Friday, November 29, 2013

In A Post-Vatican II World Of Opinion: Learn To Discern


 Recently, someone hinted that I should not have this blog, because my opinion is but one of many in the "Traditionalist blogosphere" and essentially worthless. I was also told that, as a layman, I have no right to delve into theological matters and "confuse the faithful." While undoubtedly true that there is an incredible amount of theological speculation on the web, my critic is simply off-base. As a matter of fact, his views can be outright dangerous to the Faith, for reasons I now wish to elucidate in this post. The following principles should be employed by anyone trying to save his soul in this time of near universal apostasy.

  1. A True Opinion Is Not A Matter Of Taste; It's A Well-Reasoned Conclusion Based On Facts And Logic
   To many people, an opinion is a matter of preference, as in "I like the color red best, and you like the color blue." No truth or falsity, just likes and dislikes. Think of going to your doctor and getting a medical opinion. Does this imply he will tell you what he feels is wrong with you based on what sicknesses he likes to treat? On the contrary, it is his well-reasoned conclusion based on the facts of your symptoms (test results) and his training, that tells him what likely ails you. Similarly, we must learn to detect opinions that are mere emotion from those based on sound logical principles. These principles must be either axiomatic (e.g. I exist) or based on theological truths proposed by the Magisterium of the Church, and expounded by Her approved pre-Vatican II theologians. I encourage Traditionalists to get books on formal and informal logic (readily available on Amazon.com) and intellectually arm themselves.

     2. Just Because There Are Many Opinions On A Subject, It Does Not Follow That They Have The Same Epistemic Value

   The proper object of the intellect is truth. "Seek and ye shall find," Our Lord said. People hold many different religious views; however, does that mean that the claims of Mohammad or the Buddha have the same claim to truth as Jesus Christ? Obviously not, or God could not hold us responsible for choosing to worship the gods on Mount Olympus, instead of being Traditionalist Catholics. Just in the news, "Fr" Paul Kramer (a conservative Vatican II sect "priest") came to the correct conclusion that "Pope" Francis can not be pope and we are in a time of sedevacante! (Deo gratias!) Unfortunately, he holds that Ratzinger was the last true pope and considers Vatican II a legitimate Ecumenical Council. Mr. Kramer is being led to the truth by God's grace and using his intellect. He saw manifest heresy in Frankie's latest "encyclical" and drew the right conclusion. May he draw the other right conclusions and join the True Church, getting himself validly ordained! I encourage Traditionalists to learn their Faith by reading good books on apologetics to prove the truth claims of Christianity as a world view, and then books and articles that show the Traditionalist Catholic Faith as the One True Religion, exposing the falsity of the Vatican II sect. 


      3. Defending The Faith Is Not The Exclusive Domain Of Clerics In A World With No Magisterium

   In the days of Pope Pius XII and prior, once the Truth of the Catholic Faith was established, we must give intellectual assent to the decrees of the pope based on the authority of God. Since the defection of the hierarchy, there is no Ordinary jurisdiction. Traditionalist Bishops must preserve the Faith and sacraments to be passed down, but have no authority to issue an "imprimatur" (declaration that a writing is free from all errors in Faith and Morals). When we had a pope, layman should indeed leave theology to the clergy. Now, layman have a duty to be more knowledgeable and vigilant than ever before. There is no one to decide with dogmatic certitude many vexing topics, including (but not limited to), whether or not to attend an "una cum" Mass, is sedeprivationism preferable to "garden variety" sedevacantism," etc.

  We must be careful not to be led astray by (sometimes well-intentioned) clergyman who insist otherwise. They adopt a "follow me or face eternal damnation" attitude on issues they have no right to decide. If the "grace of Holy Orders" was sufficient for them to lead us to all the correct conclusions, there would be no disagreement on these issues amongst Traditionalists, and we know this is simply not the case.

           4. Erudition, And Even Sanctity, Is Not Enough To Avoid Error
 In this post-Vatican II mess, we must pray constantly for God's grace and use the intellect He gave us to sift the wheat from the chaff. Do not let anyone (that includes me) do your thinking for you. The most learned men were often heretics. Intelligence alone is no assurance of being error free, nor is the (real or alleged) sanctity of a person make their conclusions veridical. Don't "think with Archbishop Lefebvre" as the SSPX urges their parishioners to do--he's not God, the pope, or some kind of prophet. You must think for yourself and learn to discern what's right in matters where the Magisterium has not (and now can not at this time) decide. 

So, the next time you surf the web, do so with eyes wide open. Endeavor to learn the Faith, and detect fallacious arguments. I proudly recommend the following websites without reservation, with the proviso that in matters that have not been decided by Holy Mother Church, there is no guarantee that they will agree with me or I with them. I do find them to be strong in the True Faith and solid guides:

Novus Ordo Watch: www.novusordowatch.org
Fax Legis Dei: www.faxlegisdei.wordpress.com
Traditional Mass: www.traditionalmass.org

 The above sites are well-written and well-reasoned. When you think well and pray well, you will (with God's grace), avoid the pitfall of those who scream "follow me or die" and offer you a poisoned cup of theological Kool Aid. 

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Boiling The Frog


 The strategy of Satan has been one of incremental change. Get the people to accept the unacceptable slowly, until the actual evil is upon them and they get caught up in it---sometimes to their peril. It's like an old discredited experiment which states that if you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out, but slowly raise the temperature of the water and it will not realize the danger and die. Although not literally true, the metaphor is quite accurate for society and the Church.

 Let's take the acceptance of divorce and remarriage. In the early days of TV, divorced people were hardly anywhere to be found. On every show, they depicted men and women as either happily married, single and never married, or widowed. Divorced people were hardly ever seen, and never portrayed in a positive way. The idea of divorce was considered bad. Marriage was for the common good. Then, the engineers of social change in Hollywood gave us slow acceptance through the guise of comedy. The Odd Couple (debuted in 1970) showed us two very funny and likeable divorced men--who couldn't like Oscar and Felix (portrayed by Jack Klugman and Tony Randal respectively)? Then in 1972, we get Maude, a divorced and remarried feminist who, without remorse, has an abortion and is proud of her murderous stance. In 1975, One Day At A Time, shows Ann Romano leaving her kind, caring husband of 17 years to go "find herself" because she was unhappy being a mother to a couple of teenage girls. She uproots her daughters, gets an apartment in a dingy building with a creepy janitor who lets himself in with his pass key, and she is glad to be rid of her husband and his "old fashioned views." She is openly promiscuous (adulterous--it is made known they were married in the Catholic Church), and with no education or work experience, lands a glamorous job. All of this immoral and unrealistic drivel dished out as "comedy" helped societal acceptance of divorce and remarriage in this country. During the same period, the Vatican II sect made phony "annulments" and we have "evolved" to where there are more divorces than stable marriages. To top it all off, now Frankie wants to make phony annulments even easier to obtain!

 In regard to the changes of Vatican II, the same tactic of gradual change under the guise of "going back to the days of the early Christians" was adopted.   Msgr. Klaus Gamber, a German liturgist, pointed out that the liturgical debacle pre-dates Vatican II. If, he said, "a radical break with tradition has been completed in our days with the introduction of the Novus Ordo and the new liturgical books, it is our duty to ask ourselves where its roots are. It should be obvious to anyone with common sense that these roots are not to be looked for exclusively in the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution on the Liturgy of December 4, 1963 represents the temporary conclusion of an evolution whose multiple and not all homogenous causes go back into the distant past."

 A sagacious article written by Fr. Francesco Ricossa, puts forth the steps from the Mass to the Novus Bogus bread and wine service, and correctly traces the inception of the change in the reforms of Pope Pius XII. In defense of Pope Pius XII, his reforms were not in and of themselves harmful, but they became such in hindsight, as they set the stage for what was to come from the Modernists. To quote Fr. Cekada,"I pointed out that, by applying the general principles for the interpretation of ecclesiastical laws, the laws imposing the reforms could no longer be considered binding because: (1) They lacked one of the essential qualities of a law, stability (or perpetuity); and (2) They became harmful (nociva) because of a change of circumstances, and hence automatically ceased to bind."

 Let's look at the steps to invalid services and Modernist take-over as elucidated by Fr. Ricossa:

---Paul VI suppressed the Last Gospel in 1965; in 1955 it was suppressed for the Masses of Holy Week.

—Paul VI suppressed the psalm ‘Judica me’ for the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar; the same had been anticipated by the 1955 Holy Week.

—Paul VI (following the example of Luther) wanted Mass celebrated facing the people; the 1955 Holy Week initiated this practice by introducing it wherever possible (especially on Palm Sunday).
                
—Paul VI wanted the role of the priest to be diminished, replaced at every turn by ministers; in 1955 already, the celebrant no longer read the Lessons, Epistles, or Gospels (Passion) which were sung by the ministers--even though they form part of the Mass. The priest sat down, forgotten, in a corner.

—In his New Mass, Paul VI suppresses from the Mass all the elements of the ‘Gallican’ liturgy (dating from before Charlemagne), following the wicked doctrine of ‘archaeologism’ condemned by Pius XII. Thus, the offertory disappeared (to the great joy of Protestants), to be replaced by a Jewish grace before meals. Following the same principle, the New Rite of Holy Week had suppressed all the prayers in the ceremony of Blessing the palms (except one), the Epistle, Offertory and Preface which came first, and the Mass of the Pre-sanctified on Good Friday.
 
—Paul VI, challenging the anathemas of the Council of Trent, suppressed the sacred order of the subdiaconate; the new rite of Holy Week suppressed many of the subdeacon’s functions. The deacon replaced the subdeacon for some of the prayers (the Levate on Good Friday) the choir and celebrant replaced him for others (at the Adoration of the Cross).

The New Holy Week introduced other innovations:
               
—The Prayer for the Conversion of Heretics became the ‘Prayer for Church Unity.’

—The genuflection at the Prayer for the Jews, (a practice the Church spurned for centuries in horror at the crime they committed on the first Good Friday).

—The new rite suppressed much medieval symbolism (the opening of the door of the church at the Gloria laus for example).

—The new rite introduced the vernacular in some places (renewal of baptismal promises).

—The Pater Noster was recited by all present (Good Friday).
                
—The prayers for the emperor were replaced by a prayer for those governing the republic, all with a very modern flavor.
                
—In the Breviary, the very moving psalm Miserere, repeated at all the hours of the Office, was suppressed.

—For Holy Saturday, the Exultet was changed and much of the symbolism of its words suppressed.

—Also on Holy Saturday, eight of the twelve prophecies were suppressed.

—Sections of the Passion were suppressed, even the Last Supper disappeared, in which our Lord, already betrayed, celebrated for the first time in history the Sacrifice of the Mass.

—On Good Friday, communion was now distributed, contrary to the tradition of the Church, and condemned by St. Pius X when people had wanted to initiate this practice.

All the rubrics of the 1955 Holy Week rite, then, insisted continually on the "participation" of the faithful, and they scorned as abuses many of the popular devotions (so dear to the faithful) connected with Holy Week. This brief examination of the reform of Holy Week should allow the reader to realize how the "experts" who would come up with the New "Mass" fourteen years later and used and taken advantage of the 1955 Holy Week rites to test their revolutionary experiments before applying them to the whole liturgy.

 What does all this prove? (1) We must be ever vigilant to KNOW our Faith and practice it with fervor; had more clergy and laity been vigilant, they could have seen the disaster forming in the early 1960s like the late, great Fr. Gommar A. DePauw who began the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964!  How many souls were lost because of a lack of understanding regarding Catholic teaching concerning the papacy and heresy. Add to this sorry state an ignorance of the threat concerning resurgent Modernism and see the results. By accepting slow changes that led to slow Modernist changes, the Faith and Morals of countless millions were lost to the false Vatican II sect.  (2) We need to guard ourselves against anything contrary to Faith and Morals. How many Traditionalists let their children use the TV or Internet unsupervised? How many allow them to listen to rotten music that extols evil and sung by moral degenerates thinking, "A little bit can't hurt, they have a good home and they need to be accepted by their friends."? How many adult Traditionalists watch bad TV shows, movies, and read bad books where the "hero" and "heroine" use God's Name in vain, fornicate, treat divorce and homosexuality as something positive, and mock religion? There is no good that can come from toleration of a "little bit of evil."  If you think you're immune to the desensitization it will have on you, Satan may be winning the war for your soul. Would you watch something that portrayed your mother in a bad light? If not, how can you entertain such things which degrade Christ, His Mother, and/or His One True Church?

 With the Vatican II sect having been incrementally made more and more un-Catholic, the time is ripe for Bergoglio to take it full speed ahead to Hell. And if Traditionalists are lax and take the God-given Gift of the True Faith and Morals for granted, they may find themselves as the next hapless frog boiled to eternal death in the pot of their own willful smugness.
 

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Can An Atheist Be A Sedevacantist?


  A reader of this blog, John by name, has taken issue with my use of the term "sedevacantist." He has left a couple of comments at my post of October 31, 2013, the last of which will be discussed in this post. With the ascendency of Antipope Francis, it is more imperative than ever to define our terms clearly for the sake of proselytizing. Some people in the Vatican II sect are beginning to wonder about the man who says "there is no Catholic God," and whether such a man can be pope. I will explain what I believe are the correct use of terms in this age of near universal apostasy.

  It seems that John is a sincere Traditionalist and a charitable man. That's why it pains me to see such a person misunderstand both the terms employed and the theologically prudent reasons I have for using them. I will first reproduce John's initial comment, unedited, and my response.


John: Why Catholic dogma that heretic can't be Pope do you call "sedevacantism" (others call it "sedevacantist/sedevacante position") and its adherents "sedevacantists" instead of Catholics?
These misnomers repel people from the mentioned Catholic dogma and do enormous harm to them and to The Church. So these misnomers are, without any doubt, from the enemy of human race and of The Church.
Stop and repent or you'll be guilty of a grievous sin.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei: I'm not 100% sure what you're trying to say, John. My initial post makes it very clear what my terms on this blog mean. In addition, I call sedevacantists "Traditionalists" so as to distinguish us from the false "Catholics" of the Vatican II sect. "Sedevacantist" = "Roman Catholic" and I think I make that understood. I sometimes use the term "sedevacantist" when trying to bring home a certain point, but always letting the readers know that a sedevacantist is a True Catholic. Hence, I see no "misnomers" because I take pains to carefully define my terms. When someone understands that sedevacantism IS THE TRUE CATHOLIC POSITION they will not be "repelled" by the term and the Faith can advance against the Vatican II sect. I have done nothing here from which I need to repent.

 John now comes back with his second comment which I will reproduce below with my comments in red.

Pope Benedict XV in 1914: "it is quite enough for each one to proclaim 'Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,' only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." ("Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum").

Do you think it is a small matter to do contrary to what the Pope said and a venial sin the consequence of that?

 I am in no way doing "contrary to what the Pope said," at least not when the quote of Pope Benedict XV is read in the context of the encyclical within which it was written. I've seen too many Traditionalists take quotes out of context as proof texts for every goofy philosophical or theological idea, much like the Feeneyite "Dimond Brothers" from "Most Holy Family Monastery" do on a regular basis (I'll save a discussion of their errors for another day).

  In paragraph numbers 23 and 24 of Pope Benedict's encyclical we read, "As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See - there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.

It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself. (Emphasis mine).

We can clearly see from the context that Pope Benedict was NOT condemning those who use appellations to clarify and defend the Catholic Faith "which must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected" in this unprecedented time of apostasy. Rather, he condemns those who are disparaged as being less than Catholic when expressing their opinion (1) in matters without harm to Faith or discipline, and (2) having no intervention of the Holy See.  That certainly does not apply to anything I have written on this blog. The institution recognized as the "Roman Catholic Church" is, since the Second Vatican Council, an apostate man-made sect that is un-Catholic and, indeed, anti-Catholic in both Faith and Morals. I correctly call it the Vatican II sect

 In my initial post of June 2, 2010, I wrote:
  1. By Traditionalist Catholic, I mean a Roman Catholic who adheres to sedevacantism, the belief firmly founded in strong theological arguments that the See of Peter has been vacant since at least 1964, when Giovanni Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) signed the heretical Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. Pope Pius XII was the last pope we can be sure did not lapse into heresy and fall from his office.
  2. I do NOT include those who recognize Joseph Ratzinger (aka "Pope" Benedict XVI) in theory (e.g. Society of St. Pius X) or in fact (e.g. Society of St. Peter, and other so-called "Indult" groups permitted by Modernist Rome) as Successor of St. Peter in my definition of Traditionalist Catholic.
  3. The Vatican II religion is of man-made origin. It is pure Modernist heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X, and Counterfeit "Catholicism." The only valid sacraments they possess are Baptism (in most cases), and Matrimony (where no bogus "annulments", i.e. divorces, have been granted).
  4. I welcome both comment and debate. "The Truth shall set you free," as Our Lord told us. However all comments and debate must be both free from ad hominem attacks and charitable in tone. I will always respond in like manner.
To have actual communion with an antipope, at least from Paul VI to Francis, is belong to a false sect and forfeit all right to the name Catholic. To consider Francis as pope but to pick and choose what you will and won't follow (SSPX) is to have an un-Catholic schismatic attitude (schismatic in theory, but not in actuality, as there is no pope).  As the erudite Fr. Cekada has written, "All Traditionalists are sedevacantist, some just don't realize it yet!"

 As a means to proselytize, when someone asks me my religion, I reply that I'm a Traditionalist. They ask the inevitable follow-up question every single time: "What's a Traditionalist?" Then I can tell them that it refers to a True Catholic in this time of sedevacante, which engenders even more queries! If I were to say, "I'm Catholic," they would think I belong to the local Vatican II sect parish--end of discussion and the chance for me to plant the seeds of the Faith.

As far as "venial sin" is concerned, I'd like to see where, in any pre-Vatican II theology manual, such a case as I have just described could be deemed "sin" at all on any Catholic principles.

And what if an atheist sees that Bergoglio preaches against Catholic dogmas and isn't Pope? How can you deny him the name "Sedevacantist" when he professes "Sede vacante"?

Obviously, you claim for "Sedevacantist" more than this term has.

Therefore, "Sedevacantist" ??? "Catholic", NOT =.


The part about an atheist being a sedevacantist really made me wince. Sedevacantists are distinguished from Eastern Orthodox schismatics (actually heretics since 1870, since they all deny the dogma of papal primacy and infallibility) because we believe in the See of Peter and its primacy and the infallibility of the office. We do not accept the claim of any post-Vatican II "pope" including the current Jorge Bergoglio (aka "Pope" Francis) that they occupy that office since they are manifest heretics.

 An atheist does not believe in God, so he denies the Divinity of Jesus Christ. If Christ is not God, He did not found the Church with the pope as the visible head on earth. Since an atheist necessarily denies the institution of the papacy, he can no more be deemed a sedevacantist than the Greek Orthodox. This assertion of an "atheistic sedevacantist" belies a poor theological understanding of the issue. A sedevacantist is a True Catholic when the theology is properly understood.

And you must give a single reply when asked about your religion. If you reply “I'm a Sedevacantist.” you have replaced traditional, complete and sufficient term “Catholic” with novel, incomplete and insufficient term “Sedevacantist”. Would any reasonable Catholic do that?

I do not call myself a sedevacantist, nor have I done so on this blog without important qualifications to make a point. I call myself a Traditionalist, as described above, for the reasons I already enumerated. Traditionalist better encompasses what Catholics hold onto in this age of apostasy, and when properly understood, entails sedevacantism. 


I believe you have had good intention and have done everything to preach the truth but even in spite of that you have obviously grievously erred.

I, too, believe you to be a man of goodwill, John. But I hope I have proved to you that I have not erred at all, let alone "greviously."


In all Catholic charity I beseech you that you repent, publish this to correct public scandal due to the error and from now on you use only terms "Catholic" and "Christian" for those who profess the only true faith.
Once more, I have nothing from which I must repent. I will continue to use the terms as I have since this blog's inception with no scandal caused and no apologies necessary. As to the term "Christian," couldn't someone who says they are "Christian" be mistaken for a Protestant or Eastern Orthodox? You would have to use it in conjunction with "Catholic." Christian will not automatically give rise to the same probing questions as will Traditionalist.

A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but let's not sully the name "Catholic" by having others associate us with the stench of heresy emanating from Bergoglio's Vatican II sect.





 
  

Monday, November 18, 2013

The Pharmacist Who Peddles Subtle Poison


According to AFP: "Pope Francis on Sunday advised Catholics to take a special dose of spiritual medicine, offering some 20,000 boxes of "mercy" -- containing rosaries -- to pilgrims in St Peter's Square."  The story continues, "I now want to suggest a medicine. 'What?' you ask, 'the pope is now a pharmacist?'" Francis said, shaking a box resembling a pack of tablets, after reciting the traditional Sunday Angelus prayer from a window overlooking the square. Labelled "Misericordina, 59 Beads for the Heart" and emblazoned with an image of the human heart, the box contains a rosary and instructions in several languages."Can be used once a day, but in case of emergency can be taken as much as the soul needs," the instruction leaflet says, adding: "The dose is the same for adults and children."The unusual medicine box was inspired by followers of Polish nun Mary Faustina Kowalska, who was made a saint in 2000 and is known as the Apostle of Divine Mercy, according to the Italian news agency ANSA. "Don't forget to take your medicine, because it is good for the heart, the soul, the whole life," the pontiff said.

 I can already hear the usual suspects extolling the wonders of Antipope Francis. The SSPX, Michael Voris, Christopher Ferrara, "Fr" Nicholas Gruner, "Fr" Z, and the rest of the knee-jerk Vatican II apologists will use this story to "prove" how traditional and wonderful Francis really is; how his interviews were "misunderstood" because he has such great devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Some of you may be thinking, "Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so why berate Francis for promoting devotion to the Most Holy Rosary?" Just like rat poison, Modernists will give you something 99% ok in order to kill you with the lethal 1%.

There are several things wrong with Frankie's heretical "medicine":

1. It was inspired by the late Sr. Mary Faustina Kowalska (a Vatican II sect "saint")and her "Divine Mercy" apparitions which were CONDEMNED by the Holy Office in 1959. (See the excellent summary at Novus Ordo Watch http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/divine-mercy-condemned.htm

2. The Vatican II sect promotes a New Rosary, every bit as phony as the Novus Bogus "mass." It contains the Modernist "luminous mysteries" introduced by Antipope John Paul II in 2002. This destroys the link to the 150 Hail Marys representing the 150 psalms. This was NOT the form of the Rosary enjoined by the Blessed Mother. Indeed, one of the "luminous mysteries" is "his (sic--Christ's) proclamation of the Kingdom of God, with his (sic) call to conversion." As Pope Leo XIII taught:
"It is not dogmas of faith or doctrinal principles that the rosary offers to our meditation, but rather events to contemplate with one’s eyes and to remember, and these events presented with their circumstances of person, place, and time are thereby the better impressed upon our souls." (Encyclical Augustissimae Virginis September 12, 1897) The "proclamation of the Kingdom of God" is not a precise historical event like the Resurrection, but is imbued (like the other luminous mysteries) with the Modernist theology of Vatican II. The "Kingdom of God"  for Modernists is seen as humanity taken as a whole.

3. When will Frankie's followers get to pray the New Rosary? Certainly not during the "touchy-feely," banter-back-and-forth, Novus Bogus bread and wine service which the Vatican II sect sometimes still calls "mass." The "active participation" makes recitation of prayers and meditation on the things of God virtually impossible.

4.  The Rosary always has a Crucifix at the end, to remind us that it derives its efficacy from Christ's Sacrifice of the Cross. That efficacy in the Vatican II sect has been cut off, as the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass has been replaced with a false religion and an invalid "mass."

5. Typical of a Modernist, Frankie will talk out of both sides of his mouth. Rosaries are "pelagian" (a heresy) but they're also "good for the heart, the soul, the whole life." (For a wonderful expose on the "counting Rosaries is Pelagian" debacle, please see Novus Ordo Watch http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-counting-rosaries.htm)

 So we can now see the false and lying devotion to Mary being dished out by Antipope Francis as "medicine."  It's a prescription for spiritual suicide.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Can A Traditionalist Attend Mass At SSPX?


 Several Traditionalists, including one who commented on my last post, have asked my opinion as to whether or not attendance at the Mass at a Chapel of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) is permissible. I write this post with the proviso that this is only my opinion based on my reasoning concerning the facts at hand and Traditional Roman Catholic principles. I am not a theologian, nor have I ever claimed to be one. Neither I, nor anyone else, can answer questions such as this one with authority. This is an area where reasonable Traditionalists can disagree since there is currently no hierarchy with Ordinary jurisdiction, because of the defection of the hierarchy following Vatican II. I hope and pray that Christ will lead us all to the right conclusions in areas where there are no clear answers in an era of unprecedented apostasy and confusion. In the days before the death of Pope Pius XII, you could always ask the Supreme Pontiff for a definitive answer to any query concerning our Faith, but we are now in a time of sedevacante.  With that said, I will outline my thoughts on the subject.


Always Evaluate the Particular Priest(s) Who Function At The Church/Chapel
 

Do NOT be concerned with the Traditionalist group (if any) to which they belong. Being a member of a Traditionalist group does not mean that the individual priests all subscribe to the "party line" of the leadership. All my readers know that I call the SSPX "pseudo-Traditionalist" because they want to be with "Pope" Francis, yet think they can decide what they will and will not accept from him, and that is simply not Catholic. I also recognize that many SSPX priests have not/do not adhere to this principle of the official leaders. Therefore, find out about the priest himself, and not the organization. There are basically three groups that run Traditionalist Churches and Chapels; The Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), and independent Bishops and Priests. The SSPV and CMRI are both sedevacantist--the CMRI is declared as such and the SSPV is "open" to sedevacantism. As I attend the SSPV, I know all the priests (with one possible exception), and both Bishops are sedevacantists.

 It is only in embracing sedevacantism that we will avoid the pitfalls of being drawn into Modernism and someday bring back a real pope with an imperfect General Council. Therefore, what principles should be employed when evaluating a priest who runs a Traditionalist Church/Chapel?

  1. You should always attend the Mass and receive the sacraments from a sedevacantist priest or Bishop, if at all possible.
   If you are lucky enough to be near a sedevacantist Church or Chapel, that is where you belong. You do not want to have the name of Antipope Francis in the Sacred Canon of the Mass. I have great respect for Fr. Anthony Cekada, who has written an excellent article "The Grain of Incense" available at www.traditionalmass.org. However, I do NOT accept his conclusion that it is an objective sin to attend a True Mass where the name of the antipope is used in the Canon. I agree with the CMRI that since no abjuration of heresy is required on the part of a SSPX priest who becomes a sedevacantist, holding the mistaken notion that Francis could somehow be the pope is not in and of itself heretical, AS LONG AS HE REJECTS VATICAN II AND ITS ERRORS. He then maintains the Catholic Faith, although mistaken on the issue of the identity of the pope. Therefore, if there is no other option, you may attend the Mass of a Traditionalist priest who inserts the name of Antipope Francis in the Mass and receive the sacraments from him. If something is not objectively heretical, although not ideal, it can not be sinful.

2. You must NEVER attend a Church or Chapel in actual union with Modernist Rome.
 
Avoid like the plague the Fraternal Society of St Peter (FSSP), and any other so-called "indult" or "Motu" organization which accepts Francis not merely in theory but in actual fact. Being in union with Francis means they must accept the legitimacy of Vatican II and its heretical teachings. To go there would be to accept the errors, like attending the services of the Greek Orthodox or Protestants.
 
   3. Make sure the priest has valid orders.
 
In the case of the above mentioned Modernist-sanctioned chapels and churches, most have invalidly ordained priests over and above the problem of union with heresy. You must be sure to have a real priest to avoid worshiping mere bread in an invalid Mass. In the case of the SSPV and CMRI, all are validly ordained. In the case of independents, ask who ordained them.  If they were ordained pre-1968, or by Abp. Lefebvre (and his lineage), Abp. Thuc (and his lineage), or Bishop Mendez (and his lineage), you are dealing with a properly trained and validly ordained priest. In the SSPX, you must ask if he was ordained by Abp. Lefebvre, or one of the four Bishops he consecrated, and that the Traditional Rite of ordination was used. The SSPX has been letting Vatican II sect "priests" join without getting a conditional re-ordination! They are invalid and all the sacraments they attempt to confect (except for baptism and matrimony) are invalid as well. Once, at the request of the candidate, Abp. Lefebvre used the new rite of ordination, which means he left the ceremony as just a deacon. Be sure of which Bishop ordained him and that the Traditional Rite was used. N.B. Those independents who are ordained by the "Old Catholic" sect "bishops" are dubiously ordained, as there are problems with their orders in America. You must not go to priests so ordained!!
 
 
4. The priest must accept Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB).
 
 Ask if he rejects the heresy of  Fr. Leonard Feeney, who denied BOD and BOB. The priest must accept this doctrine as explained by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII or you must not attend.
 
 
5.  He must expressly reject Vatican II's heresies
 
 
  Ask him if he rejects, as alien to the Divine and Catholic Faith, Vatican II's teachings on ecumenism, collegiality, etc. If he claims that Vatican II contains no heresy, but was merely "misinterpreted" or that Vatican II was only "pastoral" and such teachings are "not binding" you must press the issue and ask him if he rejects those "misinterpreted" or "non-binding" teachings. If he doesn't, he's in heresy.
 
 
6. Priests that use the Missal of 1954 are preferred over those that use the Missal of 1958. Those who use the Missal of 1958 are preferred over those who use the Missal of 1962.
 
 
The SSPV uses the 1954 Missal, with the calendar and rubrics of 1954, before the pre-Vatican II changes that were inspired by men who wished to further the Modernist agenda. Not heretical in and of themselves, the changes of Pope Pius XII in the calendar and rubrics were used by duplicitous individuals to get the faithful used to change. Thus 1954 is superior to the 1958 Missal used by the CMRI. The SSPX uses the rubrics and calendar of Roncalli (John XXIII), but some keep parts of his changes out and do not recite the name of St. Joseph in the Sacred Canon as added by John XXIII.
 
 
Summary and Conclusion
  • Judge the priest(s) theological positions, not the organization.
  • Always attend the Mass of a Traditionalist sedevacantist priest whenever feasible. (Some SSPX priests are "crypto-sedevacantists" who can't say what they believe or face expulsion).
  • Ask the priest the name of his ordaining Bishop, and if the Traditional Rite of ordination was used to make sure he is a valid priest.
  • NEVER attend the Mass of a "priest" who is in union with the Modernist Vatican (even if validly ordained).
  • Ask if he rejects the errors of Vatican II (he must or he is a heretic)
  • Ask if he accepts BOD and BOB (he must or he is a heretic)
  • Ask what Missal he uses. 1954 is best, then 1958, then 1962.
  • Any priest who refuses to answer such questions has something to hide and must be avoided at all costs.
Using these principles, if there is no option for you except an SSPX chapel, you may attend provided he rejects Vatican II's errors in principle and was validly ordained in the Traditional Rite. All SSPX priests are taught to reject the Feenyite heresy and they use the 1962 Missal with some pre-1962 rubrics. I know there are those who will disagree with my positions on the validity of Thuc Bishops and attending the so-called "una cum" Mass (using the name of Francis in the Canon). However, I am comfortable before God with the positions I have taken and conclusion I have drawn. I hope this helps Traditionalists in deciding where to attend Mass and receive the sacraments.
 
Remember too, that you should be strong in the Faith. Do not let the position of the SSPX on the "pope" make you soft. Rather, use it as an opportunity to forge friendships and influence others in that chapel (including the priest) to re-think their position on Francis with some well placed questions. In so doing you might get others to reject Antipope Francis and further expose his sect of darkness. Deo gratias.  
 




 

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Intentionally Deceived Into Becoming Disciples of Hell


 I must say I was surprised to see a comment left on my last post of 11/8/13, by a Vatican II sect author I had cited. The comment was from Ms. Sherry Weddell author of the 2012 book entitled Forming Intentional Disciples: The Path To Knowing and Following Jesus. I had used her statistic that only 60% of Vatican II sect members who attend the Novus Bogus bread and wine service believe in a personal God. I reproduce here the "clarification" she left on my post:

"No. What I wrote is that according to the Pew Forum's 2008 US Religious Landscape, only 60% of all American Catholics of any age and attending any liturgy, practicing or non-practicing, believe in a personal God. Sherry Weddell."

 I can't understand how an intelligent woman fails to grasp what I wrote. Ms. Weddell should know from reading the post, and looking at my blog, that I am a  Traditionalist sedevacantist, (i.e. A True Catholic who realizes that Vatican II has taught heresy. Pre-Vatican II theologians always taught that the pope, as an individual, could fall into heresy and would immediately lose the pontificate. This is exactly what has happened in the wake of Vatican II and its six false "popes").  Those who adhere to Vatican II and its bogus hierarchy are NOT CATHOLIC. They belong to a man-made religion formed from the heresy of Modernism condemned in 1907 by Pope St. Pius X. This Vatican II sect occupies the former Vatican and its various buildings and institutions.

"American Catholics" is a term for the members of the Vatican II sect who don't merely reside in America, but are also infested with the manifold materialism and moral perversions that pervade our current society. Juxtapose this with "Roman Catholics who live in America." That phrase describes what's left of the True Church in Traditionalist sedevacantist Churches and Chapels. So, Ms. Weddell is talking about 40% of all members of the Vatican II sect of any age and "attending any liturgy" who deny the existence of a personal God. Here she must think that Traditionalists are concerned with the "Latin Mass." The problem is not the "liturgy" it's the loss of the True Faith and Morals brought about by Vatican II. Whether the Novus Bogus, or the "Extraordinary Rite," which is the Modernist tainted 1962 Missal with further heretical additions made by Ratzinger, they are equally imbued with all the errors of Vatican II. The Novus Bogus is always invalid, and the "Extraordinary" mess is usually invalid, as they are offered by invalidly ordained "priests" of the new rite of ordination (1968-present). Whether practicing or not, the lack of God's grace given in the True Mass and Sacraments in the True Faith, is what has caused the collapse of belief in a personal God.

 If Ms. Weddell had a survey of Traditionalists (whether of the Society of St Pius V, CMRI, or independent sedevacantist priests), she would see that we go to great lengths and hardships to attend the True Mass because we have the True Catholic Faith--whole and entire. The Catholic Faith which infallibly taught at the First Vatican Council:

1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.

2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.

3. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.


5. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

 We Traditionalists ALL believe in a personal God and every other divinely revealed Truth of the Divine and Catholic Faith!!  Please read my fist post in 2010, to see my definition of what it means to be a Traditionalist. We are not the "Indult" or "Motu" organizations within the Vatican's heretical organization and falsely claiming the title "Traditionalist."

 
I thereby stand by what I wrote--with the additional comment that the Vatican II sect members have their faith robbed even when not attending a Modernist so-called liturgy.

Ms. Weddell's book is Modernism on steroids. It's a product of the "feel good religion." As I explained in my last post, Modernism seeks to reduce Faith from an act of the intellect adhering to unchanging Truth based on the authority of God, to warm and fuzzy feelings that want a "nice, nice, sweet, sweet" Christ. One that doesn't obsess over the murder of unborn children, or perverts raising children. A syrupy Christ who condemns nothing and whose "vicar" tells us "Who am I to judge?" This is the same pseudo-faith that is responsible for these other stats from the book:

  • Only 30 percent of Americans who were raised Catholic are still practicing.
  • Fully 10 percent of all adults in America are ex-Catholics.
  • The number of marriages celebrated in the Church decreased dramatically, by nearly 60 percent, between 1972 and 2010.

  •  What's Weddell's answer to this mess? One Mr. Jonathan Sullivan captures it well in an Amazon.com review:
    Weddell begins with a review of the data that should be familiar to all of us: decreasing Mass attendance, Catholics leaving the Church for Protestant communities, and a general "disengagement" from the life of the parish by many of the faithful. But she doesn't just leave us with cold, hard facts. Thanks to her work with parishes across the country Weddell is also able to weave compelling anecdotes that put a human face on the crisis. Most surprising to me were the number of people who have left the Catholic Church not because they were failing to moving closer to Christ but because, as they more fully embraced their call to discipleship, they had no one in their parishes to support them or who understood the sudden fire that had been lit in them. That the Church is losing both unengaged and highly motivated members -- leaking from both ends, as it were -- should alarm all of us.

    Let me see if I've got this correct--no further clarifications necessary---people are leaving the sect that claims to be the One True Church not because they fail to get closer to Christ, but because there was no one to "support" their "inner fire." Right. This lunacy comes from the heretical Vatican II declaration on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio paragraph #3

     For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them (protestant sects--Introibo Ad Altare Dei) as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

    Protestant sects a "means of salvation"?? Compare the teaching of the True Popes:


    Pope Leo XIII
    [Encyclical Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896]
    The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same forever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ the Lord — leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church,and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ...He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation.” (St.Augustine, Sermo CCLXVII, no. 4)

     

     Pope LEO XIII
    [Encyclical Tametsi, November 1, 1900]
    Consequently, all those who wish to reach salvation outside the Church, are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a vain effort. 

     Pope LEO XIII
    [Allocution for the 25th anniversary of his election,February 20, 1903]

    This is our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate. 

    Pope ST. PIUS X
    [Letter Ex quo, nono labente, November 26, 1910,to the Apostolic delegates of the Orient]
    And may God, the author and lover of peace, in whose power are the times and moments, hasten the day when the peoples of the Orient with return to Catholic unity, and, once more united to the Apostolic See, repudiating their error, will enter the port of eternal salvation.
     
    Heretical and schismatics sects are not a means of salvation, and those who adhere to them have no hope of heaven, unless they are excused from fault because of invincible ignorance. Therefore the teaching of Vatican II, that non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation, is heretical, since it is absolutely contrary to Catholic teaching.
    However, Ms. Weddell will assure us that the answer to the ills that face her sect is a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." Can everybody say "Amen" my "born-again" Protestant brothers and sisters? Once more, faith is reduced to "feelings", "encounters", "walking with Jesus in the journey of Faith" and other sentiments. These sentiments can even send someone outside the Church to have their needs met because they had no one in the parish to help them, and they can just as easily be saved there as in any other religion, or at least those claiming to be "Christian." But to be "Catholic" is best, so let's emulate Protestants even more to retain and bring in members; and who cares about True Faith and Morals? Just tell everyone "The Great Story of Jesus" and we can dispense with all those pesky dogmas and "thou shalt nots."
     
    Jesus Christ would never send someone out of the Ark of Salvation, for "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus). Whatever spirit is involved in Ms. Weddell's making disciples, it is not the Holy Ghost. A True Catholic has his meeting with Christ when receiving Him Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in True Holy Communion, and becoming as close as possible to Him this side of Heaven.
     
    It is my hope that Ms. Weddell and her Vatican II sect members see the errors of their ways and convert to the True Church of Christ. The answer to what ails the world is not another variation of Protestant, feel good ecumenism. To have a Real Encounter with Christ, you must belong to His Church, the Traditionalist Catholic Church. That is the only place these deceived "disciples" will find the Way, the Truth, and the Life apart from a happy go lucky path of shortcuts, lies, and eternal death in Hell.
     
     



    Friday, November 8, 2013

    Is It Moral? Let's Have A Show Of Hands Please


     Antipope Francis has sent out a survey to the so-called "Catholic bishops" to see how once Catholic parishes deal with the moral abominations that plague our post-Vatican II world. These horrors include single mothers, sodomite "marriages" (that often result in adoption), surrogate motherhood, adultery in the form of divorce and remarriage, interfaith marriages, and "forms of feminism hostile to the Church." (I got a laugh out of the last one. It's much akin to lamenting "forms of National Socialism hostile to Jews").

    •  Why do we need a survey? Isn't Frankie the "pope" and the pontiff should lead? No! The logical outgrowth of Vatican II's collegiality is the "Bishop of Rome"--as Bergoglio calls himself---is a "first among equals", like in the schismatic/heretical Eastern Orthodox. Frankie has said his sect will no longer be "Vatican-centric," which is a denial of the monarchical constitution of Christ's Mystical Body, the One True Church.

     This is the Modernist heresy of church leaders following the "truths" given by the "People of God" which springs from some inner experience of the divine and expressed as "vox populi, vox Dei." Speaking with his Modernist forked tongue, Frankie will seemingly contradict himself, so "conservatives" can put an orthodox spin on his heresy while he advances the Modernist agenda.
     Some pertinent examples:

    • What can be done pastorally in the light of transmitting the faith for practicing sodomites who have married and have adopted children, asks the survey. What indeed? Sounds compassionate, but how can those who spit in the face of God and trash the Natural Law do anything before they repent and lead chaste lives? Children will be confused enough without anything less than an uncompromising message that the lifestyle is WRONG!

    •  The survey questions how to "support" divorced and remarried adulterers on their "journey of faith" while the Modernist Vatican reaffirmed the ban on "communion" for such people after the infamous interviews given by Bergoglio.

    • It bemoans the fact that marriage is seen as "provisional," yet Antipope Francis wants to make it even easier to get a phony "annulment" on exactly that basis.

      Recent polling shows that only 34% of the members in the Vatican II sect consider homosexual behavior to be morally wrong. According to Sherry Weddell, in her book, Forming Intentional Disciples: the Path to Knowing and Following Jesus, only 60% of Vatican II members who regularly attend the Novus Bogus bread and wine service believe in a personal God!!

    Pope St. Pius X knew that Modernism leads logically to atheism. The saintly Pontiff explained it well in his famous encyclical Pascendi Domenici Gregis, in paragraph #6:

    . We begin, then, with the philosopher. Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is commonly called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognizing His existence, even by means of visible things. From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject. Given these premises, everyone will at once perceive what becomes of Natural Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external revelation. The modernists simply sweep them entirely aside; they include them in Intellectualism, which they denounce as a system which is ridiculous and long since defunct. Nor does the fact that the Church has formally condemned these portentous errors exercise the slightest restraint upon them. Yet the Vatican Council has defined, "If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made, let him be anathema"; and also, "If anyone says that it is not possible or not expedient that man be taught, through the medium of divine revelation, about God and the worship to be paid Him, let him be anathema''; and finally, "If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men should be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal experience or by private inspiration, let him be anathema." It may be asked, in what way do the Modernists contrive to make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial; and consequently, by what legitimate process of reasoning, they proceed from the fact of ignorance as to whether God has in fact intervened in the history of the human race or not, to explain this history, leaving God out altogether, as if He really had not intervened. Let him answer who can. Yet it is a fixed and established principle among them that both science and history must be atheistic: and within their boundaries there is room for nothing but phenomena; God and all that is divine are utterly excluded. We shall soon see clearly what, as a consequence of this most absurd teaching, must be held touching the most sacred Person of Christ, and the mysteries of His life and death, and of His Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven.

     Without God, Antipope Francis will decide moral issues by popular survey in a religion that is devoid of God's grace and Truth. The people go on the path to perdition, and Frankie will cheer them on, giving approbation to their wicked desires. We are witnessing the geometric growth in the acceptance of homosexuality into law. Once Catholic Belgium is considering legalizing euthanasia for children, while Bergoglio condemns youth unemployment and the loneliness of the elderly as the "greatest evils" on Earth.

    For those in the Vatican II sect, don't take the survey. Vote with your feet and get out now. Come to the Traditionalist Catholic Church---what's left of the once Roman Catholic Church---and cast the vote which could one day make you one of the elect.