Thursday, May 30, 2013

God Doesn't Believe In Atheists

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." --Psalm 14:1

 Mr. Jorge Bergoglio, aka "Pope" Francis is fully committed to universalism, i.e. the belief that ALL humans (and perhaps even the demons and Satan) will be saved. From the UPI:

VATICAN CITY, May 29 (UPI) -- The Vatican retracted Pope Francis' statement that everyone, "even the atheists," were saved from sin and redeemed by God and therefore welcome in heaven.
People who know about the Catholic Church "cannot be saved" if they "refuse to enter her or remain in her," Vatican spokesman the Rev. Thomas Rosica said in an "explanatory note."
At the same time, people "who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation," Rosica wrote.
He added, "No person is excluded from salvation simply because of so-called original sin; one can only lose their salvation through serious personal sin of their own account."
Francis made headlines when he said in a May 22 homily: "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the blood of Christ -- all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!
"'Father, the atheists?'" Francis said as if asking himself. "Even the atheists. Everyone!" Francis said in answering his Socratic-style question.
"And this blood makes us children of God of the first class!" Francis said. "We are created children in the likeness of God, and the blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace.
"If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter -- we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good," Francis said.
"'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!'" Francis said, again speaking as if he were someone else. "But do good -- we will meet one another there," Francis said in response.
Atheist Hemant Mehta wrote in his Friendly Atheist blog: "Atheists, according to Christians, are going to hell unless we accept Christ's divinity. We already knew that. It was still an unusual and welcome gesture from the pope to recognize that everyone, regardless of beliefs, can do good and 'be saved' -- at least it was a step up from what we're used to hearing."
British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, known for advocating atheism and science, wrote on Twitter: "Atheists go to heaven? Nope. Sorry world, infallible pope got it wrong. Vatican steps in with alacrity."
"Conversations With God" author Neale Donald Walsch told United Press International Tuesday evening: "It is regrettable that the hidden hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church chose to officially retract the recent statement on eternal damnation bravely made by its new leader, Pope Francis. This rapid retrenchment wiped out what appeared to be one of the major advances in theological thinking within that institution in the past 500 years."

 Pure heresy from Bergoglio, to the point where even the Modernists in the Vatican had to "correct" him, making him seem "orthodox." He received accolades from some non-believers and arch-New Ager Neale Donald Walsh, whose writings are contradictory nonsense coming from conversations with anyone BUT God. What does the True Church teach about atheism?

Vatican Council I (1870): The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.  It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Condemned Proposition #1 (1864);
 There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

 Clearly, Bergoglio is a heretic. However, the Vatican II apologists will jump through intellectual hoops to try and "save" his pretended "papacy." Even made a comparison to the alleged "heresy" of Pope John XXII regarding the Beatific Vision in an attempt to avoid the necessity of sedevacantism (the SSPX will do likewise, I'm sure). But that argument simply won't work.

Pope John XXII (1316-1334) preached a series of sermons in Avignon, France in which he taught that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgement.
      Traditio's analogy to the situation of Francis does not hold here because as pointed out by Fr. Cekada many times:
(a) The doctrine on the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined, so a denial of it would not constitute heresy.
(b) The pope, who had been a theologian before his election, proposed his teaching only as a “private doctor who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate.“ (Le Bachlet, “Benoit XII,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.)
In the pope’s second sermon, moreover, he said the following:
“I say with Augustine that, if I am deceived on this point, let someone who knows better correct me. For me it does not seem otherwise, unless the Church would so declare with a contrary statement [nisi ostenderetur determinatio ecclesie contraria] or unless authorities on sacred scripture would express it more clearly than what I have said above.”(Le Bachelet, DTC 2:262.)
Such statements excluded the element of “pertinacity” proper to heresy.
Francis will believe in everything, to join with even those who believe in nothing, as long as it's always to the exclusion of the One True and integral Catholic Faith.

Friday, May 24, 2013

How To Exorcise At Home

  "Pope" Francis performed an exorcism---or did he? According to the AP news wire:
"The question has bubbled up ever since Francis laid his hands on the head of a young man in a wheelchair after celebrating Sunday Mass in St. Peter’s Square. The young man heaved deeply a half-dozen times, shook, then slumped in his wheelchair as Francis prayed over him.
The television station of the Italian bishops’ conference reported the next day that it had surveyed exorcists, who agreed there was “no doubt” that Francis either performed an exorcism or a prayer to free the man from the devil.
The Vatican was more cautious, saying Francis “didn’t intend to perform any exorcism. But as he often does for the sick or suffering, he simply intended to pray for someone who was suffering who was presented to him.”
Italian newspapers noted that the late Pope John Paul II performed an exorcism in 1982 near the same spot.
Fueling the speculation is how Satan is a frequent subject of Francis’ homilies, as well as a surge in demand for exorcisms among the faithful.
In his first homily, Francis warned cardinals the day after he was elected that “he who doesn’t pray to the Lord prays to the devil.” Another time, he warned: “With the prince of this world you can’t have dialogue: Let this be clear!”"    This news story is interesting on many levels.
  1. Mr. Bergoglio is an invalidly ordained priest and an equally invalidly consecrated bishop, i.e., he is merely a layman. Layman have no ability to perform exorcisms.
Whether he intended an exorcism or not, he has no spiritual power over demonic forces since he is not a priest. The Traditional rite of Exorcism takes a long time to perform. It is not like some phony "tele-evangelist" preacher who puts his hands on someone's head and declares them "healed" (Can I get an "Amen"?). The Vatican II rite DOES NOT WORK (at least according to the leading exorcist from pre-Vatican II days). Here's what Fr. Amorth had this to say in the year 2000 for the publication 30 Days:
As Vatican Council II had requested, the various parts of the Roman Ritual were gradually revised. We exorcists were waiting for title 12 to be addressed, that is to say the Exorcism Ritual. But apparently this Ritual was not considered an important subject, for the years went by and nothing happened. Then, quite unexpectedly, on 4 June 1990, there was published a Ritual ad interim, that is a trial Ritual. This was a real surprise for us, as we had not been consulted beforehand. And yet we had prepared a whole series of requests in view of the Ritual's revision. We were asking, among other things, that the prayers might be amended so that invocations to the Virgin, which were completely absent, might be incorporated, and that the number of prayers specifically relating to exorcism might be augmented. But we were not given the chance to make any kind of contribution. However, we were not discouraged: after all the text had been drawn up for us. And as in his letter of presentation, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship at the time, Cardinal Eduardo Martinez Somalo, had asked the Episcopal Conferences to send in, over the following two years, "any advice and suggestions made by priests who would make use of it", we got down to work. I brought together eighteen exorcists, chosen from among the most expert on the planet. We examined the text with great attention. We used it. We immediately commended the first part in which the evangelical foundations of exorcism were summarized. This part deals with the biblical and theological aspect of the question, and on this head no lack of competence was apparent. It is a new section not found in the Ritual of 1614, which was composed under Pope Paul V; besides, at that time, there was no need to recall these principles, since the whole world knew them and accepted them. Today, on the contrary, this is indispensable.

But when we came to examine the practical part that demands a specific knowledge of the subject, the total inexperience of the writers really showed through. We made numerous observations, article by article, and we sent these on to all interested parties: the Congregation for Divine Worship, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, end the Episcopal Conferences. One copy was handed directly to the Pope.

30 Days: How were your observations received?

Fr. Amorth: Badly, and they achieved nothing. We had taken our inspiration from the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium in which the Church is described as the "People of God". In number 28, it speaks of priests collaborating with bishops, and in number 37 it is clearly stated - and this applies to the laity also - that "by reason of the knowledge, competence and preeminence they enjoy, they are empowered, indeed sometimes obliged, to manifest their opinion on things that pertain to the good of the Church." This is exactly what we did. And we were ingenuous enough to think that the directives of Vatican II had found their way into the Roman Congregations. But instead we found ourselves up against a wall of rejection and derision.

The Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship gave a report to the Commission of Cardinals in which he said that those who had contacted him were bishops and not priests and exorcists. And with regard to our own humble attempt to help them by giving our advice as specialists, he added - and I quote verbatim - "One should also take note of the fact that a group of exorcists and "demonologues", who subsequently formed themselves into an international Association, were busy orchestrating a campaign against the rite." An indecent accusation: we have never orchestrated a campaign! The Ritual was intended for us, and yet not one competent person had been called upon by the commissions; so it was only to be expected that we should seek to make our contribution.

30 Days: Does this mean then that, for you, the New Rite is unusable in the struggle against the demon?

Fr. Amorth: Yes. They were looking to give us a blunt weapon. Efficacious prayers, prayers that had been in existence for twelve centuries, were suppressed and replaced by new ineffective prayers. But, as luck would have it, they threw us a lifeline at the last moment.

30 Days: What was that?

Fr. Amorth: The new Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Cardinal Jorge Medina, attached to the Ritual a Notification in which he specified that exorcists were not obliged to use this Ritual and that, if they wished, they could ask their bishop for authorization to use the old one. The bishops must in their turn ask for authorization from the Congregation which, as the Cardinal writes, "willingly accords it".

30 Days: "Willingly accords it"? That is a very strange concession...

Fr. Amorth: Do you want to know where it comes from? It comes from an attempt made by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and by Cardinal Medina to introduce into the Ritual an article - it was article 38 at that time - which would authorize exorcists to use the previous Ritual. It was undoubtedly a maneuver in extremis to fend off on our behalf the grave errors found in the definitive Ritual. But the two cardinals failed in their attempt. Then Cardinal Medina, who had understood what was at stake in this matter, decided to grant us this lifeline anyway and he added a separate note.

30 Days: How do you exorcists see your position within the Church?

Fr. Amorth: We are very badly treated. Our brother priests who are charged with this delicate task are treated as though they are crazy, as fanatics. Generally speaking they are scarcely even tolerated by the bishops who have appointed them.

2. The need of exorcisms is on the rise. As the True Faith and True Mass have been diminished, Satan has grown in influence.

According to the NY Times in 2010:"There are only a handful of priests in the country trained as exorcists, but they say they are overwhelmed with requests from people who fear they are possessed by the Devil.
Now, American bishops are holding a conference on Friday and Saturday to prepare more priests and bishops to respond to the demand. The purpose is not necessarily to revive the practice, the organizers say, but to help Catholic clergy members learn how to distinguish who really needs an exorcism from who really needs a psychiatrist, or perhaps some pastoral care."
With all the child raping, they might want to use a healthy dose of real exorcism and psychiatric care on themselves.

3. Bergoglio: "He who doesn't pray to the Lord prays to the devil." And, "With the prince of this world you can’t have dialogue: Let this be clear!"

 Then what are we to make of Moslems?  They don't acknowledge Christ as Lord. But that obviously doesn't matter to the Vatican II sect, because according to the heretical Vatican II document Nostra Aetate: "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God." (Paragraph #3).

The Moslems don't pray to a Triune God. They do not subscribe to the Bible, nor adore Christ. He is merely a prophet, and not even the greatest! That title belongs to Mohammed. So, do Moslems pray to the devil? Bergoglio SOUNDS orthodox, but in Vatican II-speak, every religion is more or less good (the heresy of indifferentism also held by Modernists), so everyone prays to "the lord."The True Church teaches: 
"But God forbid that the sons of the Catholic Church ever in any way be hostile to those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love; but rather they should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them, whether poor, or sick, or afflicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and 'being fruitful in every good work' [Colossians 1:10], they may attain eternal salvation."
--Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, par. 9, August 10, 1863 (Denzinger 1678)
  (Empahasis added). 4. What's a Traditionalist to do in combating Satan and his demons?
  • Remain in the state of sanctifying grace, keeping Christ in your soul, and Satan out!
  • Receive the Sacraments as often as you can.
  • Keep blessed sacramentals on your person and in your house, such as rosaries, scapulars, cords, statues of Christ, Mary, St. Joseph, and other saints/angels (and make sure a Traditionalist priest solemnly blesses them according to the Rituale Romanum)
  • Have a strong devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, and St. Michael the Archangel
  • Avoid contact with any superstitions which are not only mortal sins, but invite Satan, such as ouija boards, tarrot cards, astrology, palm readings, "psychics", mediums and fortune tellers, etc.
  • Avoid all forms of false worship, especially the Vatican II sect
By doing the above, you'll keep Satan away and won't need bogus "help" from one of the devil's favorite antipopes.

Read more here:

Saturday, May 18, 2013

A Hypocritical Paper Tiger and A Heretic with Guts

From the Catholic News Service:

"If New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushes to have "a right to an abortion" codified in state law, he will face "vociferous" and "rigorous" opposition from Catholic and other pro-lifers, said Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York. But the cardinal hopes it doesn't come to that because Cuomo, he said, has told him "he wants to work hard on alternatives to abortion," such as expanding adoption, having "greater latitude" in maternity leave and better assisting pregnant women in need and those with small children.

The cardinal made the comments in a May 14 telephone interview with radio host Fred Dicker, whose show is broadcast on Talk 1300 AM from the state Capitol in Albany. Dicker is a political analyst and is state editor for the New York Post daily newspaper. "The governor and I have worked closely on other issues," Cardinal Dolan said, listing immigration, gun control, a call to civic responsibility and the recovery of some money owed to Catholic schools in the form of reimbursements for state-mandated measures such as standardized testing.
"We've been with him and we've appreciated what he's done. I want to believe he means it when he tells me he's not going to expand what is already a terrible liberal abortion culture," Cardinal Dolan said, but added that Cuomo has yet to release the details of the measure, called the Women's Equality Act."

 Mr. Dolan, the Chief Layman of the Archdiocese of New York (having been "ordained" and "consecrated" in the invalid Vatican II rite of Holy Orders), is a buffoon par excellence. When Andrew Cuomo pushed sodomite "marriage" down the throats of New Yorkers in 2011, where was Dolan's "vociferous" and "rigorous" opposition? He wasn't in Albany when the vote was taken. The State Senate is controlled by Republicans, who claim to be the "pro-life" party.
Those of us with memories going back more than a few years will remember that the Republican controlled Congress under George Bush, Jr. did NOTHING to stop the slaughter of innocents. Also of interest is that New York became the first state to legalize the murder of unborn children in 1970; three years before the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. The Republican controlled State Senate, Republican controlled State Assembly, and Republican Governor Nelson A Rockefeller made it happen. This was right after Vatican II, and the apostate Cardinal Cooke did not threaten the Catholic legislators with excommunication and Hell to pay (literally). The result? With most "Catholic" legislators voting in favor, the bill passed the Assembly by a single vote, 76-74.

 Fast Forward to 2011. Modernist Mr. Dolan does nothing to threaten the Vatican II sect legislators with excommunication and/or denial of the "sacraments." He can't threaten them with Hell, because enlightened Modernists like himself and most members of his sect don't believe in that anymore. They need that disbelief, because how could anyone who does believe in Hell rape children and/or cover it up? As a result, four "Catholic" Republican Senators who were on the fence voted in favor of sodimical "marriage" and it became law.  "Vociferous and rigorous"? Please. The real hero was State Senator Ruben Diaz, a former Vatican II Catholic turned Protestant minister.

This brave Democrat from the Bronx rose up in opposition and declared Cuomo as going against the Law of God. He was the only Democratic "No" vote. Cuomo threatened him, pleaded with him, and promised him support if he would vote in favor. Diaz staunchly refused repeating the words of Our Lord, "What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his very soul"?  During the debate on the floor, when Diaz was forcefully aguing in defense of the marriage of one man and one woman as ordained by God, Majority Leader Dean Skelos (rumored to be a bisexual) cut off his microphone and humiliated him. Mr. Dolan would do nothing to support State Senator Diaz.

 Moreover, Mr. Dolan and the other "bishops" and "priests" of the Vatican II sect allow Andrew Cuomo to receive "communion" even though he is divorced (with no Vatican II annulment) and is living in mortal sin with his concubine. Notorious public sinners are supposed to be denied the "sacraments" until they repent and amend their lives.

Do we really expect Dolan and his sect to do anything about making abortion the law under the guise of helping women? (Fifty percent of the children murdered will be female. I don't think that helps). After all, Dolan is just a microcosm of his chief, Mr. Bergoglio aka "Pope" Francis. Didn't Bergoglio give "communion" to pro-abortion and pro-sodomite Vice-President Biden and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (former Speaker of the House of Representatives)? His Wickedness also did little to prevent legalized sodomy in his native country, and facilitated an adoption of a baby by two perverts. The entire Vatican II sect is evil to the core.

Mr. Dolan and Mr. Bergoglio both want a "more democratic church." Not a bad idea, if you really think about it. If the Vatican II sect members could elect their leaders, they could oust the current regime and put in State Senator Ruben Diaz. He does speak up forcefully against abortion and sodomy; those things against the natural law and which all people can know apart from revelation.

They would still be lead by a heretic, but on basic matters of morality, at least he's a heretic with guts.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Impoverished Thoughts: Finding Hate Where None Exists

The Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC"), describes itself as "a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society."  We should all seek to eradicate racism and hatred; it's our duty as True Catholics. Unfortunately, the SPLC seeks to demonize anyone who doesn't conform to their left-wing notions concerning alleged "hatred." They embody the Modernist notion that to proselytize is to "hate" another. Quite frankly, it's the embodiment of true Charity. If you have the Truth, the only way to salvation, you want to bring as many people into that saving Truth as possible, so they can avoid eternal damnation.

The SPLC website at, lists "Radical Traditional Catholicism" as a "hate group" on par with the likes of the Neo-Nazis and the KKK. Such a designation is nothing less than rank calumny fortified by fallacious arguments. Below I reproduce parts of an essay on their site entitled, "The Radical Traditionalist Catholic Movement" written by Heidi Beirich. She is touted as having a PhD, and director of research and special projects for the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project. One can only hope she obtained her doctorate from one of those fly by night mail-in correspondence schools, and I had to suppress laughter that she is director of research.  She has written an essay about Traditionalists which distorts the facts, uses shoddy research with no citations, employs faulty reasoning, and misrepresents the teachings of Traditionalists. I submit this essay is an example of the very thing the SPLC disavows--hatred-- directed towards Traditionalists. I refuse to refer to someone who does "research" and writes on elementary school level as "Dr."; therefore she will be referred to as Ms. Beirich. I will point out the most egregious errors about Traditionalists Ms. Beirich puts forward, followed by my comments in red.

Though tiny in comparison with the approximately 70 million Americans who are mainstream Catholics, "radical traditionalist Catholics" may form the single largest group of hard-core anti-Semites in America.

Really? What constitutes this core of anti-Semitic hatred? What polls has she conducted regarding the attitudes of Traditionalists towards Jewish people?

With more than 100,000 followers in the United States – famously including actor Mel Gibson and his father Hutton Gibson – the radical traditionalist movement embraces a host of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. It has significant financial and publishing resources, and, in a growing number of cases, is interacting with white supremacist and Holocaust denial extremist groups. Leaders of the growing, energetic movement routinely pillory the Jews as "the perpetual enemy of Christ" and worse.

I don't know of any statistics concerning the number of Traditionalists in the U.S. Is she including sedevacantists, along with SSPX and those independents who recognize yet resist Modernist Rome in her statistics? What about Conclavists/mysticalists? She later makes statements against sedevacantists, but who, exactly, are covered by her statistics and in her definition of "radical Traditional Catholicism"? It's never made clear.  I guess "you people" all think alike!
 "Significant financial and publishing resources"? Name one major Traditionalist publishing house the likes of  Intervarsity Press or Zondervan Press (both Protestant). While an individual Traditionalist can be anti-Semitic, you can hardly ascribe it to all of us. Can you imagine if she had written that all Moslems hate America and want to blow things up? Something tells me SPLC never would have put it online.

Also known as "integrism" or Catholic separatism, radical traditionalism is largely unknown to mainstream Catholics. Radical traditionalists are also unrelated to the many Catholics who call themselves "traditionalist" because they prefer the ancient Latin Mass, though radical traditionalists also prefer their liturgy in Latin. The official Roman Catholic Church condemns radical traditionalists for their anti-Semitism. In turn, radical traditionalists generally reject the modern Roman Catholic Church and its universalistic theology.

So if you're in union with Modernist Rome (FSSP, Motu Mass) you're not classified as a "radical Traditionalist." That's because you buy into the heretical worldview of Vatican II which the world (and the SPLC) loves. Traditionalists are condemned for having the One True Faith and rejecting Vatican II, not due to anti-Semitism. She IS correct that we reject the Modernist's universalisitic theology!! Not all are saved, and converts must be made since there is only One True Church outside of which no one can be saved. Consider the DENIAL of this dogma by His Wickedness "Pope" Francis, which he made just recently:

"The Christian who would bring the Gospel must go down this road: [must] listen to everyone! But now is a good time in the life of the Church: the last 50 or 60 years have been a good time - for I remember when as a child one would hear in Catholic families, in my family, ‘No, we cannot go to their house, because they are not married in the Church, eh!’. It was as an exclusion. No, you could not go! Neither could we go to [the houses of] socialists or atheists. Now, thank God, people do not says such things, right? [Such an attitude] was a defense of the faith, but it was one of walls: the LORD made bridges. First: Paul has this attitude, because it was the attitude of Jesus. Second, Paul is aware that he must evangelize, not proselytize."

Now you can see why Modernist Rome is loved by the corrupt world, and we in the True Church are hated, even as Our Lord was hated before us. "Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you, for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets." (St. Luke 6:26).

The radical traditionalists' understanding of what has gone wrong with the world boils down to a few basic issues. They are incensed by the Second Vatican Council's (1962-1965) historic declaration, "Nostra Aetate," which condemned "all hatreds, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism leveled at any time or from any source against the Jews."
They believe that most of the theological developments within the church since Vatican II have been egregiously wrong, especially with regard to reconciling with Jews and the followers of other faiths. They despise the Vatican's ecumenical outreach efforts to other religions. And they lament the fall of the Latin Mass and argue that the new Mass, "Novus Ordo," does not guarantee salvation.

Just a "few basic issues", you say? Ecumenism in all its forms is against the Catholic Faith. For some reason, Ms. Beirich has an obsession with the Jews. The Novus Bogus "Mass" does not guarantee salvation, but neither does the True Mass. No one can be certain of salvation, and even in the True Church we must "work out our salvation in fear and trembling." (Philippians 2:12 ).

The radical traditionalist subculture is notable for its conspiracy mongering. The most popular conspiracy theory dwells on the perils of the much-feared "Judeo-Masonic" plot. The alleged conspiracy involves ancient, shadowy fraternities such as the Masons and the Illuminati, who are seen as puppets in a Jewish master plan to destroy the Catholic Church. The theory is laid out in great detail in John Venarri's Alta Vendita, which has been compared to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous tract also alleging a global plot by the Jews. Other plots abound in radical traditionalist circles, including a "Marxist-Jewish" scheme that is ruining American schools, a "Jewish-homosexual" alliance destroying the priesthood, and a 9/11 conspiracy that maintains the 2001 terrorist attacks were actually "predicted by the Blessed Virgin Mary 84 years ago."

John Vennarri recognizes Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) and his booklet deals with Freemasons, not Jews. The other allegation about Marxist-Jewish schemes in schools, etc. might be held by individual wackos but not by the Traditionalist movement. Notice she does not supply a single citation to whom advances these wild-eyed theories.

Some radical traditionalists, including Hutton Gibson, embrace "sedevacantism," a word derived from Latin that refers to a period when "the see [or seat] is vacant." While the term is the official Roman Catholic word for the period between a pope's death and the election of his successor, many radicals are sedevacantists in the sense that they believe that there has not been a real pope for years (typically, since 1958). Some have adopted theories about rigged papal elections and even the idea that the authentic pope is secretly being held in captivity.

Here she does include sedevacantists in her definition of Radical Traditionalists, but also makes it seem we are all believe strange things, such as rigged papal elections (the "Siri Theory", i.e. Cardinal Siri was elected instead of John XXII, and the bizarre idea held by those who believe the Bayside "apparitions;"namely, that Paul VI was being held captive in the Vatican and an impostor-look alike put in his place). She does not even mention that the vast majority of Traditionalists base sedevacantism on theological principles taught by the Church through Her most learned theologians and popes.

If radical traditionalists belong to a particular sect – and many do not – it is typically the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). This sprawling international group, based in Kansas City, Kan., has published reams of anti-Semitic writings. In the late 1980s, Pope John Paul II excommunicated all SSPX priests and declared the sect formally in schism. Nevertheless, it has continued to grow. The sect reportedly has 20,000 to 30,000 members in the United States.

False. First, what constitutes "reams of anti-Semitic writings"? Praying for the conversion of the Jews so they can be saved? Horrors!! JPII never excommunicated the SSPX clergy--only Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Casrto-Mayer, and the four bishops they consecrated in 1988. Anti-Semitism was not the reason and never entered the equation. A first year college student majoring in journalism could have done a better job in researching an article. Which leads me to the question, "Is Ms. Bierich incompetent or just a bald-faced liar"?

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI moved to regularize SSPX with the church, though his announcement was marred by revelations of Holocaust denial by SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson. SSPX ordered Williamson to stop articulating his historical views about the Holocaust and, in the months after the pope's announcement, began purging its website of anti-Semitic material.

The SSPX began purging its website of doctrine that offends Modernists, like the need for conversion to the One True Church. Bp. Williamson's views about a matter of secular history are his own, he was not speaking on behalf of the SSPX, nor of Traditionalists in general. Interestingly, Ratzinger took a hard line against a wacky idea totally unrelated to Faith or Morals, yet his "bishops" who deny dogma and cover-up pedophiles (and, like Rembert Weakland, are practicing sodomites themselves) go untouched by the Vatican, or receive a slap on the wrist at worst! Bp. Williamson has since been expelled by the SSPX for being too Catholic!

Two deceased priests – Father Denis Fahey and Father Leonard Feeney – serve as the primary inspiration for today's radical traditionalist Catholics.

Says whom? Fr. Feeney was a heretic, and the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, (and many independents as well) DENY Holy Communion to those who hold to the heretical views of Feeney on Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Fr. Fahey is by no means "the theologian" who inspires Traditionalists. Where is she getting this "information"?

While spouting the same kind of anti-Jewish propaganda as the Nazis, Fahey crafted an argument that he believed should exempt him from the label of anti-Semite. Fahey claimed he didn't hate the Jews per se, but merely opposed their "naturalistic aims." Since he also argued that Jews can't help but work to further those aims – communism, the destruction of Christianity and the like – this was a distinction without a difference. Today, radical traditionalists, including the Society of St. Pius X, continue to claim they are not anti-Semitic, just against "Jewish naturalism."

No citations. Traditionalists are against Naturalism, regardless of who espouses it. Fahey is claimed to have said many things. He is not a pre-Vatican II theologian and no Traditionalist groups pay him any type of homage. Perhaps some individuals do, but the same could be said of some "conservative" Vatican II sect members.

Feeney also preached against Jews, often on the Boston Common with his followers. Although he was finally excommunicated for disobedience in 1953, he rapidly founded his own order, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and started a newsletter, The Point, that was suffused with anti-Semitism. Feeney's newsletter blamed Jews for controlling and biasing the press and for creating communism. One article lambasted Jews for their role in "anti-hate" initiatives. Another, published in April 1958, was entitled "Newspapers and The New York Times: Other Jews and Minister Sulzberger" and summed up the Jewish "problem" like this: "Essential to the understanding of our chaotic times is the knowledge that the Jewish race constitutes a united anti-Christian bloc within Christian society, and is working for the overthrow of that society by every means at its disposal."
Feeney reconciled with the church in 1974, four years before his death. But his anti-Semitic ideas remain popular in radical traditionalist Catholic circles and in the New Hampshire monastery founded by his followers. The monastery still endorses Feeney's anti-Semitic ideology, to the point that a New Hampshire bishop criticized it in 2004 as "blatantly anti-Semitic" and "offensive." The bishop isn't the only one who sees Feeney as anti-Semitic. One white supremacist has created an online archive of Feeney's writings ( for the benefit of fellow Aryans. It is part of the so-called "World White Web."

The Vatican took him back without abjuring his errors!! Hence, it is the Vatican II sect, not Traditionalists who are aligned with Feeney! Yet we are given the mantle of "hate group"! Please note that this is still guilt by association. Paul VI deserves condemnation for taking him without an abjuration, but I can not condemn the members of the Vatican II sect of being in alignment with his views, theological and otherwise. 

With all the real hatred in the world, the last thing we need are baseless diatribes against good people from second rate intellects promoting an agenda which uses propaganda posing as "scholarship." Hopefully, Ms. Beirich will put her writings to good use by hanging them next to the Charmin.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Attempting To Replace The Heretical With The Delusional

Consider the following list of colorful characters:
  • An illiterate chicken farmer who loses both eyes in a car accident
  • A man rejected by Traditionalist seminaries, has never held a real job, has no formal education above high school and lives in a farm house with his mother
  • A Dominican priest ordained in 1958, who claims God revealed to him that the form of Baptism was wrong since the first century and he was correctly baptized by an angel from heaven
  • A 38 year old "self-educated" expert in many alleged fields of knowledge with serious medical issues
 Are these the characters from a long lost transcript for a book written by Malachi Martin? No. Sadly, each of the men described above claims to be the "pope." Conclavism is an unfortunate by product of having no pope. Someone with delusions of grandeur (or just plain delusions) decides to end the period of sedevacantism by holding a "conclave" and electing a real "pope" (interestingly, it's almost always the person who starts such a group who gets "elected"). Also, there is a category called Mysticalists who are not "elected" but "chosen" by some alleged apparition of Christ and/or Mary.

It is alleged that sedevacantism leads to this kind of insanity. The SSPX put out a book entitled Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem, in which they make the same attempt to discredit the idea that there is a vacancy of the Holy See by citing to the various independent bishops spuriously consecrated on a whim and alleged "popes." While it is true that sedevacantism is a necessary presupposition of these papal claimants (why attempt to fill a position if you already have a pope?); to say that it is also necessary that conclavism and mysticalists must follow is a non sequitur. It is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Major Premise: If X is a conclavist pope, he is a sedevacantist.
Minor Premise: X is a sedevacantist
Conclusion: X is a conclavist pope.
This is a fallacy. Consider:
Major premise: If X is a cat, it is an animal
Minor Premise: X is an animal
Conclusion: X is a cat.
Obviously fallacious.

As far as some dubious or unworthy Traditionalist bishops consecrated under a time of near universal apostasy, remember the words of Our Lord: "Then Jesus told them, "This very night you will all fall away on account of me, for it is written: "'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'" (St. Matthew 26: 31). Without a pope, the Vicar of Christ, this is what will happen from time to time as we have no shepherd to guide us. Compare this to the Vatican II sect which allegedly has a pope (Frankie-Bergoglio), yet has less unity and more scandal than anyone.

The frauds of the conclavist/mysticalist movement can be spotted in their own heretical positions and/or absurd situations. "Pope" Michael (David Bawden, claiming papacy since 1990) was "elected" by six people; his parents, himself and three neighbors who were "the only viable Catholics remaining in the world." He lives at home with his mother on the farm. He claims to have been ordained and consecrated a bishop, but he refuses to name the alleged bishop who ordained and consecrated him. There is a documentary on his sad life you can view on YouTube.

The "Palmarian Catholic Church" started by one Clemente  Dominguez, claimed to have been "mystically crowned pope by Jesus Christ" upon the death of Paul VI, who was an imprisoned "martyr and saint" within the Vatican. An impostor took his place in public. Taking the name "Gregory XVII", he lost his eyes in a car accident. He was actually able to convince Archbishop Thuc to ordain and consecrate himself and five others in 1976, but Thuc repented for having been duped. Further, as an illiterate chicken farmer, he is canonically unfit (as were the other five), so there is no presumption of validity in any sacraments they confer. All their "clergy" are dubious. Add to this the revelation after he died that he engaged in sex with several of his so-called nuns, and it's obvious this is not from God. The heresy of his "Palmarian Council" stated that Mary shall be called the "Irredeemed" because she who had no sin did not need redemption! This contradicts the constant teaching of the Church, including the infallible decree of Pope Pius IX Ineffabilis Deus, proclaiming the Immaculate Conception. It states that Mary WAS redeemed "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ", hence in a unique way, but redeemed nevertheless. They are on their third antipope, "Gregory XVIII."

Conclavism/Mysticalism is started by the deluded, charlatans looking to make money and feel important, and those who have big egos and are ignorant of theology. This is not a post-Vatican II phenomenon.
Consider the following under Pope Pius XII:

"Frenchman Michel Collin or Colin, born in a village of Lorraine in 1905 and ordained a priest in 1935, announced in 1936 that he had been ordained a bishop by Christ himself. He founded a community called the Order of the Mother of God (a name later changed to "Apostles of Infinite Love"), in response to the 1846 request made by the Blessed Virgin Mary, as reported later by Mélanie Calvat, one of the seers of La Salette. In 1950 he announced that he had been crowned Pope and had taken the name Clement XV. Pope Pius XII laicized him in 1951and publicly declared him, by name, a vitandus (one who should be avoided) excommunicate." (See, e.g., Smoke of Satan by Michael Cuneo, also in wikipedia; emphasis mine).

How then do we get a real pope? As Fr. Cekada has written:

IF THE POST-VATICAN II popes are not true popes, how might the
Church one day get a true pope again? Here are some theories:
1. Direct Divine Intervention. This scenario is found in the writings
of some approved mystics.
2. The Material/Formal Thesis. This holds that should a post-
Vatican II pope publicly renounce the heresies of the post-
Conciliar Church, he would automatically become a true pope.
3. An Imperfect General Council. The theologian Cajetan (1469–
1534) and others teach that, should the College of Cardinals become
extinct, the right to elect a pope would devolve to the
clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church. (de Comparatione
13, 742, 745)

Each of these seems to present some difficulties. But this
should not be surprising, because the precise solution to an unusual
problem in the Church cannot always be predicted beforehand.
This can be seen from the following comment in the 1913
Catholic Encyclopedia: “No canonical provisions exist regulating
the authority of the College of Cardinals sede Romanâ impeditâ,
i.e. in case the pope became insane, or personally a heretic; in
such cases it would be necessary to consult the dictates of right
reason and the teachings of history.” (“Cardinal,” CE 3:339)

Moreover, an inability at present to determine exactly how
another true pope would be chosen in the future does not somehow
make Paul VI and his successors into true popes by default.
Nor does it change what we already know: that the post-
Conciliar popes promulgated errors, heresies and evil laws; that
a heretic cannot be a true pope; and that promulgating evil laws
is incompatible with possessing authority from Jesus Christ.
To insist despite this that the post-Conciliar popes must be
true popes creates an insoluble problem for the indefectibility of
the Church — Christ’s representatives teach error and give evil"

Let's stick to true Traditionalism, and let the problem play out until the Lord makes things clear to us. Someone suggested making the character Yoda from Star Wars the "pope." It was a joke, but not more of a joke than Bergoglio (Francis) or any of these other conclavists/mysticalists. As "Pope Yoda" might say:
"Become conclavist do not. Soul will you lose. Know true Faith and theology you must."

Monday, May 6, 2013

Is Sedevacantism "Picayune"?

The first Traditionalist web site "Traditio" ( is problematic. While "the Fathers" who run the site are to be commended for exposing much of the Vatican II sect's dogmatic and moral failings, they miss the mark. Traditio began on the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel, September 29, 1994. It is run by "Frs" Morrison and Adamson, whose ordinations are dubious. It seems they derive from a bishop of the Old Catholic sect. Old Catholics, separated by their heresy of rejecting papal infallibility in 1870 after Vatican Council I, have valid orders in certain places in Europe, but in America and elsewhere their ordination ceremonies have been substantially altered so as to cast serious doubt upon them. Add to that their ordinations and consecrations of the canonically unfit, and the doubt becomes even more pronounced.

 Not to worry, however. They will assure you that they were validly ordained, even as they refuse to name their ordaining bishop, and if you e-mail them that question they refuse to respond. I actually spoke with "Fr" Morrison and he told me not to worry over the validity of priestly orders, because what really matters is if the "priest" offers a reverent Traditional Mass. Unfortunately, if his orders are invalid, the Mass is null and void, no matter how beautifully "offered." Traditio offers a directory of Traditional Mass chapels and churches throughout the U.S., but will include SSPX, Vatican II "Motu Masses", and FSSP "Masses" along with independents, CMRI, and SSPV. The CMRI, SSPV, and most independents get "smiley faces" next to their contact info, while the others get angry red devil-like faces. So, why include them?

 Well, in Traditio land, if valid orders make no difference, why not include them? Most disturbingly, they view sedevacantism as an academic question; much like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They have often made the bold (and quite unsubstantiated) assertion that "most Catholics before Vatican II didn't even know the name of the pope." (Maybe someday their version of reality will come out on Blu-Ray so we can all enjoy it as much as they ostensibly do).

In their post of May 6, 2013, the "Fathers" rightly mark the passing of Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor. (See my post doing likewise). They make the following statement:

Contrary to what you will read in such ignorant sites as "Wikipedia," Omlor was not a "sede-vacantist." His works have far more impact that picayune theological disputes about whether the clearly unCatholic post-Vatican II popes are technically valid or not. No, Omlor's well-argued position was that the Newchurch of the New Order sect, which was officially implemented under the Newpapacy of Paul VI-Montini (not John XXIII as many wrongly believe), proved that Newchurch's very "sacraments," particularly its "eucharist," are invalid under undisputed Catholic theological principles. If the New Order sect doesn't have true sacraments, any disputes, sede-vacantist or otherwise, over its Newpopes are unimportant, from a practical point of view. Omlor's arguments proved that, whoever the Newpopes may or may not be, the Newchurchers are indisputably munching on invalid cookies!

Well, yes and no. Yes, the Vatican II sect has no valid Eucharist. Yes, wikipedia is not to be trusted, but Mr. Omlor was a sedevacantist, and proud of it too--it was not a "picayune theological dispute" about "technical validity" of popes. As a matter of fact "the Fathers" contention that "If the New Order sect doesn't have true sacraments, any disputes, sede-vacantist (sic) or otherwise, over its Newpopes are unimportant from a practical point of view" shows quite the opposite.

1. The fact that the Vatican II sect has no valid sacraments, means that they did not come from the Church, but from apostates who lost all authority from the pope on down to the bishops.
The Catholic Faith does not admit of degrees. It is by nature integral, since it proceeds from the authority of God and is believed on the authority of God. It therefore cannot admit of exceptions. If there is the slightest taint of heresy in a doctrinal or moral teaching, in worship, or in discipline, then it is not Catholic.
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum).
2) .It is impossible to recognize the pope and reject his supreme authority and prerogatives. As Bishop Sanborn rightly notes:
Papal authority is infallible in teaching faith and morals, even in the exercise of the ordinary universal magisterium, and is infallible in matters of worship and discipline, inasmuch as it cannot prescribe anything sinful, heretical, or harmful to souls in these matters. The recognition of papal authority in Paul VI or John Paul II involves automatically the recognition that Vatican II is free from doctrinal error, and that the Novus Ordo liturgy and sacraments, as well as the 1983 Code of Canon Law contain no doctrinal error nor anything which is sinful or harmful to souls. The worst that could be said about these things, if they are admitted to have proceeded from true papal authority, is that they may be imprudent, perhaps less aesthetic, or in some way extrinsically repugnant. They must be admitted to be intrinsicallyCatholic, perfect, and conducive to eternal salvation. Pope Pius VI declared“false, rash, scandalous, pernicious, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God, by Whom it is ruled, at least erroneous,” the proposition that the Church could prescribe some discipline which would be false or harmful (Denz. 1578). Pope Pius IX excoriated those who would recognize his authority on the one hand, but ignore his discipline on the other:
What good is it to proclaim aloud the dogma of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors? What good is it to repeat over and over the declarations of faith in the Catholic Church and of obedience to the Apostolic See when actions give the lie to these fine words? Moreover, is not rebellion rendered all the more inexcusable by the fact that obedience is regarded as a duty? Again, does not the authority of the Holy See extend, as a sanction, to the measures which We have been obliged to take, or is it enough to be in communion of faith with this See without adding the submission of obedience, — a thing which cannot be maintained without damaging the Catholic Faith? In fact, Venerable Brothers and beloved Sons, it is a question of recognizing the power (of this See), even over your churches, not merely in what pertains to faith, but also in what concerns discipline. He who would deny this is a heretic; he who recognizes this and obstinately refuses to obey is worthy of anathema. ( Pope Pius IX, Quae in Patriarchatu, Sept. 1, 1876, to the clergy and faithful of the Chaldean rite)
3. Sedevacantism is the only logical and NECESSARY conclusion. If you accept John XXIII, PaulVI, JPI, JPII, Benedict XVI, and Francis as valid popes they MUST BE OBEYED and CAN'T give anything but true doctrine and sacraments. If they are not popes, then you must expose and denounce them. There is no middle ground and your salvation depends on it.
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (Ex Cathedra Apostolic Constitution "Unam Sanctum" of Pope Boniface VIII, 1302).
To once again quote Bishop Sanborn:
"But then where is the visible Church? It is realized in those who publicly adhere to the Catholic Faith, and who at the same time look forward to the election of a Roman Pontiff. What about the bishops? This system (sedevacantism) does not necessarily strip every bishop of authority, but only those who publicly adhere to the new religion. But even if it did strip every one of them of their authority, sedevacantism does not intrinsically alter the nature of the Catholic Church, but leaves to the Providence of God the restoration of order. Those systems, on the other hand, which are fearful of cutting themselves off from the modernist hierarchy for their inability to see a solution without it, actually combine the Catholic Church with the defection of Modernism, which are two things absolutely incompatible, as incompatible as God and the devil. Those systems cannot possibly be correct which recognize the papacy of conciliar “popes”. Sedevacantism may lead you to mystery, but it does not lead you to contradiction."
Nor does it lead you to ridiculous assertions that whether or not we have a pope is no big deal,  and the papacy is not important, so just find a nice "traditional" chapel and all will be well. Sorry "Fathers." The question of sedevacantism is NOT "picayune."
As a matter of fact, and ironically, the question of a valid pope is one of the antonyms of picayune---"Catholic."

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Patrick Henry Omlor, One of the Original Sedevacantists: Requiescat In Pace

Today, May 2, 2013, Feast of St. Athanasius, the Traditionalist Catholic world lost one of its giants, Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor. Mr. Omlor died just about six weeks short of what would have been his 82nd birthday. It's fitting that he would pass on the feast of St. Athanasius, who also stood up against heresy in the hierarchy. As one Traditionalist priest wrote:

His March 1968 work Questioning the Validity of Masses Using the New, All-English Canon alerted countless Catholics throughout the English-speaking world to the dangers of the liturgical changes, even before the appearance of the Novus Ordo Missae in 1969. The book rightly became a "traditionalist classic."Mr. Omlor campaigned tirelessly against the counterfeit translation of "pro multis" as "for all" in the consecration formula for the wine, prompting a controversy that even Bugnini himself had to come to terms with or lose all credibility.

Forty years later, however, the Modernist fraud was implicitly acknowledged when the  heretics at the Vatican itself decreed that "pro multis" must henceforth be translated as "for many." Thus, even by what he rightly called The Robber Church ( a title of a subsequent book), was Patrick Henry Omlor vindicated at last.

His bio was written thus:
Patrick was born on the Feast of Saint Anthony of Padua on June 13, 1931 during the 9th year of the pontificate of Pope Pius XI.
It was also the time of the Great Depression. Yet, despite the hardships, his father Joseph Peter Omlor and mother Helen Anastasia Kochan Omlor made sure young Patrick had a solid Catholic education, sending him to St. Mary's Parish School and then, with World War II underway, enrolling him at Price Memorial College which had a high school run by the Brothers of the Christian Schools (F.S.C.), not to be confused with the Christian Brothers who have fallen into ill-repute by embracing the novelties and liberties of Vatican II. In 1944, in the middle of his Freshman Year he was accepted to the Preparatory Novitiate of the Brothers of the Christian Schools in Glencoe, Missouri.

After completing his high school and other preparations, he entered the F.S.C.'s Scholasticate at St. Mary's College in Winona in 1949. There he acquired his Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics where he graduated summa cum laude. And speaking of "summa" it was there on the bluffs above the Mississippi that he reached for higher heights by delving into the Angelic Doctor's Summa Theologica and how to apply it in all aspects of life. This would prove invaluable in later years when sorting out all the ambiguities pronounced at Vatican II and after. In 1953 God called him to another vocation. Having grown in grace and benefiting greatly from his sound spiritual formation, he realized, just as this editor did after 7 years of priestly formation with the Oblates of Mary Immaculate, that God had another mission for Patrick at the age of 22. He left Winona grateful for all the Brothers of the Christian Schools had imparted and with their blessings. Equipped with the foundations of the Faith, he decided to teach mathematics.

 From 1953 to 1964 he taught at numerous Catholic institutions of learning from California to Louisiana. From the plains of Amarillo to the lakes of Minnesota his journey now took him to the Bayou, California and to the Franciscan Sisters' College of St. Joseph on the Rio Grande in Albuquerque where he imparted the science of mathematics to young minds for the purpose of disciplining their minds and exacting proper order. With the changes and abdication of responsibility following Vatican II, the Franciscan Sister's College became the secular University of Albuquerque, but while Patrick was a professor there it was totally Catholic. New Mexico is known as the land of enchantment and Patrick was enchanted with a young lady by the name of Mary Victoria Adelo; so much so that he asked for her hand in marriage in 1956 in Albuquerque.

In order to support a family and to advance his career the Omlors moved to Menlo Park where Patrick was awarded the prestigious position of staff mathematician at the Stanford Research Institute in Northern California. There life was good and the family increased, but as the 60's emerged there was trouble on the horizon. At first Patrick wasn't exactly sure why things were changing, but in reverting back to applying St. Thomas' logic, he began studying the documents of Vatican II which, back then, were not as readily available as many might think. Remember, the bishops were slow to circulate the documents and many of them had no clue and rubberstamped whatever came down the pike.

That is one reason the reforms took such deadly root at the local church level. "The Pope said it" or the "Bishop wants it" and that was it. Catholics didn't question their shepherds. Yet the big problem that took a while for Patrick to discover, was that they were no longer shepherds but caretakers. They were merely the hirelings Our Lord spoke of in Sacred Scripture who will flee the flocks, leaving them vulnerable to prey at the first sign of danger. The Pastores Boni were no longer there. The mentality of the sixties also produced the "if it feels good, do it" attitude that permeated the Church. But Patrick realized that feelings have nothing to do with faith. The faith has absolutes and those absolutes were being relaxed, compromised and even abandoned. Something was seriously wrong!    

Consider here that the solid Catholic education Patrick received was basically the same as that administered to the priests, bishops, and cardinals in the sixties. Yet en masse the great majority of consecrated ones worldwide went along, enabling and empowering the very interlopers who had infiltrated Holy Mother Church over the decades. One reason was that misunderstood "obedience factor" - which is basically "blind obedience" - that made it all the easier to foist a new religion on the people in the guise of "updated Catholicism." While those who should have known better did nothing, Patrick heard the call to alert others as to the subterfuge and wreckovation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar. In 1967 he began writing articles, questioning some of the changes. He went into high gear as the seventies set in and the "abomination of desolation" foretold by Christ in Matthew 24: 15 became evident with the Novus Ordo Missae by Paul VI.

What few realized but Patrick researched and discovered is that the so-called "New Mass" was a concoction of a Protestant rite totally devoid of Catholic origins and had been drawn up by a known 33rd degree Mason in Annibale Bugnini - a true cancer within the curia - and a Marxist Jesuit Father Joseph Gelineau and six Protestant advisors. Patrick realized the truths of St. Paul's words in Galatians 1: 7-12 and set out to valiantly defend the truth and to expose this new "gospel" - even though preached by the 'angels from heaven' posing in the Vatican - as anathema sit! In late 1973 he resigned his position at Stanford and, like another well-known family - the Hutton Gibson clan which, of course, included his famous son Mel who had all relocated to Australia a few years prior - Patrick and Mary moved their large family of three sons and seven daughters to Perth in Western Australia.

There he felt as if he had arrived in Paradise, with the balmy subtropical climes of this Ocean port city which is renowned to this day as having the best weather in the world. There also he could continue to practice the Faith he was weaned on and insure that his children would have the same foundation in a world that had abandoned the true Faith for a false faith, a destructive faith that had duped so many. Storm warnings were everywhere and yet few saw what Patrick so clearly perceived.

While he continued to work as Total Consultant and Operations Research Practitioner at the Western Australia Division of the Pittsburgh-based Aluminum Company - a position he retained until his retirement in 1993 - he realized why God had guided him towards the religious life in his younger years. He had a vocation to inform others of the dangers to the Holy Faith. He embraced this mission with fervor, editing the newsletter Interdum and contributing to other newsletters such as the Society of Traditional Roman Catholics and Father Kevin Vaillancourt's The Catholic Voice.

While another Patrick Henry may not have been committed to the Catholic cause, this Patrick Henry Omlor would say regarding the True Faith in resisting the oppression of the conciliar church, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" Patrick has fought for "the freedom and exaltation of Holy Mother Church" and would willingly give his life for his Lord and Savior and the salvation of souls which has turned into his life's work.

From the sparce necessities of the depression to the opulence of these modern times, Patrick has remained steady and focused on the true goal: eternal life for himself, his family and so many souls trapped in the labryinth of lies and deception that have clouded hearts and minds over the past 40 years. In describing the feats of Patrick Omlor, we would also echo what the 1776 statesman Henry said, "We are not weak if we make proper use of those means which the God of Nature has placed in our power...the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." Patrick Henry Omlor has been just that vigilant, active and brave for he has used his God-given talents and the weapons of Faith placed in his power. "

A well written tribute to one of the original sedevacantists! He realized that the True Church can not give that which is evil, for She is Indefectible. But the New "Mass", and "sacraments" are evil, and based on Modernist heretical teachings. Therefore, the Church did not give and teach such things. Despite their occupation of the Vatican and local dioceses, the pope and bishops, through the profession of heresy, lost their offices by Divine Law. The last pope was Pope Pius XII who died in 1958. If only more had the logical insight and bravery of Mr. Patrick Henry Omlor. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the Mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.