truth. Fr. Feeney is said to have "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" inscribed on his tombstone. He died outside the Church in the false Vatican II sect. Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if, by a miracle of Grace, God saved Fr. Feeney and brought him back into the Church at the moment of his death by the very means he denied?