Traditionalists have been painted by more than a few as being people who are out of touch. They don't conform to the modern world, they are conspiracy nuts, and they are bigoted (usually claiming antisemitism). I must admit, I unfortunately have met a few of my fellow believers who do a disservice to both themselves and the True Church when the obsess over private revelations (i.e., Fatima or some obscure apparition), and see groups of enemies conspiring at every moment against True Catholics.
Conforming to the modern world, in things contrary to Faith and Morals is something we should avoid at all costs, and hold out our non-conformity as a badge of honor. The charge of antisemitism, when founded upon the Teaching of the Church (i.e., Jews must convert to be saved, they are guilty of Deicide, etc.) is unfounded. Such things are based upon love and concern for the salvation of souls, and firmly rooted in the teaching of Christ. One can see that in an extended period of sedevacante, there will be natural divisions to problems since there is no one in authority to whom we can "kick it upstairs" and pronounce a final, binding judgement. This explains the excessive theorizing on the part of Traditionalists causing internal strife and the unfounded charge of us being splintered "like Protestants." The Vatican II sect does claim to have a "pope," however, and their desire to link together everything false (even when contradictory) is really strange. You have different groups teaching different, and even contradictory doctrines, and both are accepted as long as they all submit to the heresies of Vatican II. Frankie, rather than settling matters in favor of one teaching or another, makes things worse.
Proof came this past week when Antipope Francis claimed he would baptize Martians if they asked for the sacrament. Time magazine was quick to point out that Frankie was saying something "to keep his audience interested" but it was being taken out of context. Or was it? The Vatican’s chief astronomer, Argentine Jesuit "Father" José Funes, explained the possibility of extraterrestrial life in 2008, when he too said that God’s mercy could be offered to aliens if it were needed. He even cited Pope Francis’ namesake to make his point. “This is not in contrast with the faith, because we cannot place limits on the creative freedom of God,” Funes said. “To use St. Francis’ words, if we consider earthly creatures as ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters,’ why can’t we also speak of an ‘extraterrestrial brother?’” (See http://time.com/99616/for-pope-francis-its-about-more-than-martians/)
There are many problems with what was said from a theological perspective. First, does the alien life form require baptism? What if their ancestors never sinned and they were not in need of redemption like the human race? God may have other designs for them. If they were in original sin, why did Christ die on our planet, and how did He bring the Church to their world? While these are certainly fascinating theological topics for a hypothetical debate, what Frankie was implying was actually quite sinister. He used the Martian quip as a metaphor for baptizing the infants of fornicators living in sin, and sodomite "couples."
According to theologian Schulze, baptism should be withheld from an infant (outside the immediate danger of death) unless there is good reason to believe the child will be raised, educated, and remain in the Catholic Faith (See Schulze, Frederick, Manual of Pastoral Theology, B. Herder Books, St. Louis, Mo., pgs. 11-13, (1931)). This is the constant teaching of the Church. Now, Frankie doesn't care about the child's eternal welfare. Why should he care? Doesn't he believe that even atheists can go to Heaven? If you can get to Heaven without the integral Catholic Faith how much less necessary is baptism? What kind of instruction--and what kind of example--- will a child receive in the Faith from parents who shack up, or worse, are perverts?
Ironically, the members of the Vatican II sect Saint Benedict's Center (both the one in Massachusetts and the one in New Hampshire) remain staunch Feeneyites, i.e. adherents of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney who rejected the teaching of the Church of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood and was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1953. Here you have two communities that recognize Frankie as "pope," yet while he denigrates baptism to the point of making it a joke, the Feenyites damn everyone to Hell without water baptism and require submission to the very man who claims you can get to Heaven with NO FAITH at all!
As a matter of fact, Vatican II sect "canon lawyer," a layman named Pete Vere, has written an opinion (in his capacity as a canon lawyer) that makes a good case that members of the Vatican II sect can hold to the "strict view" of Fr. Feeney without being heretics. He writes:
"In 1988, Mr. John Loughnan, a layman from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine,
wrote the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) requesting clarification on several
controversies surrounding the SSPX. Mr. Loughnan also inquired as to the status within the
Church of Fr. Feeney’s followers.
Concerning this last question, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, replied to Mr.
Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by
the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church
and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not
judge it opportune to enter into this question.”
While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died
in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his
same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly
within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to
oversee the reconciliation and well-being of traditionalists (sic) within the Church.
On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual
descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of
the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical
practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the
good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS(Outside the Church No Salvation), BOB (Baptism of Blood) and BOD (Baptism of Desire)."
There you have it folks! You can be a heretic at both ends of the spectrum--deny BOD and BOB--or extend it to everyone, and you can be a good member of the Vatican II sect as long as you accept Frankie and the robber council Vatican II. You can get a side chapel in the One World Religion of Antipope Francis as long as you are a heretic, schismatic, infidel, pagan or apostate. We Traditionalists who alone possess the Truth are excluded, Deo gratias! I had the misfortune of getting a nasty missive over my last post from a member of the Vatican II sect. He claimed I had "no authority" to declare the Novus Bogus "mass" invalid. I asked him if he saw a priest attempt to say Mass using milk and cookies in place of bread and wine, could he know that the mass was invalid, or would he need someone in authority to tell him it was invalid and consider it valid until there was such a declaration. He refused to answer, knowing I had just proven his assertion incorrect.
If he claimed he needed someone in authority to tell him it was invalid, that means that virtually anything, no matter how adverse to Catholic teaching, could be perpetrated on the faithful. If he said it was invalid without being declared as such by someone in authority, he just proved his own contention incorrect. Then he went into a tirade about "joos" and how I'm an "apostate" from "Jew York." When I pointed out that his antisemitism would be roundly condemned by his "pope" who wore a yarmulke in Argentina and prayed with the Jews in the synagogue, thus committing apostasy, he went on another rant about Jews, and how Frankie's soul was not his concern. When I informed him such an individual could not become pope, he denied it. I asked for citations to back up his assertion, and he claimed Pope St. Pius X, but he could not state from whence this alleged teaching came. I even invited him to debate online, and he (of course) refused.
Once again the insanity of Vatican II is displayed. You can be a real antisemitic person as long as you accept "Pope" Frankie, who prays with Jews in an act directly contrary to the Faith. If you're Bishop Williamson and reject the errors of Vatican II, you will be roundly condemned for questioning the exact number of Jews killed in the Holocaust and the manner in which they were killed.
What advice would I give to a Traditionalist if an extraterrestrial came to him? Well, DO try to convert him by sending him to a Traditionalist bishop to assess the situation. (Notice Frankie never said he would try to convert the aliens, but give them baptism "only if they ask"). Most importantly, tell him to stay away from the Antipope at all costs. "ET don't phone Rome."
No comments:
Post a Comment