Monday, May 30, 2016

Culpably Ignorant Or Purposefully Deceptive?

I have recently watched a YouTube video by one Mr. Christopher McCarthy, a Vatican II sect apologist who goes by the moniker "The Marian Catechist." He puts up many videos, however the one I watched was entitled, "The Error of Sedevacantism." You may watch it at Mr. McCarthy is smug, condescending, and obviously doesn't understand the things upon which he pontificates. Nothing was stated as to his theological education or occupation, and he presented himself as a layman. He makes glaring errors much akin to those who claim that (a) Traditionalist priests and bishops are valid but have no Ordinary Jurisdiction so you can't go to them, and (b) sedevacantism must be wrong because "we can't get a pope again, or we have to elect one ourselves." I begin to wonder if such people are really that culpably ignorant, or if they have an intent to deceive souls. I will address these (real) errors in this post.

 Mr. McCarthy informs us that "most sedevacantists believe that there has been no pope since the death of Pope Paul VI in 1978." I don't know of any Traditionalists who believe this, except for the Palmar de Troya conclavist-cult which claimed Clemente Domingues was "mystically crowned Pope Gregory XVII by Jesus Christ" upon the death of Paul VI. Most sedevacantists (myself included) believe that the papacy has been unoccupied since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958; it is morally certain that the Chair of Peter has been unoccupied since the signing of the heretical document Lumen Gentium (with its false ecclesiology) by Paul VI on November 21, 1964. McCarthy then goes on to inform us that sedevacantists hold all popes since John XXIII to have been antipopes. True enough for the majority, but what about his prior statement concerning Paul VI? Does he even bother to check his research or examine his own videos prior to uploading them for the world to see?

 He calls sedevacantism "one of the dumbest theological errors I have ever encountered." Why, you may ask? Due to it's "false premise" that Vatican II contained heresy. He cites Vatican II apologist Michael Voris as a "Traditionalist" (!) who says there are no heresies in Vatican II. The documents are merely "ambiguous" and can be twisted by "liberal bishops." Well, that certainly settles it, no? Voris is neither a Traditionalist, nor a theologian. Even so, I could once more show the glaring heresies contained in Vatican II, but there is no need. Let's suppose, ad arguendo, that the documents are merely ambiguous. That, in itself, is a defeater for McCarthy's case in defending Vatican II.

The Church teaches that God doesn't allow ambiguity to be taught by the Church!

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos,January 6, 1928:

"The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on Earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever in tact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men." (Emphasis mine)

Pope Pius VI taught in Auctorum Fidei, of August 28, 1794:

"In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

 Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it. 

It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

 In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged. The more freely We embraced a program of complete moderation, the more we foresaw. "(Emphasis mine)

This disposes with McCarthy's video quite easily. It is shoddy research coupled with sheer ignorance of Catholic theology. Now, on to the other two errors (not in McCarthy's video) about which I receive inquires  or denouncements for not accepting them.

Traditionalist Clergy Lack Ordinary Jurisdiction So Stay Away

  •  There is no teaching (infallible or otherwise) that declares the Church can't exist without Ordinary Jurisdiction.
  • Supplied jurisdiction is all that the Church needs to function in a time of emergency, such as we have now. We have at least two historical precedents for this fact: The Great Western Schism when a true pope was unrecognizable, yet bishops continued to be consecrated and act, and the interregnum from 11/29/1268 to 9/1/1271 (2 years and 10 months) between the death of Pope Clement IV and the election of Pope Gregory X. Several Diocesan Bishops died during this time. Ordinary jurisdiction can only be granted by the pope. However, nearby bishops consecrated a priest of the diocese to act with supplied jurisdiction (only supplying the sacraments) until the papacy could be restored. What happened when Pope Gregory X was elected? He praised the bishops who so acted (by consecrating those priests) thereby giving the people access to bishops and the sacraments. The bishops so consecrated, he ratified and then supplied them with Ordinary Jurisdiction. 

How Can Sedevacantism Be True If We Are Left With No Way To Get A Pope?

 Let me begin by stating that the answer is not as simple as getting someone elected by his mommy, daddy, and three other nice people on a farm in Kansas, as was the case with "Pope" Michael (David Bawden). If sedeprivationism was true, Bergoglio would need to publicly abjure his errors and get validly ordained/consecrated. The most probable way of restoring the papacy is an "imperfect General Council." Since all the validly appointed cardinals are deceased, there would need to be a rejection of the Vatican II sect as "Catholic." Some pre-Vatican II theologians pondered such a Council in the absence of cardinals. Indeed, theologian Van Noort pondered it as late as 1956 (See Dogmatic Theology 2: 276).

 Theologian Cajetan wrote: " exception and by supplementary manner this power [electing a pope], corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism."  (See De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii)

Theologian Billot wrote: "When it would be necessary to  proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a...Council...Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need." (See De Ecclesia Christi). 

 Then again, perhaps we are living in the end times, and the pope will not return. Who knows? Just remain in the state of Sanctifying Grace, and stay close to the Sacraments and Our Blessed Mother. Don't fall into the clutches of the Vatican II sect, or stay "Home Alone" because of those who either refuse to heed the truth through obstinacy, or desire your damnation through deceit. 

Monday, May 23, 2016

Living In Contradiction

 The Law of Non-Contradiction is one of the most basic laws in logic. It states that something cannot be  both true and not true at same time and under the same conditions. For example, the statement, "I am typing this in New York City right now" cannot be true and not true simultaneously. However, the "recognize and resist" (R&R) Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and Mr. Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) are going to try and prove that basic logic somehow doesn't apply to them.

"Pope" Francis has given an exclusive interview to the French Catholic La Croix newspaper published on May 17, 2016. In the interview, here is what was said:

"On April 1, you received Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Priestly Society of St Pius X. Is the re-integration of the Lefebvrists (sic) into the Church again under consideration?

Pope Francis: In Buenos Aires, I often spoke with them. They greeted me, asked me on their knees for a blessing. They say they are Catholic. They love the Church.

Bishop Fellay is a man with whom one can dialogue. That is not the case for other elements who are a little strange, such as Bishop Williamson or others who have been radicalized. Leaving this aside, I believe, as I said in Argentina, that they are Catholics on the way to full communion.

During this year of mercy, I felt that I needed to authorize their confessors to pardon the sin of abortion. They thanked me for this gesture. Previously, Benedict XVI, whom they greatly respect, had liberalized the use of the Tridentine rite mass(sic). So good dialogue and good work are taking place." (Emphasis mine)

I find it appropriate that the meeting took place on All Fools Day. Calling them "Lefebvrists" makes it seem like they are a "cult of personality" and an offshoot from the Catholic Church, when it is actually the Vatican II sect which has broken away. Unfortunately, some members of the SSPX, do treat the late Archbishop as some cult figure. This move away from authentic Catholicism and into the clutches of the Modernists is the sad result of acknowledging an apostate as "pope." While I'm a critic of Bp. Williamson myself, even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours, and he is right not to want anything to do with Frankie. Refusal to succumb to Modernism is dubbed being "radicalized," but you won't hear Frankie use that term to identify Mohammedans. Even in discussing the possibility of absorbing the SSPX, we hear Bergoglio  use "Vatican II-speak" as the heretical ecclesiology rears its ugly head, i.e., "full communion," a phrase that clearly implies there can be "partial communion."

 In the good old days, there were three things you either were or were not. You could not be "a little bit" (or partially) dead, pregnant, or Catholic. That being said, let's see what Bp. Fellay said in an interview with The National Catholic Reporter:

According to Bishop Fellay, the Vatican is telling the society, through nuanced words, that it is now possible to question the Council’s teachings on religious liberty, ecumenism and liturgical reform "and remain Catholic."

"That means, also, the criteria they would impose on us, to have us prove to them that we are Catholic, will no longer be these points," he said. "That, to us, would be very important."

Let's see: The SSPX needs to prove to an apostate that  they are Catholic! There is also another important point to consider, namely, how do you call into question the teachings of an ecumenical Council "and remain Catholic"? The Magisterium teaches us and we obey. You can't question Trent on transubstantiation and "remain Catholic." Of course, the usual canard that "Vatican II was only a pastoral council, not a dogmatic council" will be brought up.  Both Fellay and Bergoglio must know that if you accept Montini (Paul VI) as a true pope (and they do), then Vatican II is obligatory and cannot be called into question.

 The end of each Vatican II document ends thus:

"Each and every matter declared in this Dogmatic Constitution the Fathers of this Sacred Council have approved. And We by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve, decree and establish these things; and all things thus synodally established, We order to be promulgated unto the glory of God...I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church. There follow the signatures of the rest of the Fathers." (AAS 57 [1965], 71).

Vatican II is therefore part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, to which all Catholics must submit. However, Frankie and Fellay think there's "wiggle room" for questioning that which must be obeyed.

Come to think of it, which Magisterium will they obey? On religious liberty will they obey the teaching of Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos of August 15, 1832 (para. #14);

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin."

Or will they obey Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae of December 7, 1965;

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."

So Fellay can believe that religious liberty is an "absurd and erroneous proposition" while Frankie can believe that it is a basic human right based "in the very dignity of the human person" and both belong to the same church? 

Which Magisterium will they adhere to on ecumenism? The one where Pope Leo XIII teaches in Satis Cognitum of June 29, 1896 (para. # 4):  

"For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentions only one Church, which he calls His own - 'I will build my church; ' any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church... to justify the existence of more than one Church it would be necessary to go outside this world, and to create a new and unheard - of race of men." 

Or will they obey what Vatican II taught in Unitatis Redintegratio of November 21, 1964 (para. # 3):

"It follows that the separated Churches (sic) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

Fellay can believe that the Church is the One True Church of Christ while Bergoglio believes the Church subsists in "separated churches"  that are "a means of salvation" just like the Catholic Church? Which is it? Is the Church the only Ark of Salvation, or can salvation be achieved in various separated sects? 

 The La Croix interview has Begoglio saying this:

"Would you be ready to grant them (SSPX) the status of a personal prelature?

Pope Francis: That would be a possible solution but beforehand it will be necessary to establish a fundamental agreement with them. The Second Vatican Council has its value. We will advance slowly and patiently."

Yes. Frankie wants the R&R world to advance along the wide road towards Hell as he patiently awaits their demise by joining his world wide apostate sect. They must fundamentally agree that contradictory views can be maintained simultaneously. The value of Vatican II is that truth and logic make no difference in life. Believe as you choose, so long as you don't believe in the Truth. Fellay will get his personal prelature in return for his soul. They will begin by having their apostolic succession wiped out as phony Vatican II "cardinals" perform invalid "ordinations." The faithful will be given invalid sacraments and doctrines tainted with more and more Modernism, until they are simply Modernists with some Latin thrown in. 

Fellay will learn too late what St. Paul meant when he wrote, "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6:14-15)

Monday, May 16, 2016

Doubting Yourself---In The Extreme

 From time to time, Traditionalists will hear their clergy attacked as "invalid" or "illegitimate." Having been a member of the True church since 1981, I've heard these stories rise up, again and again, like a monster in a horror movie that can't be killed. No matter how well the arguments and objections against Traditionalist clergy are refuted, they come back to haunt us. The danger lies in those new to the Church, who might have their Faith jeopardized by specious arguments.

 Recently, I came across a website by one "Bishop Joseph Marie," who questions the validity of his Orders obtained through the Old Catholic sect. Why doesn't he get conditional ordination/consecration from a Traditionalist Bishop? Well, "Bp. Joseph Marie" doubts all their Orders as well! I sent him the following anonymous email:

After reading your articles, am I correct that you don't consider yourself a priest or bishop (having derived your orders from the Old Catholic sect)? You also reject all orders coming from Abp Levebvre and Abp Thuc. To whom do Catholics go to for valid sacraments?"

His reply to me:
" I am convinced that the proof of the validity my Holy Orders does not meet the Church's criteria of moral certitude. I may very well be a bishop, but moral theology is clear - one may not exercise Holy Orders unless they can be established as morally certain. To whom do Catholics go to for the Sacraments? I wish that I knew, but I don't.
In Jesus and Mary,

 I've decided to write a post against his article entitled, "Traditional Catholics - Do Your Clergy Possess Valid Orders?" (See authority).  I have discussed some of these objections in the past. I will collect everything here. I will answer his objections to Abps.Thuc and Lefebvre's orders. There are those who only attack a specific episcopal lineage (Lefebvre, Thuc, Mendez, Dolan), those who attack the validity of all lineages, and those who attack all lineages as being "valid but illicit" due to a perceived lack of jurisdiction. I will limit myself to the two archbishops' validity. In so doing, I hope I may preserve the Faith of those Traditionalists who are given false and unreasonable doubts about their clergy. As "Bp." Joe's article is prolix, I will present the crux of his arguments with refutations. I provided the web address above for anyone interested in reading the whole monograph.

 The Case Against Abp. Lefebvre
As per usual, Lefebvre's Orders are attacked on the supposed lack of intention "to do what the Church does" on the part of his ordaining and consecrating bishop, Achille Cardinal Lienart, an alleged Freemason. For the sake of argument, I will concede that he was a Mason (but there is plenty of doubt if he was a member of the Lodge). 

First False Principle: Freemasonic membership = positive contrary intention
"Bp." Joe writes, "So the question naturally arises: If Liénart was a Freemason, what about Lefebvre’s Orders? Wouldn’t there be doubt concerning their validity? Fortunately, it is not necessary to “divine” the intentions of those who are Freemasons as to whether or not they would confer Holy Orders with the “intention to do what the Church does,” because nearly every pope since 1738 has published warnings about the Freemasons and their objectives. Here’s a sampling (emphases supplied):

“[T]hey [Freemasons] declare repeatedly that Christ is either a scandal or foolish; indeed, not rarely, that there is no God, and they teach that the soul of man dies together with the body: the codes and statutes, by which they explain their goals and ordinances openly declare that all the things which We have already mentioned, and which pertain to the overthrowing of Legitimate Rulers and totally destroying the Church come forth from them. And this has been ascertained and must be considered as certain, that these sects, although in name different, nevertheless have been joined among themselves by an impious bond of filthy goals.” (Quo Graviora – Apostolic Constitution of Pope Leo XII, March 13, 1826) ..."

There follows many more citations, NONE of which state that Masons have a positive contrary intention (i.e. not intending to do what the Church does when conferring a sacrament).

Compare the teaching of the Church about sacramental intention: When a bishop confers Holy Orders using correct matter and form, he must be presumed to have had a sacramental intention sufficient to confect the sacrament — that is, at least "to have intended to do what the Church does."

This is the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in his pronouncement on Anglican orders: "Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does.” (Bull Apostolicae Curae,  September 13, 1896; Emphasis mine)

The theologian Leeming says this passage recapitulates the teachings of previous theologians who "...all agreed that the outward decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists.… The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash." (Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology [Westminster MD: Newman 1956], 476, 482.)

According to theologian Gasparri, a bishop is never presumed to have a positive contrary intention unless proven by those who assert such. "In performing an ordination the minister is never presumed to have such an intention of not ordaining, as long as the contrary would not be proved. For no one is presumed evil unless he is proven as such, and an act — especially one as solemn as an ordination — must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated." (Gasparri, Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione [Paris: Delhomme 1893], 1:970--Emphasis mine). Gasparri does not state that Masonic membership is a presumption of evil such that the minister would be "clearly demonstrated" as having a positive contrary intention.

Furthermore, a cleric enjoys the presumption of validity whenever the Catholic rite is employed:
“When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed.” (See W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.)

"Bp." Joe counters: "The defenders of Lefebvre, however, would have us believe that if an enemy of Catholicism visibly used proper matter and form in their ordination and consecration ceremonies, then we have no choice but to accept that intention as good and the Sacrament as valid. This is not sound sacramental theology and a highly dangerous proposition, because in accepting this line of reasoning, one would have to enslave and subordinate the intention of the minister to the matter and form employed. Taking this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then if Anton LeVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, were to consecrate someone (supposing that he himself had obtained valid consecration, as Satanists sometimes did) by using proper matter and form, then we would have to accept that consecration at face value as being valid. But what intelligent person would accept this? What serious-minded Catholic would go to such a person for the Sacraments or entrust the welfare of their souls to him?"

As to the hypothetical concerning Anton LeVey, if he seriously performed the Catholic rite, we must accept him as having the requisite intention unless he specifically states the contrary. Is it crazy to think so? Hardly. Why wouldn't he want priests to confect the Eucharist so as to desecrate it? Why not ordain a priest that he knows to be unworthy and will bring scandal to the Church?

Second False Principle: "Wish upon a star" theology

"Bp. Joe" tells us: That "wish upon a star" theology is "...the certain truths we know about Masonry from the teachings of the Church:

Masonry is evil (and all that this entails) and the destruction of Catholicism is one of its main objectives.
Those who become Freemasons are automatically excommunicated from the Church.
Beyond this, the Church is essentially silent regarding Masonry. But the pro-validity group has determined that this silence is actually proof of something, i.e., that it proves that Masonic ordinations and consecrations are in fact valid. An interesting conclusion, but one void of merit.

Silence has evidentiary value, granted, but silence alone is proof of nothing except silence. That is why no court of law in any civilized country will ever convict a person based on silence alone. It is inconclusive.

That presumption favors the validity of a Sacrament is not debated. This is the general rule and I am unaware of anyone who denies this. The fact that the pro-validity group keeps making this an issue is bewildering and seems to serve no other purpose than to provide them with a straw-man to beat up. No one denies that in the ordinary course of events, that when a bishop performs ordinations and consecrations, that they are to be accepted as valid – that’s the norm. But many rules admit of exceptions; and as has already been noted in this article, Freemasonry is one such exception. This exception to the rule has not been directly stated about Freemasons, true; but that it can be derived from certain principles is obvious. In fact, it is so obvious that I am not in the least surprised that it has rarely been addressed – it is a self-evident truth.

Without repeating everything in the above article, I will try to demonstrate this by giving a short synopsis of the pertinent controlling issues:

  • Every minister of the Sacraments has the capacity to destroy the validity of the Sacraments by an adverse intention alone.
  • Freemasons, as declared enemies of Catholicism, must be presumed to have an adverse intention to Catholicism.
  • In the normal course of events, one who possess the capacity to carry out his intentions, does so.

It’s so simple: Liénart, as a Mason, was a declared enemy of Catholicism. He had the capacity to destroy the Sacramental Orders of Marcel Lefebvre."

Keep in mind Modernism also seeks the destruction of the Catholic Faith:
"Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ has in this days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself." (See Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907). Therefore, if the Modernists want to "overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself," they too wish the destruction of the Church, like the Masons. Should we therefore consider any Modernist as having a positive contrary intention? Considering that a majority of the prelates in 1962 were Modernists (suspected of heresy, or "in the closet" until Vatican II) what doubt would that place on most sacraments the world over? Cardinal Frings was the de facto leader of the Modernist faction at Vatican II. Must we consider all his sacraments as being invalid for having a positive contrary intention since Modernists wish to destroy the Church also? Replace "Freemasons" with "Modernists" in his above syllogism, and we would necessarily have to hold all their sacraments "dubious" or "invalid" as well.  This would mean that the hierarchy would be suspect beginning in the latter half of the 18th century. Does he really expect any thinking person to accept this nonsense? 

Fact: Not all Masons wanted to destroy the Church.  Of the many French clergy involved with Masonry, historian Henri Daniel-Rops says: "There is no reason to think all were, or considered themselves to be, bad Catholics. On the contrary, there must have been a great many of them who saw no incompatibility between their faith and their Masonic membership, and who even regarded Freemasonry as a weapon to be employed in the service of religion. One of these, in Savoy, was Joseph de Maistre, orator of his lodge at Chambéry; he dreamed of creating within the bosom of Masonry a secret staff which would have made the movement a papal army at the service of universal theocracy." (Church in the Eighteenth Century, 63.)

No citation is given to the alleged death bed "confession" of Lienart wherein he asserts he held a positive contrary intention. The only place I found such stated (unsourced) was in a blog by Hutton Gibson, father of actor Mel Gibson, and one of the first "Home Aloners." I would put this in the same category as the supermarket tabloids with pictures of Bigfoot on a UFO. Abp. Thuc is alleged to have doubted Lefebvre's Orders at one point, but even if true, it merely shows that Thuc was fooled by those claiming Masonic membership equals a positive contrary intention--in much the same way he was fooled for a time by the false apparitions at Palmar de Troya, Spain. Translation: "Wish upon a star" means that he has not one pre-Vatican II theologian to back up his false presumption about Masonry and defect of intention. 

If the fact of Masonic membership makes sacramental intention lacking, one would expect theologians (especially the French where Masonry was virulent), making this argument or at least debating the issue. Instead we find nothing. French theologians and canonists such as Billot (De Ecclesiae Sacramentis, Rome: Gregorian 1931, 1:195-205), Many (Prae. de Sacr. Ordinationae 585-591), and Naz ("Intention" Dictionnaire de Droit Canonque, Paris: Letouzey 1953, 5:1462), who otherwise discuss sacramental intention at length, have NOTHING to say about doubtful/invalid sacraments from Masons. However, good ol' "Bp. Joe" knows better than they do! In this case, Joe, silence screams. 

Yet Another Falsehood: Distorting the teachings of the theologians
"Bp." Joe is taking citations out of context to "prove" something the quoted theologians never taught. He writes: "According to the almost general opinion of modern theologians, an inner intention is necessary for the valid administration of the Sacraments… The mere external intention is not compatible with the concept of doing what the Church intends, or with the status of the minister as a servant of Christ, or with the religious determination of the sacramental sign…" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, 1955) 
What he conveniently left out was this, "Objectively considered, the intention of doing what the Church does suffices. The minister, therefore, does not need to intend what the Church intends, namely, to produce the effects of the sacraments, for example, the forgiveness of sins; neither does he need to intend to execute a specific Catholic rite. It suffices if he has the intention of performing the religious action as it is current among Christians (Catholics)." (See Ott, pg. 344--page number left out by "Bp" Joe!--word in parenthetical mine)

Why would Joe do this, you ask? Simple:It gives the lie to a later passage when he claims that consecrating bishops without Ordinary Jurisdiction would produce a defect in intention! He writes:

  We have already covered earlier in this article the Church’s minimal requirement for a valid sacramental intention, that of simply intending "to do what the Church does." This is not a difficult hurdle to get over. In fact, it is such a low hurdle, that one does not even have to know what is the Church’s intention regarding any particular Sacrament, it suffices simply to intend “to do what the Church does” in bestowing that Sacrament. That’s all that is required.

Nevertheless, "to do what the Church does" in conferring a Sacrament means to do it according to the mind of the Church. That is self-evident. If one intentionally does something differently than the mind of the Church, he cannot claim that he has the intention of "doing what the Church does."
Now the undisputed theological truth that the Sacraments "signify the grace which they effect and effect the grace which they signify" (Apostolicae Curae, Leo XIII, 1896) forces us to conclude that the Sacrament of Episcopal Consecration, which signifies the bestowal of the power to teach and to rule, actually bestows these two powers, else it would not effect what it signifies. Therefore, it follows that all validly consecrated Latin Rite Catholic bishops posses the three powers of sanctifying, of teaching, and of ruling. (The distinction between possessing the power and to have the authorization to exercise the power is not germane here because our Sacraments only bishops not only deny authorization [another topic], but they further deny possession.)

But our Sacraments only bishops don’t believe that this power to rule and to teach applies to them. They openly proclaim that they do not posses it. Therefore it stands to reason, that when they confer or receive episcopal consecration, that they do not intend to bestow or receive these two powers. This calls into question the sufficiency of their intention. The mind of the Church is to bestow the three powers of sanctifying, teaching and ruling, as the Sacrament of Consecration clearly shows. The mind of our Sacraments only bishops is simply to bestow the power of sanctifying while omitting the other two powers of teaching and ruling. In so doing, they clearly intend something different than what the Rite itself intends.

But, wait a minute--if you don't need to intend to produce the effects of the sacraments (such as forgiving sin in confession) as theologian Ott teaches, why would you need to intend to give bishops the power to teach and rule? 

He falsifies theologian Lehmkuhl:

This issue of Masonic Sacramental intention was indirectly addressed by a respected theologian, Augustin Lehmkuhl, in an actual case regarding a priest named Fabricius, who had become a member of a forbidden society. While Lehmkuhl does not specifically mention Masonry by name, that Masonry is a forbidden society is disputed by no Catholic, and so Lehmkuhl’s conclusion on the sacraments conferred by someone who had joined a forbidden society is justifiably and appropriately applied to Masonry as well, for no rational argument can be made as to why it would not apply.

"Lehmkuhl gives an interesting case of conscience on the point. A certain priest had lost his faith and had joined a forbidden society, after which time he began to perform his priestly duties in an external manner only. He religiously observed the correct and exact performance of the matter and the form in the sacraments he administered, but inwardly he intended not to do what the Church does and what Christ instituted. The solution of the case declares that the sacraments conferred by the priest were null and to be repeated absolutely." (The Dogmatic Theology on the Intention of the Minister in the Confection of the Sacraments by Rev. Raphael De Salvo, O.S.B., S.T.L. 1949, referencing Casus Conscientiae, Vol. II, p. 14, Casus 7, Augustin Lehmkuhl, 1903)
There are two notable points of interest here.

Firstly, Lehmkuhl makes no exception for validity regarding any of the Sacraments: "the sacraments conferred by the priest were null." Every Sacrament that this priest ostensibly confected since his membership in the forbidden society was invalided. None of them took place.

Secondly, and more importantly, he declares that all of the Sacraments conferred by this priest to be repeated “absolutely.” In stating that they are to be repeated "absolutely" rather than repeated "conditionally," Lehmkuhl is making it clear that he considers the Sacraments conferred by Fabricius, since his membership in a forbidden society, to be not simply doubtfully valid, but rather certainly invalid. For according to Church law, if there was a prudent doubt as to their validity, then they would be repeated "conditionally," not "absolutely"

I have fully referenced the citations. Lehmkuhl appears in DeSalvo's work on page 103 as an example of a merely external intention being insufficient to confect a valid sacrament. Lemkuhl NEVER declares sacraments conferred by those in secret societies to be invalid or dubious. 

In the case of Fabricus ("fabricating" sacraments? Sorry, I couldn't resist!) of course all his sacraments were invalid; not due to his membership in a secret society or even his loss of faith, but because he withheld his intention and manifested it! 

He once more conveniently omits DeSalvo, pgs. 23-24:
" in the Sacrament of Matrimony the contract cannot have validity in the internal forum without the intention of the contracting parties. Even the internal withholding of the consent of one of the parties would be sufficient to vitiate the contract in the sight of God, though in the external forum it would be considered valid UNLESS THE SECRET LACK OF INTENTION COULD BE PROVED." (Emphasis mine) 

Furthermore, the theologian DeSalvo does not draw the same conclusion as the ersatz "theologian" "Bp" Joe.  Having cited Lehmkuhl, he concludes on page 107 with this following principle:
" Provided the minister seriously performs all the sacramental rites, there is no need for being doubtful about the validity of the sacraments, for it is presumed that the minister has the requisite intention, unless he externally manifests the contrary."

I'll go by DeSalvo's conclusion over Joe and the pseudo-theologians whom also go around propagating this nonsense. They also commit the logical fallacy of "post hoc, ergo proper hoc" ("after this, because of this"). They wrongly assume that it was Fabricus joining the secret society that caused his contrary intention. This is analogous to saying, "The rooster crowed when the sun rose, so it was the rooster that caused the sunrise." No such principle of membership in secret societies and automatic lack of intention was stated by either Lehmkuhl or DeSalvo. 

Finally: Distorting history

"Bp." Joe comes up with all kinds of fanciful theories as to why the Church accepted the bishops consecrated by Freemason Talleyrand; e.g., he was reconciled to the Church and then Church authorities secretly re-ordained/consecrated them, he allegedly declared before he died that he did not withhold his intention, etc. As to the fanciful theories (hypotheticals, actually) advanced regarding Talleyrand, a few comments are in order:

Talleyrand died reconciled to the Church. But isn't it possible he lied about not withholding his intention to make it SEEM like he was reconciled to the Catholic Church, thereby fooling people into thinking his consecrations must have been valid, and thereby better serve Satan?

Possible explanations do not equal probable ones. Its possible that Elvis is still alive at 81, but I won't be trying to see if I can locate him in my local supermarket. This idea of various "solutions" to save invented principles is pure speculation. The practice of the Church is in conformity with Her teachings, as in this case.
Finally, Bp. Saurine of France never wrote about having the requisite intention, yet the Church considers him a bishop without reconsecration, and the orders and sacraments that derive from him to be valid, even though he belonged to the most Catholic-hating Masonic Lodge in Europe.

The Case Against Abp. Thuc

 The case he presents against Abp. Thuc is easier to refute since he concedes him to be a true bishop. The entire case boils down to (a) his mental state and (b) his integrity because he allegedly "simulated" sacraments. He writes: Much of what I present below is an attempt to counter-balance the factual misinformation which seems prevalent everywhere regarding Bishop Thuc. So far, it's been amply demonstrated that all the misinformation has been coming from you, "Bp." Joe. 

1. Abp. Thuc's Mental State

Almost all Traditionalist bishops in the Thuc lineage derive from the consecrations of Guerard des Lauriers and Moises Carmona, both in 1981.The fact that he consecrated unworthy candidates has nothing to do with the issue. Abp. Lefebvre ordained Fr. Juan Fernandez Krohn, who was seriously disturbed and  attempted to assassinate John Paul II with a bayonet. This has no bearing on the validity of the archbishop's sacraments. 

We must ask: 
  • Did the Catholic ceremony take place? (It did, and no one seriously disputes it.)
  • Did Archbishop Thuc have enough mental awareness? (Yes. Only a virtual intention is necessary. You must perform the sacramental action intentionally, even while being distracted/not paying attention. This suffices according to all pre-Vatican II theologians. That Abp. Thuc was lucid in 1981 was testified to by Fr. Noel Barbara and by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, a Board Certified psychiatrist, among others)
  • Conclusion: The Archbishop validly performed the consecrations of these worthy and properly trained candidates.
2. Did he simulate sacraments?
In a word; No. The only proof offered for his alleged simulation of a consecration is a hearsay statement made in The Angelus, an anti-sedevacantist publication of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX). As to his simulating the Novus Bogus, a false charge. He refused to receive "communion" at the service and therefore, "simulated" it. Thuc simply misspoke. He NEVER claimed to have withheld his intention or had a positive contrary intention. As a matter of fact, since the service was concelebrated by a Vatican II bishop (validly consecrated), assuming ad arguendo  that the Novus Bogus is vaild, there is nothing that Thuc could have done to invalidate it. The intention of the bishop alone suffices, and Thuc holds a doctorate in theology, so he knows this fact. He simply misspoke.

Summary and Conclusion
  • There is no reasonable doubt as to the validity of the episcopal lineages of both Abps. Thuc and Lefebvre. 
  • We can therefore be morally certain of the orders derived from them through worthy candidates (Bps. Carmona, des Lauriers, Fellay, Williamson, de Galarreta, and Tissier de Mallerais) 
  • The Church will exist until the end of time. The gates of Hell shall not prevail. 
  • I'll write about jurisdiction at a later date. Please avail yourself of the sacraments from Traditionalist priests and bishops without worry.
 Don't let "Bishop" Joseph Marie, and other "Home Aloners" keep you away from Christ in the sacraments. As theologian Halligan teaches, every sacrament "may possibly be invalid or valid." (See The Administration of the Sacraments, NY: Alba House [1962], chapter 1, pg. 23--emphasis in original). We don't live in fear of mere possibilities; we act upon that which is highly more probable than not. It is possible that I could slip and fall in the shower and be paralyzed for life. Is it probable if I'm careful? Need I worry about it? We can have moral certainty of our Traditionalist clergy's orders, and that's all we ever need. Otherwise, you'll end up a sad person sitting at home, like "Bp." Joe, who is only certain about his doubts. 

Monday, May 9, 2016

Keep Modernist Hans Off The Faith

 The Swiss apostate, Fr. Hans Kung, has made the news again. He called on fellow apostate Jorge Bergoglio (aka "Pope" Francis) to allow "an open and impartial discussion on the infallibility of the pope and bishops." The false pope responded in the affirmative, and according to Kung (who has a personal letter from Frankie), there will be "no restrictions" on the "discussion." Fr. Kung was born in 1928 and was ordained to the priesthood in 1954. He was the youngest peritus (i.e., theological expert) at Vatican II. Along with his Modernist comrade, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger (later "Pope" Benedict XVI), they eschewed clerical garb and chose to wear a suit and tie instead.

 Kung and Ratzinger were on the side of the heretical Rhineland bishops, serving their de facto ringleader, the despicable Joseph Cardinal Frings.  They were a constant voice for Modernism, and sabotaged the efforts of the Traditionalists at every turn. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, was a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani and Bishop Blaise Kurz in their attempt to stop the Modernist takeover. Fr. DePauw told me of how Ratzinger and his allies battled him frequently at the Council, and were largely responsible for the Great Apostasy in pushing through their heretical agenda. Interestingly, Ratzinger would turn on his former friend in the 1970s when he was "campaigning for pope." To ingratiate himself with Wotyla (John Paul II), he had Kung's ability to teach as a "Catholic" theologian at "Catholic" institutes of higher learning revoked when Kung refused Ratzinger's order as head of the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith," to change some theological opinions in two books. Ratzinger helped Wotyla seem "consevative" whilst dismantling all that was Catholic from their new sect. Twenty-six years later, he was rewarded by becoming the next  false pope, and he made amends with Kung.

 For those in "conservative"  Vatican II sect circles, the news of Kung's request and Frankie's reply were met by gasps. For those of us Traditionalists, it was no shock that Kung is on the verge of getting all he ever wanted--the final transformation of what is still wrongfully called the "Roman Catholic Church" into a one-world, dogma-free religion.

1. Kung openly admits in 1965 that Vatican II was called to make the Church a neo-Protestant sect

  In the 1965 book-compilation entitled The Great Themes of the Council edited by Fr. Alting von Geusau, Kung wrote one of articles for the collection. The following is a pertinent quote, "The Council was convened by the Holy Father to prepare for reconciliation...the final aim of the Council: reconciliation with the separated Christians... It is also not, as many Christians would desire - especially the Catholics, by tranquilly inviting the others to come to their own Church - as if the others had something for which they needed to be forgiven - or through the conversion of individuals .... or simply by a general reform of customs .... Vatican II saw its mission in a very different way: reconciliation with the separated Christians can only be accomplished by means of a renewal of the Catholic Church herself. " (pgs. 103-105; Emphasis mine). Kung makes clear that there is to be a corporate reunion, not by converting others to the Truth, but by "renewal" (read: "subverting").

2. Kung openly contested papal infallibility as far back as 1970

 In his 1970 book Infallible? An inquiry, Kung asked for the same thing he asked of Frankie this year; "open debate" on the topic by (Modernist) theologians. Ratzinger wrote an article entitled "Contradictions in the Book Infallible by Hans Kung" wherein he appears to defend the dogma. All he did was support change to the dogma, but claimed Kung goes too far (at least in the 1970s). Ratzinger wrote, "I want to emphasize again that I decidedly agree with Kung when he makes a clear distinction between Roman theology (i.e. Scholasticism)  and the Catholic Faith. To free itself from the constraining fetters of Roman Scholastic Theology represents a duty upon which, in my humble opinion, the possibility of the survival of Catholicism seems to depend." (Word in parenthetical mine). What does the True church teach?

"Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non-Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly 'to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,'..." (See Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, paragraph # 18, 1950)

"It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion." (Ibid, para. # 19)

CONDEMNED propositions in Lamentabili Sane by Pope St. Pius X, 1907:

53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.

58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.

65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

  3. In his book The Church, Kung compares believers in the miraculous and approved apparitions to ancient heretics

From the book, "As in Montanism, some post-Tridentine visionaries have been dominated by apocalyptic conceptions (prophecies of an imminent end of the world, a great war, an apocalyptic catastrophe, or the conversion of Russia), which causes in the devotees terror and, at the same time, attraction and fascination. This is one of the reasons for their astonishing success... As in Joachimism, there are mystical numbers and anticipated dates: important events have taken place on the 13th day of the month ....As in Joachimism, a new religious congregation is often considered necessary to spread the ideas according to which .... a specific work of piety (a statue, a devotion, a medal) is considered as important as the Word of God witnessed in Scripture. "
(pgs. 282-283)

 Montanism was a second century heresy, and Joachimism refers to the 13th century monks who were fixated on end of the world prophesy.  While no one needs to believe in apparitions and private revelations, and it is not sinful to do so (unless such rejection stems from contempt for Church authority), Kung denigrates Fatima for being a manifestation of the supernatural, condemning such beautiful practices as the Five First Saturdays as some sort of "superstition" and (in typical Protestant fashion) exalting the Bible above all else.

4. Kung receives an award from Freemasonry

 According to the May 26, 2007 edition of The Tablet, we read on pg. 39, "The architect of the Global Ethic Foundation, the Swiss theologian Hans Kung, has been awarded the German Freemasons' Culture Prize. Grand Master Jens Oberheide said that the ideal of a common, ethical foundation based on human rights and the demand for freedom, equality, and fraternity that underlay Kung's foundation, was also 'fundamental' for Freemasons. Although the Vatican has rejected Freemasonry, Kung said the award was an encouragement and added, 'Hope...accompanies every new beginning."

According to, Kung's Foundation put forth a declaration in 1993 which, " ...was signed by 143 respected leaders from all of the world's major faiths, including the Baha'i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian. The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions offers it to the world as an initial statement of a group of rules for living on which all of the world's religions can agree."

5. Kung contemplates euthanasia 

 According to First Things, "Hans Kung is planning to take his life. Or so he said in an interview last week in the British Catholic weekly, The Tablet. Kung is suffering from Parkinson’s disease, macular degeneration, and polyarthritis in his hands. Determined not to go gentle into that good night, he has apparently decided that he will at some point travel to Switzerland in order to be assisted in committing suicide. His reasoning is threefold: he does not wish to live when there is no quality of life; his life is a gift from God and he intends to give it back to God; and death, like birth, is 'our own responsibility.'

It is perhaps no surprise that someone who has spent a lifetime opposing the teaching of his own church on so many different issues (to the complete confusion of Protestants such as myself, I hasten to add) should choose to end his life in breaking one last church taboo. It is surprising, though, that his reasoning seems so weak. The analogy between birth and death seems entirely inappropriate to the case Kung is trying to make. His birth, after all, was no more his responsibility than my birth was mine. That is not just basic Christian teaching; it is a really rather obvious fact of life.

It would appear, therefore, that his own analogy should mean that his death is not his responsibility either, that there are much wider issues at play. And the language of responsibility and gift seems rather plastic as well: if life is a gift, if it comes to me from another, then my responsibility is not simply to myself, as Kung seems to assume. Indeed, to talk of having responsibility simply to myself is specious anyway. Such is really no responsibility at all, merely egoism scantily clad in the rhetoric of a hollow morality. Responsible only to myself, I am simply going to do exactly what suits me at any given point in time. Kung the radical libertarian: Who would have thought it would come to this?" (See

Herr Kung, now age 88, wants to see the spiritual death of whatever remnants of Catholicism remain in the Vatican II sect before he kills himself to be with Satan, his master. He is one of the most evil men to have ever lived for his work in advancing the Great Apostasy. By removing the dogma of infallibility with the help of Francis, he will have eviscerated the very idea of a Teaching Authority, or Magisterium. There will be no real obstacles left to a world-wide religion when no one can be sure of anything and "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," is the "global ethic." I wonder how many people see the self-contradictory irony in Kung's world where the adage, "There is no immutable, infallible, and unchanging truth," is the only immutable, infallible, and unchanging truth to which he demands that all must submit. 

Monday, May 2, 2016

Prince Of Darkness

 On April 21, 2016, rock/pop star Prince Rogers Nelson died in his Minnesota home at the age of 57. His death was determined to be the result of a drug overdose accompanied by flu-like symptoms. He was better known simply by his first name "Prince"--much like the late Elvis Presley was called "Elvis"--and for a while was known by a symbol with no pronunciation (he called it the "love symbol"), during which time he referred to himself as "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince" or "TAFKAP."  The non-stop adulation and misrepresentation of this creep has angered me beyond words. The last time I ever remember something of this magnitude was when the despicable John Lennon was murdered by the psychotic man Mark David Chapman in December of 1980. Lennon, who promoted drug use, promiscuity, and declared his band "The Beatles" as "more popular than Jesus Christ," was lionized as some ersatz "martyr."

 In this post I will expose Prince for who he really was, not as the world would have us think of him. In less than two weeks, cities across the United States have lit up their buildings, bridges, and towers in purple lights (Prince wore purple and his most well known album and movie is entitled Purple Rain) and his record sales spiked 42,000%  with 2.82 million songs being downloaded between April 15 and April 24. Obama, who couldn't attend Associate Justice Scalia's funeral (or even show up properly attired when speaking of his death) gushed over how great Prince was, and the Republican-led U.S. Senate passed a Resolution honoring him. The Washington Post even describes him as a "conservative Christian!" His music was included in the playlist for the U.S. visits of "Pope" Benedict" (2008) and "Pope" Francis (2015).  Even the Modernist Vatican lauded him; "Cardinal" Ravasi praised him for his musical talent. (By the same logic, I wonder if they would praise Dr. Mengele for his medical talent?).

Below are the facts on Prince Rogers Nelson. Warning! Some explicit language will be used in this exposé. 

His Religious Beliefs
  •  Prince was raised in the Seventh Day Adventist sect, and became a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses sect in 2001.  The Washington Post's "religion reporter," Michelle Boorstein, wrote an article entitled, "Raunchy Prince was actually a conservative Christian who opposed gay marriage." This article is so fraught with errors and cherry-picked quotes, I'm surprised Ms. Boorstein ever graduated high school, let alone college. (See
  • The Watchtower Society (i.e., Jehovah's Witnesses, headquartered in Brooklyn, NYC) is not "Christian" even under the most broad and loose notion of the word. Their novel doctrines include: denial of the Holy Trinity, teaching Jesus Christ is really St. Michael the Archangel, imposing their own purposefully distorted version of the Bible (New World Translation) which supports their views, denial of the human soul, denial of Hell, and salvation through belonging to the Watchtower Society. The "Jesus" of the Watchtower Society is a false "Jesus" (See 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.  For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.")
  • Prince was born with epilepsy and was slight of stature. In a 2009 interview with People magazine, he claimed to have contact with an "angel." He said, "My mother told me one day I walked in to her and said, 'Mom, I'm not going to be sick anymore,' and she said, 'Why?' and I said 'Because an angel told me so.'"
  • His alleged opposition to sodomite marriage stems from his adherence to the Watchtower Society sect. He is alleged to have said in an interview with New Yorker magazine, " God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out," he told the magazine. "He was, like, 'Enough.'" 
  • However, the duplicitous, androgynous Prince came out with the following "clarification" in Rolling Stone magazine, "Prince is reportedly 'very angry' after the New Yorker accused him of making anti-gay marriage comments, with the Purple One alleging that the magazine misquoted him in a recent interview. According to the article, 'When asked about his perspective on social issues — gay marriage, abortion — Prince tapped his Bible and said, 'God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out.' However, a Prince source tells Perez Hilton, "What His Purpleness actually did was gesture to the Bible and said he follows what it teaches, referring mainly to the parts about loving everyone and refraining from judgment."  (Emphasis mine. Also note that Perez Hilton is himself a sodomite.)  In other words, "Who am I to judge?" Sound familiar, Mr. Bergoglio? 
  • Prince intertwines religion and sex, and wants sex to be part of the way "God" is worshiped! The lavender color of the sodomite movement is a form of purple. His album Purple Rain can be interpreted as "Lavender Reign," the victory of the "gay rights" movement, with the androgynous one telling everyone it's OK to "stick it wherever" as long as you "love everyone and refrain from judgement."
His Perverse Music
  • Ms. Boorstein's article in the Washington Post does a good job cherry-picking lyrics to make Prince seem religious. For example, she quotes the lyrics from the song Controversy where he intones the words from the Protestant version of the Our Father: "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses,As we forgive those who trespass against us, Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil, For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever, Controversy, Controversy, Controversy, Controversy, Love him, love him baby"
  • Conveniently left out are the rest of the lyrics, "I just can't believe, All the things people say, controversy, Am I black or white? Am I straight or gay? Controversy...Listen, people call me rude, I wish we all were nude, I wish there was no black and white, I wish there were no rules...Do I believe in God? Do I believe in me? Let me tell ya, Some people wanna die So they can be free, I said life is just a game, We're all just the same, Don't ya wanna play?" This can't seriously be called "Christian," Ms. Boorstein.
  • Boorstein attempts to justify his admitted "raunchiness" by quoting from his 2013 biography entitled, I Would Die 4 U; Why Prince became An Icon, "Prince intended sexuality to be linked to the worship of God, and he filled his music with classic Christian messages" What Prince promotes is some pagan notion of orgy like the Roman Empire of old. The theology he spouts doesn't even hold up to that taught by the Watchtower Society, but he was never "disfellowshipped" (the Watchtower version of excommunication) because of his stature and his big bucks donations. 
  • According to Rolling Stone magazine (1/17/85, pg. 33) in reference to a Prince concert in Detroit, "He [Prince] stripped and climbed into a bathtub. He pounded his pelvis into the floor time and time again." The article then relates how he stroked the neck of his guitar until liquid squirted out simulating an ejaculation. 
  • Further, we are told how Prince leads his crowd through a Sunday School hymn and "our anti-hero went through a Jekyll and Hyde bit at the keyboard, became possessed by devilish sexual temptation and asked God if He'd like to take a bath with him. At which point he ascended a staircase, stripped to his cabellero pants, slid into his tub for a neon green shower..." (See Record of January 1985)
  • During the movie Purple Rain, he slaps, threatens, pushes, and has sex with his object of desire, Apollonia. 
  • His song Sister is about incest. "My sister never made love with anyone but me. Incest is everything it's said to be...Motherf***er can't you understand?"
  • The song Head is about his seduction of a virgin bride, whom he gets to give him oral sex ('head") on her wedding day; "I remember when I met u, baby, You were on your way to be wed, You were such a sexy thing, I loved the way you walked, The things you said, And I was so nonchalant, I didn't want you to be mis-led, But I've gotta have u, baby, I got to have you in my bed, And you said, 'But I'm just a virgin, And I'm on my way to be wed, But you're such a hunk, So full of spunk, I'll give you Head"
  • The song Darling Nikki is about a nymphomaniac, "I knew a girl named Nikki, I guess you could say she was a sex fiend, I met her in a hotel lobby, Masturbating with a magazine, She said how'd you like to waste some time, And I could not resist when I saw little Nikki grind"
  • His "love symbol" is really an ankh, an ancient Egyptian pagan symbol for fertility and reincarnation. The second cross beam just above the pointed "devil tail" is known as the "inverted cross," used by occultists to deny and mock the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Summary and Conclusion

  • The adulation of Prince Rodger Nelson is just another example of how the world doesn't know what true Christianity really is, wanting people to believe that anyone who talks about Jesus is thereby "Christian." Remember Christ said, "Not everyone who saith to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in Heaven." (St. Matthew 7:21).
  • The Watchtower Society cannot be considered "Christian" even in the broadest sense. The sect even overlooks Prince's immorality in return for his money.
  • In our pagan culture, the media relishes the opportunity to express in effect, "Christians (sic) are just like the secular world."
  • How the Modernist Vatican could say anything positive about this man is a sick joke. He misused his musical talent to lead souls to Hell. I guess Frankie admires that in him.
  • It is true that we can't know for certain who is in Hell except for Our Lord's traitor, Judas Iscariot. Is it possible that by some miracle of God's Grace, he converted in the last minutes or seconds of his life and was saved from Hell? Possible, yes. However, we judge a person on what we know of their actions, not from rare possibilities. Even if he were saved by a miracle, his life is worthy of condemnation, not emulation.
That all of this evil is being overlooked, and the man praised, is a clear sign the times are more wicked than ever (and will get worse) since the Great Apostasy of Vatican II. In his song When Doves Cry, Prince croons, "Maybe I'm just like my father..." Yes, Mr. Nelson, I think you are. You lived the life of the "Prince of Deception," a spiritual son of the Father of Lies.