Monday, July 30, 2018

Una Cum: A Real Theologian Weighs In


To my readers:
Last July, I published a post entitled Una Cum, which dealt with the huge controversy regarding Traditional Masses, offered by valid Traditionalist priests who are not in union with Bergoglio, but nevertheless name him in the Canon of the Mass. It is my opinion that they are lawful to attend if no sedevacantist Mass is available. My post may be read here: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/07/una-cum.html. 

Fr. Cekada, who tells people that they cannot attend such Una Cum Masses under pain of mortal sin excoriated me, See: http://www.fathercekada.com/2017/09/20/some-questions-on-una-cum-masses/. He also addressed my rebuttal to him in my September 25th post (which is linked in the article I just cited). The Una Cum is so horrible (he assures us):


  • It's wrong to make a visit to the Blessed Sacrament while such a Mass is being offered
  • You can't receive Holy Viaticum  if it were consecrated during such a Mass
  • It's OK to go to Confession where an Una Cum Mass is offered, provided it would not create a scandal

Just as his whole line of argumentation about the Pain Holy Week Rites is wrong, this error is so egregious it defies belief. He is creating a huge problem by troubling the consciences of the Faithful to the point that they are told that they must forego Viaticum on their deathbed if an SSPX priest consecrated It at an Una Cum Mass!  Here we have more pontificating on an issue by someone without Magisterial authority on a disputed point of theology. Since I dealt with defending Pope Pius XII and his Holy Week Rites last week, I'll tackle Una Cum by using a real approved theologian. 

Fr. Cekada ends his brief tirade against me and Una Cum by assuring his readers, "And so here we are, ten years after my original article, and despite all the squawking, no one has yet been able to make a credible and coherent case against my arguments." 

I have often stated that I'm not a theologian, or a canonist (as was my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD) and that my opinion is not binding on anyone. I have no Magisterial authority, and people who feel they cannot attend a so-called Una Cum Francisco Mass under any condition, should follow their conscience. Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan, on the other hand, would like us to think  they are theologians and canonists (they are neither), and they pontificate on what constitutes mortal sin on disputed issues when they have no more Magisterial authority than do I. They forget the dictum of St. Augustine, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." Bp. Dolan and Fr. Cekada turn a non-essential into an essential, and they often lack charity, when clerics should lead the way. I think Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan have done much good, but they must be called out when they are wrong. 

Thanks to one of my readers, I will publish below this little gem, written by a real pre-Vatican II theologian who addresses the "Una Cum" issue: Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM, STD. Fr. Stepanich was born in Kansas in 1915. Baptized "Francis," he was to become a "son" of St. Francis on September 2, 1934 and was ordained a Franciscan priest in 1941. He obtained his doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) pre-Vatican II and was a seminary professor. Fr. Stepanich was an open sedevacantist. He left this world on November 18, 2012. Here is what a real theologian has to say on this issue! It is longer than my usual posts, but quite good and necessary to allay consciences needlessly disturbed. At the end, I add the pertinent part of a letter Fr. Stepanich addressed to Bishop Dolan on September 30, 2008. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there has been no response from Bishop Dolan or Fr. Cekada. Fr. Cekada called his first article against the Una Cum, "The Grain of Incense" available to read online here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/SedesUnCum.pdf  After reading what theologian Stepanich has to say, we may all want to take what Fr. Cekada writes with a Grain of Salt.---Introibo.

Attendance at “Una Cum Benedicto”
Tridentine Latin Masses
By Fr. Martin Stepanich, OFM, STD

Our Lord’s “Little Flock” of today’s genuine traditional Catholics, scattered about as it is in various places, has the distinction of preserving intact the Tridentine Latin Mass as it was put before the Catholic world by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, in response to a directive of the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1545-1563). In his Quo Primum decree of July 19, 1570, the Holy Father declared that his objective was to "restore," as he worded it, the ancient "norm and rite of the Mass of the Fathers" – that is, the norm and rite of the Latin Mass as it was offered by popes and bishops and priests since the early years of the Church’s existence.

 A strange development of these distressing Vatican II times is the fact that the Tridentine Latin Mass is now being offered by bishops and priests of two conflicting groups. One groups of today’s truly traditional bishops and priests offering the Tridentine Latin Mass leaves out completely the name of any pope from the una cum phrase that comes up towards the end of the Te Igitur prayer with which the Canon of the Tridentine Mass begins. Those who use hand missals, such as Father Lasance’s missal or St. Andrew’s missal, will know right away just where the una cum phrase comes up in the Mass, and will know what it means.

 The other group, on the contrary, does the un-traditional and decidedly un-Catholic thing of inserting into the una cum phrase the name of the current modernist occupier of Peter’s Papal Chair (called also the Holy See). At this time, it is the name of modernist Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) that is added to the una cum phrase, making it an una cum Benedicto phrase. The full wording of that phrase, as it is given in the altar missal used by the priest, is una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N.—that is, "together with Thy servant, our Pope, N." Before Benedict, it had been the name of Modernist John Paul (Wojtyla) that was put into the una cum phrase for some almost endless 25 years, and before him it was Modernist Paul (Montini) and Modernist John (Roncalli).

 Both groups are really sedevacantist in regard to the vacancy of the Holy See that is caused by the death of a true Catholic pope, or by a pope’s resignation (which did happen once, many centuries ago). But the vacancy issue that divides the two groups today is the vacancy of Peter’s Chair that is brought about by Modernist claimants and occupiers of that Chair who have not been professing nor practicing the traditional and unchangeable Catholic Faith for practically the past 50 years, and who therefore did not really belong on the Papal Chair of infallible truth and supreme authority.

 Benedict XVI (b16), the present illegitimate occupier of Peter’s Chair, plainly does not profess nor teach nor defend the complete and unchanged traditional Catholic Faith. In fact, his brand of supposedly "Catholic" religion is a mixture of religions. As the whole world has been able to see, B16 has been boldly and brazenly associating and collaborating with leaders of other religions in their kind of man-made religious performances, in open contradiction to the one and only true Christian religion established by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

 A man like that cannot possibly be a true Catholic pope, nor can he be honestly addressed as "The Holy Father." He is not even a genuine Catholic. And that means that the Chair of Peter is in reality vacant, even with B16 all dressed up as a pope occupying it. That is what is meant by that word "sedevacantism" which is used so much today—that is, the vacancy caused by a no-pope illegitimately occupying the Papal Chair.

 The first of the two groups mentioned above includes, for example, the famed "Legendary Nine," that is the nine priests dismissed from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) by Archbishop Lefebvre long ago, with some of those priests now being bishops. That first group includes also those of the so-called "Thuc line" (after Archbishop Thuc), as well as those of the Spokane-based CMRI—plus others, including even some lone Franciscans.

 The second group includes mainly, but not only, those of the SSPX, such as it is today, that is, a mixed confusion of ant-sedevacantism, inasmuch as it mistakenly and stubbornly looks upon B16 as being a legitimate occupier of Peter’s Chair, and at the same time of sedevacantism, inasmuch as it stubbornly persists in disobeying B16 in refusing to go along with all of his aberrations – as if telling him that, for them, he is not really the pope, and therefore, the Papal Chair is really vacant.

 Such being the confused and confusing situation facing today’s traditional Catholics, they are in the perplexing position of being obliged to decide whether it is ever lawful for them to attend the otherwise valid Tridentine Latin Masses of the SSPX, despite the presence of no-pope religion-mixer B16’s name in the Canon of those Masses. There are variations of understanding and practice among sedevacantist traditional Catholics as to the lawfulness of them attending una cum Benedicto Masses.

 Many traditional Catholics are fortunate enough—Deo gratias!—to be living within reachable distance of a sedevacantist church, or Mass location, where they can always attend a Benedicto-free Tridentine Latin Mass. However, if for some serious reason or other they are unable to get to their own usual sedevacantist church on a given Sunday (for example, because of bad weather conditions), yet are able to get to a near-by anti-sedevacantist SSPX church featuring the una cum Benedicto Mass, some of them will decide simply to stay home, not wanting to be part of such a Mass.

 Others among them, on the contrary, decide to go anyway to an SSPX una cum Benedicto valid Tridentine Latin Mass figuring that in such a case they surely would be justified in so doing provided that they do not consent to the priest adding the name of B16 to the una cum phrase. And then there are still others in whose region or country there is no B16-free Tridentine Latin Mass at all to go to, while there is an SSPX una cum Benedicto Mass within reach. They, too, would believe that they are justified in attending such a validly offered Mass, as long as they do not approve of the priest giving honorable mention in the Mass to a false pope.

Which is the right decision for sedevacantist traditional Catholics to make on this puzzling headache issue? Is it, as some believe, never lawful to attend any una cum Benedicto Mass for any reason whatsoever, no matter how valid and Catholic it may otherwise be? Does the name of a false pope in the Canon of the Mass so vitiate the Mass that it is unfit to be attended by conscientious traditional Catholics? Are the act of offering the Mass by the priest and his act of naming a false pope so closely bound up together that the Mass cannot be spiritually beneficial to those attending the Mass if the name of a false pope is included in the prayers of the Mass? Does the very presence of traditional Catholics at an una cum Benedicto Mass automatically an unavoidably mean that they ratify and consent to the naming of B16 in the Mass?

 We naturally had to wonder if there is some kind of teaching of popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times that would help clear up things for us on that thorny una cum Benedicto issue. A determined and well-meaning attempt to settle things on that issue has indeed been made, although the purpose was decidedly  one-sided, inasmuch as the idea was to prove that in no way could traditional Catholics ever lawfully attend una cum Benedicto Masses. Research, described as "exhaustive research," has come with the statement that "various popes and pre-Vatican II theologians taught that the laity who assist actively at mass, in so doing manifest their consent and moral cooperation with the priest as he offers the Sacrifice," but also to his adding of the name of B16 to the Canon of the Mass.

 However, it is as plain as could be that there is no indication whatsoever, in the above quote, that the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians referred to gave any thought at all to Masses with the name of a false pope in the una cum phrase of the Canon. They undoubtedly had in mind the kind of Mass they knew, that is, the traditional Latin Mass of the ages, not anything like the una cum Benedicto Masses that we know today.

 The unquestionable fact is that the popes and theologians of pre-Vatican II times did not see with their own eyes the Modernist popes promoting a plainly new un-Catholic religion, the way we have been doing, nor did they hear with their own ears the false teaching of modernist popes and theologians, nor did they ever get to read their modernist un-Catholic writings. So they did not have occasion to warn against, and condemn, Masses like the una cum Benedicto Masses that today’s traditional theologians, as well as informed lay Catholics, have been obliged to condemn repeatedly in these Vatican II times. Pre-Vatican II popes and theologians did not address the una cum Benedicto Mass issue, of which they knew nothing first hand the way we have known it.

If we try to use the words of popes and pre-Vatican II theologians, as already quoted above, and make them say that attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses is always absolutely forbidden under any and all circumstances, it is we who are really doing that kind of forbidding, not the popes and the pre-Vatican II theologians. Just try to find anything in the popes and pre-Vatican II theologians that totally and absolutely forbids any and all attendance at una cum Benedicto Masses by traditional sedevacantist Catholics. It just isn’t there! (Emphasis mine---Introibo)

 A second quote, resulting from the aforementioned "exhaustive research," tells us that "the Fathers of the Church, as well as Pope Pius XII, in his Encyclical Mediator Dei, teach specifically that the faithful who actively assist at Mass ratify, assent to, and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites."
What that second quote really does is to stress the fact that the faithful attending Mass are not there merely as spectators watching the priest perform at the altar. No, they are present at Mass to unite themselves with the priest in heart and mind and intention as he offers the Sacrifice. It is not enough for the faithful to be there at Mass only bodily, while maybe saying prayers of their own that have no connection with the Mass.

The faithful attending Mass are there as one with the priest, so that the Mass is being offered by the priest and the faithful together. The priest alone has the power to offer the Mass and to consecrate, but the faithful unite themselves with the priest, as he offers the Mass, though not as he consecrates. The idea that the faithful as closely united with the priest in the offering of the Mass runs all through the various prayers of the Sacrifice. For example, "offerimus," that is, "we offer" – also, "pray that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable before God the Father Almighty."

 And that is the issue which the second quote given above really addresses –that is, the issue of the union of the attending faithful with the offering priest. And that is why that second quote says that the faithful "ratify, assent to and participate in the prayers of the Canon that the priest recites." Those prayers of the Canon which the Fathers and Pius XII, were undoubtedly referring to were the traditional fully Catholic prayers of the Mass as they were always recited before Vatican II, without any false pope’s name being mixed into the prayers. The Fathers and Pius XII, as well as the pre-Vatican II theologians, did not have occasion to warn about attendance at Masses giving recognition to a false pope. They did not address an issue like that because such an issue did not as yet exist.

 Even if we recognize the fact that sedevacantist traditional Catholics definitely can, for the right reason and with the right attitude, lawfully attend valid SSPX una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses by not consenting to the naming of the pope-pretender B16 in the Canon, we may still have reason to advise caution if we see that some may have the reckless and careless notion that the priest can say what he wants in the prayers of the Mass, just so they have a valid Mass to attend. Such an attitude is inexcusable.

A very disturbing thing about attendance at una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses is the fact that it is an awful sin to give honorable mention in the Holy Sacrifice to a false pope. To put it bluntly, it is a mortal sin—that is, in itself, considered objectively, it is plainly mortally sinful. To what extent SSPX and other priests naming a false pope in the Canon of the Mass are subjectively guilty before God —that is consciously and knowingly—that is something that only God can judge accurately and correctly.

But even though it is in itself and objectively mortally sinful for a priest to add the name of a non-pope to the una cum phrase of the Canon, that mortally sinful action can in no way change the nature of the Sacrifice itself, nor nullify its validity, nor lesson its spiritual value for those attending it.

The situation created by naming a false pope in the Mass has been called a "mortal sin situation." It helps to understand how we should look upon such a "mortal sin situation" if we consider the fact that in this sinful world we are constantly running into "mortal sin situations." We do so, for example, just by living with mortal sinners, maybe even in our own family circles; or, in dealing with and cooperating with such sinners at work or play or leisure; or, in business deals, in shopping in stores whose owners and managers approve of and promote, for example, abortion and sodomy and other evils; or, owners who are part of some evil secret society. Even such a thing as having to go through store check-outs displaying all those raw flesh mortal sin magazines is plainly an unavoidable "mortal sin situation." And how could we possibly avoid all the ubiquitous raw flesh mortal sin creatures that infest just about every place on earth, sparing not even Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament?

What we cannot fail to understand is that being unavoidably caught in a "mortal sin situation" does not mean that we necessarily "ratify, assent to, and participate in" the mortal sins in question. Similarly,neither are traditional Catholics automatically and necessarily and unavoidably guilty of "ratifying, assenting to, and participating in” the mortal sin of naming a false pope in otherwise valid una cum Benedicto Tridentine Latin Masses, if they attend such Masses for a justifiable reason and with the right attitude of mind. (Emphasis mine). 

 Some might wonder what happens to the two words, una cum ("together with") when there is no pope to be named in the una cum phrase. The truth is that those two words are still needed for mentioning the name of the bishop of the diocese in which the priest is offering Mass. Thus: una cum antistite nostro, N. (That is, "together with our bishop, N."). When Pope Pius XII died in 1958, priests living in the Chicago Archdiocese still had to say when offering Mass, una cum... antistite nostro Alberto (That is,"together with… our Bishop Albert," meaning Albert Meyer, later Cardinal Meyer).

And when there is neither pope nor bishop to be named in the una cum phrase—whether because of death or apostasy from the true catholic Faith—those two una cum words are still needed for mentioning all the faithful in general at the end of the Te Igitur prayer with which the Canon of the Mass begins. Those using missals at Mass will know that the Te Igitur prayer ends up with these words: una cum …orthodoxis, atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei cultoribus (that is:"together with … all who are orthodox in belief and who profess the Catholic and Apostolic Faith").

Those who have been thoughtlessly and carelessly making it look as if all una cum Masses are objectionable, and are to be avoided, had better get things straight, and finally tell their hearers and readers that it is the una cum Benedicto Masses that are objectionable, and are normally to be avoided, not the una cum Masses. (Emphasis mine---Introibo)

 The plain fact is that all Tridentine Latin Masses are una cum Masses. All of my over 24,000 Tridentine Latin Masses offered since May of 1941, the month and year of my ordination, have been una cum Masses. None of them were Novus Ordo performances. For that a jubilant Deo gratias!!!

Excerpt from the Letter of Fr. Stepanich to Bishop Dolan
"If, as some wrongly advise you to do, you believe that traditional Catholics should avoid absolutely all Tridentine Latin Masses (like those, for example, of most, if not all, SSPX priests) in which the priest inexcusably adds the name of the scandalous religion-mixer, Benedict XVI Ratzinger, to the words una cum in the Te Igitur prayer at the beginning of the Canon of the Tridentine Latin Mass, you are not following sound advice, even though coming from those who have supposedly "exhaustively researched and studied the question of una cum Masses," but without coming to the correct conclusion.

 One thing we must not fail to realize is that Tridentine Latin Masses offered with the insertion of Benedicto after una cum are not in any way vitiated as to their validity and liceity, as well as to their fruitfulness for those attending such Masses. And such Masses can in no way be honestly called "One World Church" Masses. That derogatory term applies to Novus Ordo performances, but never to Tridentine Latin Masses, not even to those with the word Benedicto added to the una cum.

The priest offering a valid Tridentine Latin Mass who adds the word Benedicto to the una cum is, of course, seriously mistaken, whether he realizes it or not. What he does is objectively, in itself, seriously sinful, even if subjectively, in his own mind, he mistakenly thinks he is doing the right thing.

 As for traditional Catholics who attend such una cum Benedicto Masses, because they have no other Tridentine Latin Mass within reasonable distance to go to, they must never approve of the priest adding
Benedicto to una cum, nor may they be indifferent about the priest doing so, nor may they ever get the idea that it really makes no difference whether they go to a St. Gertrude Church type of una cum Mass or to an
SSPX church type of such a Mass, in which Benedicto is added to the una cum.

And let it be clearly understood that, if we concede that traditional Catholics, with no other Mass available to go to than an SSPX una cum Benedicto Mass, may lawfully go to such an SSPX Mass for the sake of the graces needed and desired, we by no means concede that they may also get involved with in any and all SSPX activities that take place in a "B16 is pope" atmosphere. We concede only that, by way of exception, they may legitimately choose to go to SSPX una cum Benedicto Masses instead of being obliged to stay home as home-aloners. But once they are able to go again to the kind of una cum Masses that are offered at true traditional churches, they must stop going to the una cum Benedicto Masses altogether. They must never forget that the name of a pope-pretender, such as the name of the religion-mixer B16, cannot lawfully be given the honorable place reserved only for the names of true Catholic popes after the words una cum at the beginning of the Canon of the Tridentine Latin Mass.

 Let us repeat once again, and as often as necessary, that a priest who, whether knowingly or supposedly innocent ignorance, adds Benedicto to the words of the una cum in his offering of the Tridentine Latin Mass does not and cannot, ruin the inherent value and fruitfulness of that Mass, which retains all its God-given holiness, whether the priest is in a state of grace or in the state of mortal sin. We have known from time immemorial that there have been priests who, most unfortunately, have been in the state of mortal sin while offering Holy Mass, yet their lack of personal holiness has not destroyed the infinite holiness of their Masses.

 You surely must remember that Canon 2261, of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, clearly states that "the Faithful may, for any just reason, ask for the sacraments and sacramentals from an excommunicated person…" As you can readily understand, a priest who knowingly and willfully adds the name Benedicto to
the una cum prayer of the Canon of the Mass, while fully aware that religion-mixer B16 cannot possibly be
a true Catholic pope, must certainly be ipso facto excommunicated. And you know that, by Church law, the
faithful may lawfully attend his Masses and receive Communion from his excommunicated hand."

Pax et Bonum,
(signed)
Father Martin St├ępanich, OFM, STD

Monday, July 23, 2018

In Defense Of Pope Pius XII


 The last pope before the Great Apostasy, His Holiness Pope Pius XII, is one of the most unfairly attacked pontiffs, especially among those purporting to be "Traditionalists." Coming into the world March 2, 1876, Eugene Pacelli was born into a family of devout Catholics. He felt called to the priesthood, and on Easter Sunday, April 2, 1899, he was ordained. Incredibly intelligent, young Father Pacelli received his doctorate in theology in 1904, being just 28 years old. His mentor was the great Cardinal Gasparri, whom he helped with the codification of Church Law, promulgated in 1917 by Pope Benedict XV as the Code of Canon Law. He also was good friends with Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val, the "power behind the throne" of Pope St. Pius X. It was Cardinal Merry del Val who helped drive Pope St. Pius X's attack on Modernism. If we had a real pope, I'm confident the holy and erudite Cardinal would have an "St." in front of his name.

On May 13, 1917, the same day the Blessed Virgin appeared at Fatima, 41 year old Father Pacelli was consecrated a bishop at the Sistine Chapel by His Holiness Pope Benedict XV, who had appointed him as nuncio to Bavaria. On December 16, 1929, Pope Pius XI gave Bp. Pacelli the Cardinal's hat, and in February of 1930--a mere two months later--promoted him to Vatican Secretary of State. This appointment made Cardinal Pacelli one of the two most powerful men in the Church after the pope himself (the other powerful position is Pro-Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office).

Pope Pius XI died on February 10, 1939. In the conclave that followed, Cardinal Pacelli was elected Supreme Pontiff on his 63rd birthday, after the third ballot. He took the name Pope Pius XII in honor of his immediate predecessor who had named him both cardinal and Secretary of State. Pope Pius had his solemn coronation ten days later, on March 12th. As the three-fold tiara of the papacy was placed on his head, he took seriously the words that were spoken for centuries: "Receive ye this tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art the Father of Princes and Kings, Pastor of the Universe, and Vicar on Earth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom belongs all glory, world without end." His papacy was tumultuous, and lasted 19 years, 7 months, and 7 days until he went to Judgement on October 9, 1958. In this post, I will not be defending Pope Pius against the asinine attacks of those who claim he didn't "do enough to save the Jews," or that he was "Hitler's Pope," and other rank calumnies. There is enough literature out there that puts such lies to shame.

The purpose of my post will be to outline his many shining achievements, and expel the charges of those, from Vacancy Pushers (those who "push the time of the papal vacancy" before Roncalli), to the simply misguided, who believe that Pope Pius XII was "responsible" for the Great Apostasy, or allegedly promulgated "harmful changes" such as the mitigated Eucharistic Fast, and the New Rites of Holy Week.

Pastor Angelicus

 Pope Pius XII is sometimes thought to be the "Angelic Pastor" spoken of by the so-called "Prophesies of St. Malachy" regarding the popes. The so-called prophesies have no Magisterial approval, but have been influential in some "conservative" Vatican II sect circles. Nevertheless, the title for "Papa Pacelli" is most fitting. Here is a run down of some major theological accomplishments.

1. A True Marian Pope.
As a priest, the future pope celebrated his First Mass on April 3, 1899, at the altar of the icon of The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, under her title Salus Populi Romani in the Basilica of St. Mary Major. As previously written, he was consecrated a bishop the same day the Blessed Mother appeared at Fatima. As Pope, in 1940, he approved the Fatima apparitions as "worthy of belief," and in 1942, consecrated the entire world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. (I refuse to get bogged down in argumentation over the "true meanings" of private revelations, and therefore will not argue with those whom assert he should have specifically consecrated Russia, as was the hallmark of "Fr." Gruner). 

Pope Pius XII claimed to have seen the "Miracle of the Sun" no less than four times. According to the Fatima visionaries, Mary had said there would be a miracle October 13, 1917, so that people would come to believe. Thousands had gathered at the site of the visions, and the sun "danced," reportedly drying instantaneously the rain-soaked land and spectators. Pius XII wrote, "I have seen the 'miracle of the sun,' this is the pure truth." 

The papal note says that at 4 p.m. on Oct. 30, 1950, during his "habitual walk in the Vatican Gardens, reading and studying," having arrived to the statue of Our Lady of Lourdes, "toward the top of the hill […] I was awestruck by a phenomenon that before now I had never seen."

"The sun, which was still quite high, looked like a pale, opaque sphere, entirely surrounded by a luminous circle,” he recounted. And one could look at the sun, "without the slightest bother. There was a very light little cloud in front of it."

The Holy Father’s note goes on to describe "the opaque sphere" that "moved outward slightly, either spinning, or moving from left to right and vice versa. But within the sphere, you could see marked movements with total clarity and without interruption." (See https://zenit.org/articles/pius-xii-saw-miracle-of-the-sun/)

For Pius, this served as a confirmation of one of his greatest acts as pope. On November 1, 1950, wearing the papal tiara and invoking his Supreme Apostolic Authority as infallible teacher of all Christians, he declared ex cathedra the dogma of the Assumption. The Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus declares:

 "For which reason, after We have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God Who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

The text of the Apostolic Constitution was drafted by the eminent theologian, Fr. Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers, one of the first sedevacantists, who was consecrated a bishop in 1981 by Archbishop Thuc.

2. Foe of Communism.  Pius was doggedly anti-Communist. On July 1, 1949, the Holy Office published a decree, approved by His Holiness, declaring any Catholics who became Communists as apostates.

DECREE OF THE HOLY OFFICE
FORMULATED BY PIUS XII
JULY 1, 1949


This Sacred Supreme Congregation has been asked:
1. whether it is lawful to join Communist Parties or to favor them;

2. whether it is lawful to publish, disseminate, or read books, periodicals, newspapers or leaflets which support the teaching or action of Communists, or to write in them;

3. whether the faithful who knowingly and freely perform the acts specified in questions 1 and 2 may be admitted to the Sacraments;

4. whether the faithful who profess the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the Communists, and particularly those who defend or propagate this doctrine, contract ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See as apostates from the Catholic faith.

The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Fathers entrusted with the supervision of matters concerning the safeguarding of Faith and morals, having previously heard the opinion of the Reverend Lords Consultors, decreed in the plenary session held on Tuesday (instead of Wednesday), June 28, 1949, that the answers should be as follows:

To 1. in the negative: because Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian; and the leaders of the Communists, although they sometimes profess in words that they do not oppose religion, do in fact show themselves, both in their teaching and in their actions, to be the enemies of God, of the true religion and of the Church of Christ;

to 2. in the negative: they are prohibited ipso iure (cf. Can. 1399 of the Codex Iuris Canonici);

to 3. in the negative, in accordance with the ordinary principles concerning the refusal of the Sacraments to those who are not disposed;

to 4. in the affirmative.
And the following Thursday, on the 30th day of the same month and year, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, Pope by the Divine Providence, in the ordinary audience, granted to the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Assessor of the Sacred Office, approved of the decision of the Most Eminent Fathers which had been reported to Him, and ordered the same to be promulgated officially in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
Given at Rome, on July 1st, 1949.

(Signed) Petrus Vigorita,

Notary of the Sacred Supreme Congregation
of the Holy Office.

A further dubium ( a question answered) dated April 4, 1959 from the Holy Office made the provisions of the 1949 Decree more specific, stating that it implied a prohibition on voting for parties that were helping Communists, even if such parties themselves had inoffensive doctrines or even called themselves "Christian."

3. Pope Condemning Modern Errors. 
One of the greatest encyclicals of the 20th century was Humani generis "concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine" which was promulgated August 12, 1950. It was drafted by the Dominican theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. Its salient points include:

  • Encyclicals usually speak to matters already expounded upon in doctrine; however, should the Pope pass supreme judgment on a disputed matter, it should be considered closed for discussion.
  • Divine revelation was given by God as guidance for the Church to exercise her living teaching authority, not for private deterministic interpretation.
  • Some dispute the divine authorship of Scripture in part or in whole and interpret it on the basis of exegesis, looking for hidden meanings, instead of on the Church’s teachings.
  • They claim that a new exegesis of the Old Testament would replace literal difficulties with symbolic/spiritual truth.
  • Their claims oppose the norms of interpretation explained in previous encyclicals.
  • Doubt regarding revealed truths is a result of this way of thinking. (e.g. Creation out of love, God’s eternal foreknowledge of men’s free choices, etc.)
  • Angels, essence, the supernatural order, original sin, sin in general, the efficacy of Christ’s sarifice, and the Real Presence or all debated.
  • The necessity and value of the Church and the faith itself is questioned.
  • These errors are being pointed out herein because some Catholic theologians are committing them and are hereby censured.
  • The Church relies on reason to understand the faith, God’s law, the mysteries, and even the existence of God. Reason comes with training and leads to truth.
  • Teaching Authority only covers matters of faith and morals. "New" truth cannot overturn established truth, but it can correct errors.
  • Priests must learn philosophy and Aquinas’ method is tried and true.
  • Opponents claim that the traditional philosophy used by the Church is adequate for basic instruction but not for practical application, and that all other philosophies, albeit evolving, are ultimately compatible with Catholicism.
  • They claim that the Church’s philosophy appeals to intellect and ignores the will and emotions; however, this is clearly and historically false, for the Church teaches that the will can see truth beyond what the intellect can deduce on its own.
  • Theodicy and ethics (philosophical sciences) are threatened by these new opinions. Not only are they themselves debased, but so is the protection provided by the Church’s Teaching Authority.
  • Discussion of theories not yet proven scientifically but merely hypothesized must follow. Theories can only be considered if they do not oppose Church teaching.
  • Human evolution (origin of man from pre-existent and living matter) is up for discussion, but cannot contradict that God is the immediate creator of souls.
  • Polygenism (origin from two or more distinct ancestors) is irreconcilable with the doctrine of original sin.
  • The first eleven chapters of Genesis may not fit the modern concept of history, but any inclusion of folklore was done under divine inspiration.
  • Thus, these are not imaginative myths but expressions of truth. Ancient sacred authors were clearly superior to secular ("profane") authors of the same period.

Thus while condemning the modern errors, Pope Pius was careful to allow discussion on evolution of the body of humans, and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis in certain instances (which idea was advanced by Pope St. Pius X).

4. Pope who developed the traditional and correct ecclesiology and also defended the Mass. 
In his great encyclical Mystici Corporis (1943), His Holiness taught that the One True Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on Earth. It made clear that the Church of Christ is not a mere collection of believers (as taught by Protestants), but is identical to the Roman Catholic Church. This teaching would be repudiated for "the People of God" false ecclesiology at Vatican II, whereby the Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church, but merely "subsists" there in its fullness, yet can be found in false sects as well.

In Mediator Dei, Pius, as if seeing the year 1969 and the Novus Bogus "mass," he condemns those who, under the guise of "returning to old ways," would make unlawful and radical changes to the Mass in these words:

"But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table-form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See." (para. #62; Emphasis mine).

5. The "greatest act of my papacy." Near his death, when Pope Pius reflected upon all he had done, he considered one act to be "the greatest act" of his papacy. What was this act to which he referred? On May 29, 1954 when he canonized his predecessor Pope Pius X, and enrolled the "Foe of Modernism" among the saints of the Church!

Unjust Criticisms
With all the great things this pope did, how could he be so harshly criticized? He was a theologian who looked up to, and surrounded himself with, Anti-Modernists. I will list the criticisms I hear most often, and devote a separate section to the revised Rites of Holy Week. 

  • Pope Pius was "soft on Modernism." It is claimed he didn't clamp down on Modernist theologians as he should have done, and promoted heretics such as Roncalli and Montini. First, there is nothing that protects a pope from making poor choices in whom he elevates to Cardinal or appoints as a bishop. While Montini and Roncalli were "suspect of Modernism," the word "suspect" means just that--not yet guilt. His confessor, Cardinal Bea, may have convinced him they were rehabilitated. Bea was a real snake in the grass; a closet Modernist no one suspected until he came out at Vatican II. Has not (unfortunately) almost everyone been betrayed by a trusted family member or friend? Does that somehow cast doubts on your character? Did Pius make poor choices in appointments? Objectively, yes, but subjectively we don't know all the reasons. It's another case of playing "Monday morning quarterback." The calumny that Pius knew certain facts about clergy and deliberately elevated them is on the same level as the Jews who scream that he knowingly and willingly helped Hitler.
  • Pope Pius "praised the Masonic United Nations." Actually, he enunciated (in 1953) the sound principle that should guide such a body: "Within the limits of the possible and the lawful, to promote everything that facilitates union and makes it more effective; to raise dykes against anything that disturbs it; to tolerate at times that which it is impossible to correct, but which, on the other hand, must not be permitted to make shipwreck of the community of peoples, because of the higher good that is expected from it." The detractors of His Holiness never mention this, or the fact he never "praised" Masonry or Masonic ideals. 
  • Pope Pius modified the Eucharistic fast. Yes, he did, and (a) he had every right to do so as Supreme Legislator, and (b) there was good reason for it. With the increasing secularization of the world, people had to work on Holy Days of Obligation, and sometimes on Sundays (police officers, doctors in hospitals, etc.) with it being harder and harder to take off and make ends meet for their families. They had to miss Mass and say an extra Rosary that night and/or read devoutly from the missal. Pope Pius therefore allowed evening Masses. The ancient fast began at midnight. If I'm working and the Traditionalist Chapel near me has an 8pm Mass, I would need to go over twenty (20) hours without food. Many people due to infirmity, old age, or the need to keep their strength for work (especially in manual labor) would not be able to do it. They would have to go to Mass and abstain from Communion, or risk their health and job performance. With his decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus (1905), Pope St. Pius X encouraged frequent Holy Communion, not as a reward for the just but as the antidote to sin. The Saint said, "Holy Communion is the shortest and safest way to Heaven." By mitigating the fast to three hours before Communion (water and medicine don't break the fast and may be taken at any time), Pope Pius XII was ensuring the will of His Predecessor was continued. I agree with some of my readers who say that, if you can do so without harm to your health or occupation, the midnight fast should be voluntarily kept as penance. Those who cannot do so (such as my now deceased mother who was sickly most of her life), should not be the least afraid to avail themselves of the modified fast. 
  • Pope Pius changed some feast days and made some changes in the Mass rubrics. As I stated above, yes, he did, and he had every right to do so as Supreme Legislator. He instituted the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (August 22) and The Queenship of Mary (May 31). On May 1st, the day used by Communists as "May Day" to show the might of Marxism, Pope Pius made it the feast of St. Joseph the Workman. Here he clearly shows the proper understanding of labor exemplified by St. Joseph as opposed to the evil system of Karl Marx. With Cum hac nostra aetate (March 23, 1955), he slightly changed the rankings of feasts, eliminated some octaves and suppressed the Proper Last Gospels for the usual Last Gospel of St. John.  
None of the above makes him a promoter of heresy or evil. The following section deals with the most controversial aspect of his papacy---only controversial, I may add, after Vatican II and complained of by some Traditionalists---the Reformed Rite of Holy Week. 

The New Rites of Holy Week

 On Novenber 19, 1955, Pope Pius XII issued the decree Maxima Redemptionis, for a Revised Rite of Holy Week to take effect in 1956. (In 1951, the Vigil of Easter on Holy Saturday was altered experimentally, and made official in 1956). There are some Traditionalist clergy who hold the Revised Rites are obligatory. Still others hold that the Rites have ceased to bind because they have become "noxious" over time in a way Pope Pius XII could not have foreseen. They use the pre-Pius XII Rites. As I have no Magisterial authority, and I am not a theologian, I can not settle the issue. What all agree about, as do I, is that the reforms of Pope Pius XII are just as good and Catholic as the former Holy Week. Do the reformed Rites cease to bind? Not for the reasons given by those who reject them. I do believe a case can be made for using the older Rites. I have attended both with no problem. I prefer the older Rites, but that's all it is--a preference. So while I think a case can be made that the older Rites can be used, I believe the stronger arguments are on the side of those who use the Reformed Rites as obligatory. I will set forth my reasons below.

1. The Rites were promulgated by a True Pope. No Traditionalist clergy denies the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII. Some Traditionalist laymen have called his papacy into question, as well as Vacancy Pushers such as Michael Bizzaro. Their arguments hold no water, and the clergy know it.

2. The Church is Infallible in Her Universal Disciplinary Laws. According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls...The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine).

According to theologian Hermann, "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…" ( See Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae 1:258).

Therefore, the Reformed Rites of Holy Week are guaranteed to be holy and non-heretical.

3. The Reformed Rites had some obvious improvements. Pope Pius XII allowed the times of the services to be held later, for more people to participate and to be aligned with when they actually occurred (Good Friday in the afternoon, Maundy Thursday in the evening) and allowed Our Lord to be received in Holy Communion on Good Friday.  It also lengthened the end of fasting and abstinence until midnight on Holy Saturday, rather than 12 noon.

So why the rejection by some clergy? Fr. Anthony Cekada has written on this extensively, and has recently made a change in the upshot of his arguments in a video. He (and others) argued:

1. The Rites introduced changes that "became harmful over time." To read the argument in full, please see http://www.traditionalmass.org/images/articles/P12MoreLegal.pdf. Fr. Cekada lists certain "false principles and practices," such as: the vernacular may be an integral part of the liturgy, the priest’s role is reduced, lay participation must ideally be vocal, etc. These were incorporated into the Novus Bogus of 1969. If a principle is wrong, it's always wrong, and does not become wrong. If the vernacular may never be an integral part of the liturgy, then it was wrong when Pope Pius XII introduced it, which is impossible, unless you want to say he wasn't pope. The application of the principle may be wrong, but not the principle itself.  Therefore, there was nothing that could have "become harmful." To use an analogy, praying to saints is good and laudatory. Certain "High Church" Anglican heretics, offer their invalid and heretical liturgy in honor of St. Thomas More as a "Martyr of the Reformation (sic)." The dishonoring of St. Thomas More through a false service that equates him with others who were Protestants in no way derogates from the principle that praying to saints is good, or that honoring St. Thomas More is in some way "rendered harmful" because of what some heretics have done.

2. Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason and behind the changes. It doesn't matter. If Pius XII was pope, the Holy Ghost protected all  Pius did in the Liturgy. Bugnini can say 2+2=4 and he's not automatically wrong because he's a Freemason. He was putting in true principles which could be misapplied later. That doesn't make them per se bad, and Fr. Cekada agrees they are not bad in and of themselves.

3. The Changes led to the "New Mass" of 1969. No. I believe the changes were transient and leading to a different form of the Mass that would fight Modernism. What this final product would look like, I have no idea. Pope St. Pius X and Pius XII were calling for and working on reforming the liturgy. Pope St. Pius X began with Divino Afflatu of November 1, 1911. The year after the change, Pope Pius XII declared, "...the faithful must seek from Scripture, tradition and the sacred liturgy as from a deep untainted source." (See Haurietis Aquas, May 15, 1956; the True Mass will always be untainted even when changes are made by the pope because it is the working of the Holy Ghost). It was not leading to a Masonic bread and wine service as in the Novus Bogus. The Modernists hijacked the Liturgical Movement beginning with Roncalli.

4.  By using the Reformed Rite of Holy Week, we lend credibility to the lie of Montini (Paul VI). In a video, Fr. Cekada changed his argument slightly. In the video, he is "sent back in time" to have an audience with Pope Pius XII.  Fr. Cekada concedes that the changes made were not evil or heretical, but since Montini claimed they were the first step towards the Novus Bogus "mass," they should no longer be used because they give credibility to that notion. Pius agrees, and Fr. Cekada returns to 2018. The video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmsEOsohZKM. Actually, the argument works the exact opposite to what Fr. Cekada states. Since the reforms of Pope Pius XII were not the first steps to the "new mass," Montini lied (no surprise there). By refusing to use those reforms, it makes their rejection seem to stem from the fact that they were the first steps to the Novus Bogus "mass"---why else would you reject them?

5. We can't be sure Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI) were not true popes (at least until 1964), so you can't reject those changes if you accept Pope Pius XII's changes. For clergy and laity in 1959-1964, that would hold true. However, since then, we have good reason to doubt the validity of Roncalli's and Montini's election on several counts. As theologian Szal explains, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the Pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Scismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 2; Emphasis mine).  Since we can suspect the elections of Roncalli and Montini, we can safely disregard their "laws" at any stage. Not so Pope Pius XII.

6. Laymen don't understand these matters like clergy, so they have no business discussing them. This argument is fatuous at best. In the absence of a pope, which Traditionalist clergy do the laity follow when they disagree on a disputed point of theology? In this time of the Great Apostasy, we can't "check our brains at the door." Moreover, I received Holy Communion from the hands of my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar DePauw, on Good Friday for years, as he explained the changes of Pope Pius XII. Father was ordained in 1942, was an approved pre-Vatican II canonist (doctorate in canon law [JCD] in 1955 from Catholic University of America), and a peritus (theological expert) at Vatican II who fought the Modernists. He was a seminary professor for the Archdiocese of Baltimore (1955-1962), and was the first to publicly stand against Vatican II in 1964. I'd love Fr. Cekada, or any other Traditionalist priest, to tell me with a straight face that he "didn't understand" the complexities of the rubrics and all it entailed!

That the Reformed Rite was not meant to be permanent, and we don't know how it was heading in a truly orthodox way, in my opinion, would perhaps justify the Old Rites. I don't condemn (nor could I) the SSPV or Fr. Cekada in using them. However, the Reformed Rites are good and holy--equal to the Old. No one should claim that the Old Rites are "Bugnini-free" as if the Reformed Rites of Pope Pius XII were the work of Bugnini and not protected by the Holy Ghost. One may have a preference, but that's all it is; a preference. The CMRI has a much stronger position that the Rites can be considered obligatory. Finally, one must be careful when invoking epieikeia, for as theologians McHugh and Callan note:

"There is the danger that one may be wrong in judging that the lawgiver did not wish to include a case under his law. If this is not certain, one should investigate to the best of one’s ability, and have recourse, if possible, to the legislator or his representative for a declaration or dispensation. It is never lawful to use epieikeia without reasonable certainty that the legislator would not wish the law to apply here and now." (See Moral Theology 1:141).

Conclusion
Pope Pius XII was a good and holy pontiff. He has been attacked unjustly on the left by the Jews, and unjustly on the right by certain Traditionalists (and those of the lunatic fringe calling themselves "Traditionalists"). We need more unity and less diversity as we struggle to make our Catholic way in these perilous times. The chaos all began with the death of "Papa Pacelli" on October 9, 1958. I'd say that's a good date to retain all that was in place, and to reject all that comes after it, until we get a new pope, or Our Lord returns in glory. 




Monday, July 16, 2018

East Meets (And Defeats) West


 Western civilization is being taken over by Eastern paganism. It's so pervasive, many people don't even realize it. The inroads made by Eastern paganism began with Vatican II. The heretical document Gaudium et Spes falsely attributes to pagan sects, like Hinduism and Buddhism, that they believe in God as the Creator of the universe. Paragraph #36 states: "...[All] believers of whatever religion have always heard His revealing voice in the discourse of creatures." The Eastern pagans completely ignore the idea of a God who created from nothing and who reveals Himself in His creatures. This is because these Eastern religions are convinced that reality proceeds through the emanation of an impersonal, cosmic, eternal force which is identically replicated in all things; from which force all comes, and to which all returns, becoming a part of it, and dissolving into it.

The basic worldview of the East is pantheism, the belief that in some sense all of reality is ultimately One and Divine. In bringing their false religions to the West, many people adopt another (yet similar) worldview known as panentheism (the belief that God is "in" all things). Panentheism recognizes God and the world as distinct concepts, but then holds that God is the spirit or "divine energy" or "mind" that fills and pervades and expresses itself in the world. On this view God and the world are interdependent, needing each other to form a complete reality. Thus the standard analogy for panentheism is the idea that a human being is both a spirit (or mind) and a body, with neither doing anything without the other. God is not a personal Creator of the world, but the divine potential of the world and of each one of us. Most people in Western culture could not clearly distinguish pantheism from panentheism, and in most contexts the difference is of little practical significance. This is why the apostate Catholic priest, Matthew Fox, can be an advocate of Eastern thinking while technically holding to panentheism rather than pantheism.

Fox, ordained a Dominican priest in 1967, was dismissed for "disobedience" in 1993 by the Order and upbraided by "Cardinal" Ratzinger, but not for heresy. This was in spite of the fact that he:

  • referred to God the Mother (not Father)
  • rejected Original Sin
  • accepted Native American "spirituality"
  • refused to condemn homosexuality
  • worked with Miriam Simos, a feminist neo-pagan witch who calls herself "Starhawk" 
In this post the errors of the Eastern pagan worldview will be examined, as well as how it has permeated our Western culture since Vatican II.

The Errors of Pantheism

 There is much wrong with thinking God and the universe are one (or God is in all things). The Vatican Council (1870), infallibly condemned the idea:

"3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema.

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema.

5. If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema."

In addition, there are four good reasons for the average person to believe pantheism/panentheism to be wrong:

1) The universal amnesia regarding our "divinity" cannot be satisfactorily explained.
If humanity is really "part of the divine," how is it that we are unaware of it? Wouldn't "god" know he is divine? Why does it take some guru, or yoga, or meditation for "god" to realize who he is? How do we account for this "cosmic amnesia"?

2. How does the pantheist know that HE is not the one mis-perceiving reality?
The Eastern pagans claim that Christians who believe in a world external to their senses are caught in the grip of an illusion, because "all is one." How does the pagan know it is we who are deceived by our common sense experience and not himself for thinking that "all is one;" contrary to what reason and sense experience tells us?

3. If pantheism is true, we can never distinguish between fantasy and reality. 
The burden of proof is clearly on the Eastern pagan to tell us why we should abandon our common ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy. We should believe what our experience tells us is true unless or until we have good reason to think otherwise. The pagans reverse this and would have us believe what is counter-intuitive is true despite the lack of evidence. This is absurd.

4. The Eastern pagans reject logic.
D.T. Suzuki wrote in his Introduction to Zen Buddhism  that we "comprehend life only when we abandon logic." In other words, he's trying to convince you with arguments (using logic) that you need to abandon logic--a self-refuting position. It is (for the pagan) logical to be illogical (if your head is spinning--good for you, it's mumbo-jumbo).

Eastern Pagan Worldview Infects The West
1. Education. Many public (and Vatican II sect) schools offer yoga in Physical Education classes. Many programs are used to enhance self-esteem, tell students they have the answers to life "inside them," and they must discover their "inner powers." Even the very popular drug prevention program D.A.R.E. ("Drug Abuse Resistance Education) contains Eastern pagan overtones. In many social studies classes, large amounts of time are spent studying pagan religion, and assignments include "visiting a Hindu or Buddhist temple, and writing about your spiritual experience."

2. Business. The quest for a competitive edge in many businesses is thought by some CEOs and upper management to be connected to increasing employees' "human potential." This potential is often connected to Eastern pagan ideas. Employees must take mandatory workshops. Among such workshops include those conducted by Tony Robbins, the $480 million dollar charlatan/ guru, whose "finding your god-like potential" training contains such claims as improving "your health, your finances, your relationships, your career, your emotions, and your time." His tagline is "unleash the power within." (See tonyrobbins.com)

3. Medicine. Eastern religious ideas wrapped up under the guise of "staying healthy" include Reiki (Bergoglio uses this paganism! See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/12/francis-and-dark-side-of-force.html). Also included are Transcendental Meditation (TM), "aroma therapy," and hypnotism.

4. Media. The Star Wars franchise pushes pantheism. The oft quoted "May the Force be with you," is a blasphemous attempt to replace the True God ("The Lord be with you") with an impersonal energy that binds the universe together. The so-called force may be used to perform seeming miracles such as levitation, moving objects, detecting the presence of various persons, being guided without using your senses, and healing. The force can be used for good or evil ("the dark side of the force"). Although the Force is never called God, those who believe in it and seek to use it are said to be followers of a “religion,” and the teacher of “the ways of the Force” is a 900-year-old “Jedi Master” called Yoda who functions much as a Zen Buddhist master. In The Empire Strikes Back (1980), Yoda explains:
"For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter! You must feel the Force around you — here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere — yes, even between the land and the ship."

5. "New Atheists." While Dr. Richard Dawkins hates "supernatural religion," he does not mind "the god of Einstein." When asked if he believed in immortality, Einstein said, "No. And one life is enough for me." In response to a Rabbi’s 1929 telegram, asking specifically, "Do you believe in God?," Einstein replied, "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." (See Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe, (New York: Simon & Schuster, [2007], pgs. 386-390). So while claiming to be an atheist, even Dawkins is open to pagan pantheism!

Conclusion
Eastern paganism is responsible for a totally monist and pantheistic conception of the divinity and the world, because by conceiving of God as a cosmic, impersonal force, it does not admit the idea of creation, and, as a result of Vatican II, these pagan ideas have infected all aspects of Western Civilization. Millions are being deceived. In the document  De Deposito Fidel Pure Custodiendo, Vatican II was originally set to condemn reincarnation and other pagan, Eastern ideas. Roncalli scrapped all the orthodox documents drawn up by the great theologians, and allowed the Modernists to re-write every document for the Robber Council. De Deposito had to be destroyed because it wasn't "ecumenical." It was replaced by the heretical Nostra Aetate. 

That heretical document tells us in paragraph #2, "The Catholic Church (sic) rejects nothing that is true and holy (vera et sancta) in these [pagan] religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men." This is the false ecclesiology of Vatican II whereby all religions are more or less good because they "contain some truth." We now have millions of souls heading for Hell as they follow these false sects to their eternal perdition.

The One True Church has always taught, in unison with Sacred Scripture, "No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons." (1 Corinthians 10:20). 

Monday, July 9, 2018

The Copernican Revolution In Ecclesiology


 The heretical Vatican II document Lumen Gentium, "promulgated" by Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) on November 21, 1964, spawned a man-made sect with a heretical ecclesiology (the study/teaching regarding the nature of the Church). Nothing brought that home better than when I read the proposed "Constitution on the Church" from the Vatican Council of 1869-1870. Discussion of the document on the nature of the Church was to continue when the bishops returned after a summer break, however, the Franco-Prussian War put a halt to these plans. The swift German advance and the capture of Emperor Napoleon III disabled France from being able to protect the Pope’s rule in Rome. The Vatican Council thus ended before finishing its work.

Even though this proposed document (called a schema) was never debated and voted upon by the Council, or taken up by Pope Pius IX, it is invaluable for assessing Catholic vs. Modernist ecclesiology. A schema is only drawn up by the most eminent approved theologians, distinguished in both learning and personal piety. They are hand-picked by the Pontiff, and they work together to write a document that contains theological truths which they feel are ripe for dogmatic definition. The unanimous teachings of the theologians give witness that these truths are ready to be declared of Divine and Catholic Faith. When you compare this schema to the documents of Vatican II, no thinking person could possibly say the two express the same Faith. Not only are the Vatican II documents substantially different in what they teach, they proposed things that are mutually exclusive with pre-Vatican II teaching.

Hence, if Vatican II is correct, pre-Vatican II ecclesiology isn't merely "less developed" or "teaching other compatible truths" or "expressing the same things in different terminology," it is wrong. However, the One True Church is Infallible and Indefectible. She cannot teach error, and cannot give evil. Nor can She be stopped from Her Divine Mission to govern, teach, and sanctify. The inescapable conclusion is that either (a) the Church only started teaching the Truth in 1964 and was wrong prior to that time (impossible), or (b) the documents didn't come to us from the Church. Montini either never attained the papacy or lost it prior to November 21, 1964 by the profession of heresy as a private theologian. Had he been pope on November 21, 1964, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing it, and he would have censured those who wrote it and/or voted for it. Below I will compare the theology as expressed at the Vatican Council (1870) and Robber Council Vatican II (1964).

The "People of God"

The schema at the Vatican Council had this to say in Chapter 10:
Christ's Church is not a society of equals as if all the faithful in Her had the same rights; but it is a society in which not all are equal. And this is not only because some of the faithful are clerics and some laymen, but especially because in the Church there is a power of Divine institution, by which some are authorized to sanctify, teach, and govern, and others do not have this authority...Hence, we believe Christ's Church is a perfect society. This true and highly favored Church of Christ is none other than the one, holy, catholic, and Roman Church. (All quotes are taken from The Church Teaches by The Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College, B.Herder Book Co., [1955], pgs. 86-94).

This document clearly sets forth the traditional teaching that the Church is hierarchical and monarchical in nature. The Church is Divinely appointed to govern, teach, and sanctify by Her Founder, Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is solely and uniquely the One True Church of Christ and bears the Four Marks (One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic). This also is affirmed by theologian Dorsch, who teaches that the nature of the Church does not change, even during a very long period of sedevacante.

 "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

Vatican II has a novel and heretical view of the Church as the "People of God." In Lumen Gentium para #9 and 10, we read :This [The Church] was to be the new People of God. For those who believe in Christ, who are reborn not from a perishable but from an imperishable seed through the word of the living God, not from the flesh but from water and the Holy Spirit, are finally established as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people . . . who in times past were not a people, but are now the people of God"...
Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. (Emphasis and words in brackets mine).

The new definition takes the part for the whole, meaning that it takes the "people of God," mentioned in I Pet. 2:10 ("Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."), for the totality of the Church. This is a radical twist lending itself to a strictly "democratic" and "communitarian" vision of the Church herself, a vision alien to Catholic Tradition but close to the thinking and meaning of Protestant heretics. On the other hand, the hierarchy is included in the idea of "people," and so are defined simply as "members of the people of God." The downplaying of the hierarchical and monarchical structure is clearly seen in discussing a "ministerial" priesthood distinct from the hierarchical one, and they both are interrelated. This is the "topsy-turvy-dom of ecclesiology." The "people" are put on more or less equal footing with the hierarchy. The hierarchy are part of the people, rather than the people being completely distinct and subordinate to the hierarchy. This is why laymen as "lectors," "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" (sic), and "leaders of song" dominate at the Novus Bogus "mass."

The priest loses his authentic vocation because he becomes a mere function of the "People of God" as a whole. This function is exercised under two forms: the "common priesthood of the faithful," and the "ministerial" or "hierarchic" priesthood, that is, the authentic priesthood of priests, which have been eradicated by the invalid Pauline Rite of Holy Orders.

The Vatican schema emphasized that only the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church of Christ. Lumen Gentium, in para. #8 says:

 This Church [of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic (sic) unity. (Emphasis and words in parenthesis mine).

The Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church. It "subsists" there in it's fullness because it contains all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, the Church of Christ "subsists" in other sects according to how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but just having some is just as good and "impels toward catholic (sic) unity." Maybe they would like to explain why the Eastern Schismatics and Protestants have not been "impelled" to become Catholic? The answer is easy enough: They don't need to convert because they are "in partial communion" with the Church of Christ and can be saved outside the Catholic Church. It is in this warped and false sense the elements "impel" unity. This is pure heresy, yet it explains why Bergoglio can say, "Proselytism is nonsense." 

The Theologians Once More Affirm Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus

The Vatican schema has a whole section strongly reaffirming that Outside the One True Church there is no salvation. Section 6 states:
Therefore, We teach that the Church is not a free society, as if it were a matter indifferent to salvation whether it were known or ignored, entered or abandoned; but the Church is absolutely necessary, and, indeed, not just with a necessity coming from a precept of the Lord by which the Savior commanded all nations to enter it; but it is also necessary as a means because, in the order of salvation established by Providence, the communication of the Holy Ghost and the participation of truth and life is not had except in the Church and through the Church of which Christ is the Head. (Emphasis mine).

Notice the complete lack of ambiguity as to the True Church, the Church of Christ, being one and the same as the Roman Catholic Church, which is absolutely necessary for all human beings to achieve salvation. However, in a rebuke to Feeneyites (unheard of in 1870), the very next chapter of the schema shows Baptism of Desire (BOD) as completely in accord, and in no way opposed to, the teaching Extra Ecclesiam Nullas Salus ("outside the Church, there is no salvation"). In chapter 7, the schema declares:

Furthermore, it is a dogma of faith that no one can be saved outside the Church. Nevertheless, those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and His Church are not to be judged worthy of eternal punishment because of this ignorance. For they are innocent in the eyes of the Lord of any fault in this matter. God wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth; and if one does what he can, God does not withhold the grace for him to obtain justification and eternal life. (Emphasis mine).

Be assured that ignorance saves no one. However, if a person does not know of the True Church because of invincible (inculpable) ignorance, and cooperates with God's actual graces in trying to lead an upright life, God can enlighten him at the moment of death with the Faith and sanctifying grace so the person dies within the Catholic Church. Some Feeneyites will object that God allowed the Franco-Prussian War to prevent the Vatican Council from "committing error." Two responses: (1) the teaching of BOD and BOB are already truths of the Catholic Faith by virtue of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) as taught by that same Council and (2) Pope Pius IX already taught this truth in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:

"Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace." (para. #7; Emphasis mine). BOD and BOB were ready for elevation via ex cathedra pronouncement almost 150 years ago, yet Feeneyites will protest that it is "error" taught by "liberal theologians"!

Conclusion

The documents of Vatican II, and the schema of the First Vatican Council (the only Vatican Council) reveal a tale of two opposing ecclesiologies. According to Vatican II the Church of Christ is separate from the Roman Catholic Church, but "subsists" there in its fullness because it contains all the "elements" of sanctification. Other sects also possess some elements of sanctification, and they are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church. These sects are a "means of salvation" (as Vatican II stated in Unitatis Redintegratio) because of the elements they have.  

The theologians at the Vatican Council in 1870 taught that the Church of Christ is identical to the Roman Catholic Church, outside of which no one can be saved. No other sect can save you, or is in "partial communion" with the One True Church. Furthermore, in contrast to today's Feeneyites, the same theologians after teaching the absolute necessity of salvation through membership in the Church, grant that those of good will in invincible ignorance who do what they can to lead a good life and cooperate with grace, can be enlightened and saved by a miracle of grace (BOD). It should be clear that there is no "hermeneutic of continuity" that can make one believe there is no substantial difference. Just as Copernicus changed the view of the world, Vatican II gave us an entirely new, and heretical, view of the Church


Monday, July 2, 2018

Singing For Satan---Part 12


This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.


Elton John
Born Reginald Kenneth Dwight in 1947, Elton John is one of the most prolific rock musicians of all time. He is a sodomite who flaunts it, and advocates for sexual deviancy every chance he gets. He was raised in Pinner, Middlesex, and was a child prodigy who could play the piano by ear at the tender age of three. His father, Stanley Dwight, was absent most of the time, and abusive to his son when he was around. His mother was stern, but not abusive, and he was mostly raised by his maternal grandparents. When John decided to become a musician at age 17, his father wanted him to become a banker, but he refused. He had much musical training, including attending the Royal Academy of Music, so he felt he was ready to make it on his own. He didn't like the classical music in which he was trained and wanted to be a rock star. 

At age 15, he started a blues/soft rock band with his friends called Bluesology. By the time John was 18, the band had become quite popular, and his band was touring with American Soul and R&B artists, such as the Isley Brothers. His life would be forever changed at age 20, when in 1967 a record producer introduced him to Bernie Taupin (b. 1950), a poet who could write lyrics but wasn't a polished musician. Elton John had the musical component, but wasn't able to write lyrics well. The two worked together from then onward with John writing the music to Taupin's lyrics. Dwight then decided to change his name to "Elton John" in homage to two members of Bluesology: saxophonist Elton Dean and vocalist "Long John" Baldry. He made his legal name Elton Hercules John on January 7, 1972. 

In 1969, John (with the ever-present help of Taupin) released his debut album Empty Sky to critical acclaim. In 1970, his eponymous sophomore album Elton John, gave him his first hit single with Your Song, which catapulted him to fame. As of this writing, John has sold over 300 million albums. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1994, and for 31 consecutive years (1970–2000) he had at least one song in the "Top 100 Hits" according to Billboard magazineHis tribute single "Candle in the Wind 1997," rewritten in dedication to Princess Diana, sold over 33 million copies worldwide, making it the most successful single in both U.S. and U.K. history. Billboard magazine lists him as the third greatest artist of all time (behind The Beatles at #1, and Madonna at #2), and Rolling Stone magazine ranked him #49 on its list of "100 influential musicians of the rock and roll era." He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II of England in 1998 for "services to music and charitable services." In September of 2018, he will begin a three year "farewell tour," ending with his retirement from the music industry in September 2021 at age 74. 

Elton John, Bernie Taupin, and Wicca

Bernie Taupin (left) and Elton John (right) in the early days. Both were into Satanic and Wiccan practices.
Bernie Taupin is deeply immersed in Wicca, and introduced it to Elton John. In an interview for US magazine, Taupin stated that John's "home is laden with trinkets and books relating to Satanism and witchcraft." (7/22/80, pg. 42). Earlier that year, Taupin told People magazine that he too decorates his walls with "Satanic art," and said, "the occult fascinates me." (6/23/80 issue). Not surprisingly, in 1991, Bernie Taupin self-published a book of poems called The Devil at High Noon. That Elton John hates religion in general, and Christianity in particular, is well-established. 

According to the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, John had previously made the public claim that, "From my point of view, I would ban religion completely." On MNBC he stated, "Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate." 
In 2010, John blasphemously claimed Our Lord Jesus Christ was a sodomite when he called Him a "compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems." (See The Guardian, 2/19/10, "Sir Elton John Claims Jesus was Gay" by Adam Gabbatt).  

The song Goodbye Yellow Brick Road was inspired by the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz. The movie was based on a book of the same name written by Frank Baum, an occultist who claimed he had "channeled" the idea from an other-worldly source. (See Michael Patrick Hearn edition; The Annotated Wizard of Oz, New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1973) In the movie, the protagonist (Dorothy) and her friends are following the "yellow brick road." In Heaven, it is said there are "streets of gold" (See Apoc. 21). They go to see the "all knowing, all powerful" Wizard of Oz. Only God is omniscient and omnipotent. It turns out the Wizard is just a fake. (Wiccans denigrate or even deny the Christian God). Lastly, they are told that the power to obtain all they want (courage, brains, a heart, and going home) "lies within"--a common theme in witchcraft and Satanism; independence from God because we have the potential to be like God.  

John's (really Taupin's) lyrics to the song state:
 Back to the howling old owl in the woods
Hunting the horny back toad
Oh I've finally decided my future lies
Beyond the yellow brick road
The "owl" is notorious in both Wicca and Satanism, being representative of the pagan goddess Lilith.

In I've Seen the Saucers, he sings:
Tune in, wouldn't it be something
Rumors spreading into panic
I've seen movements in the clearing
Someone sent you something satanic (Emphasis mine).

Again, more references to witchcraft in Saint:
To sweeten up the witch's brew
You had a better way of working magic
A little mystery in your eyes
Instead of rolling over you remained the same
You took the whole world by surprise (Emphasis mine).

Elton John: Pervert Who Hates God
David Furbish and Elton John on their "wedding day" with the two children produced by a surrogate mother. Poor children!

John has attempted suicide at least twice. The song Someone Saved My Life Tonight is dedicated to his friend Long John Baldry, whom he credits with saving him from committing suicide. John was depressed over his pending marriage to his first lover Linda Woodrow, and ultimately decided not to go through with the wedding. Despite his massive wealth ($500 million as of 2018) and libertine lifestyle, all it brought him is depression. John once reportedly took 60 Valiums and jumped into a hotel swimming pool yelling, "I’m going to die!" On yet another occasion he turned on an oven and laid his head in the range, but subsequently aborted the suicide attempt. Ironically, he glorifies suicide in I Think I'm Going To Kill Myself:

I’m getting bored
Being part of mankind,
Think I’ll buy a forty-four
And give ‘em all a sunrise.
Yeah, think I’m gonna kill myself,

Cause a little suicide (Emphasis mine).

He married Renate Blauel in 1984, but she was seen as merely his "beard" (term for a woman who pretends to be with a man to disguise his homosexuality). John is noted for his outlandish costumes on stage, most of which portray him as feminine or androgynous. John divorced Blauel and declared himself a bisexual. Later, he said he had enthusiastically embraced homosexuality. John "married" his lover since 1993, David Furnish, in 2014. They have custody of two children, both boys, born of the same surrogate mother; one in 2010, the other in 2013. John declared, "I'm going to fight for them [sodomite "rights"], whether I do it silently behind the scenes or so vocally that I get locked up." (See BBC News of November 12th, 2006).

As to his sick lifestyle, John sees nothing wrong except perhaps bestiality (sex with animals). He said, "There’s nothing wrong with going to bed with someone of your own sex. I just think people should be very free with sex…They should draw the line at goats." (Rolling Stone, October 7, 1976, p. 17). He has admitted to having numerous lovers and hook-ups with both men and women, but exclusively men after he declared himself a sodomite. His song All The Girls Love Alice is about a sixteen year old lesbian:
All the young girls love Alice
Tender young Alice, they say
Come over and see me
Come over and please me
Alice, it's my turn today

Sweet Painted Lady sings approvingly of a prostitute:
If the boys all behave themselves here
Well, there's pretty young ladies and beer in the rear
You won't need a gutter to sleep in tonight
Oh, the prices I charge here will see you alright
So, she lays down beside me again
My sweet painted lady, the one with no name
Many have used her and many still do
There's a place in the world for a woman like you
Oh, sweet painted lady
Seems it's always been the same
Getting paid for being laid
Guess that's the name of the game

John's hatred of God is gets spewed forth in Dear God (not to be confused with the atheist anthem by XTC), which wonders if God exists, and ends by declaring Him "forgetful/disinterested" in the plight of humanity:

Dear God, are you there
Can you hear me, do you care
Dear God, here are we
Less than perfect, far from free
Oh we take what we get and we don't take no more
But we sometimes forget what it was you created us for
Dear God, now's the time
If you're listening, show some sign
Dear God, hear me plead
Don't desert us in our need
Dear God, lend a hand
Is this really what you planned
Dear God, in you we trust
Though we've failed you, don't fail us
Oh we take what we get but we can't take much more
Do you sometimes forget what it was you created us for, dear God (Emphasis mine).

In the song If There's A God In Heaven (What's He Waiting For?)...John rails against the Almighty once more:

Torn from their families 
Mothers go hungry 
To feed their children 
But children go hungry 
There's so many big men 
They're out making millions 
When poverty's profits 
Just blame the children 

If there's a God in heaven 
What's he waiting for 
If He can't hear the children 
Then he must see the war 
But it seems to me 
That he leads his lambs 
To the slaughter house 
And not the promised land 

Dying for causes 
They don't understand 
We've been taking their futures 
Right out of their hands 
They need the handouts 
To hold back the tears 
There's so many crying 
But so few that hear 

If there's a God in heaven 
Well, what's he waiting for (Emphasis mine). 

Elton Loves Frankie

 With all this hatred of God and religion, who is the one person representing a religion Elton John likes and admires? You guessed it: Jorge Bergoglio, the Vatican II sect's very own "pope!" In 2014, John stated Christ would've backed "gay marriage." He said, "If Jesus Christ was alive today, I can not see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen." His cited authority for this comment was..."Pope" Francis! According to Elton John, Frankie has"... stripped (the Vatican II sect) down to the bare bones and said it's all basically about love..and inclusiveness." (See The Telegraph, 6/30/14, article entitled "Elton John says Jesus would've backed gay marriage. Millions will presume he's right" by Tim Stanley). 

John has declared that Bergoglio is staunchly in the camp of the sexual deviants, and an ally of sodomites. According to The Catholic (sic) Herald:

"On BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme the musician said he considered Pope Francis an "ally" against conservative bishops in Africa in his views on same-sex relationships.

“My sly bet is yes he is. He’s just had the [synod] in Rome and I think he’s fighting an uphill battle against the African cardinals and bishops.”

Elton John said his message to the Pope was: “Keep going, keep pushing it. Change is very hard, especially in the Catholic Church, you don’t get things done immediately, you’re not going to persuade people, just keep going and keep going and eventually the wall will fall. I think he's on our side.”

The singer, who is in a same-sex marriage, added: “I would love to meet him. I’m not a Catholic but from the first day he was elected he tried to bring a new message and change the Church and bring it into the 21st century. To be an inclusive Church. He has brought hope and change." (See http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2015/11/05/elton-john-says-he-would-like-to-meet-his-hero-pope-francis/). 

 Elton John has said Frankie is a "saint" and should be "canonized" now. (With all the requirements of canonization trashed, why limit it to those who have died, right?)  Keep in mind that John has no intention of amending his life, rather he likes the fact that Bergoglio is joining him in the quest to completely eradicate true Faith and Morals. Frankie wants Christ to conform to the world and not have the world conform to Christ.

 Mr. Mark Shea, a Vatican II sect apologist, sees John's praise of Frankie as something wonderful (of course). According to Shea, Frankie is causing John to "revisit what the Gospel has to say." Furthermore, John doesn't need a set of moral precepts, but an "encounter with a person." This is Modernist drivel, pure and simple. Mark Shea wants us to believe Elton John has revisited the Gospel. No, Mark, he's revising it to justify his perversity---even citing to Francis himself-----in order to make people believe the unnatural is acceptable. Does Francis condemn any of this, you ask? Has he told Elton John he will not and cannot change God's Moral Law against sodomy? Has he told him that he must repent, convert, or go to Hell? Why no! Elton is having an "encounter," don't you see? Raised an Anglican, John is a God-hating pervert on his way to perdition, and Bergoglio does nothing to correct him. Why? Because Frankie isn't the pope.  

 When a man such as Elton John lauds Francis (as he continues unabated on his evil ways corrupting Faith and Morals), what does this say about the so-called "pope"? Mark Shea and Frankie will condemn Traditionalists as "self-absorbed, Promethean, neo-Pelagians." Ironically, the same duo will look at Elton John and declare, "Who am I to judge?" 

Conclusion
John lives for pleasure, but as the Church teaches, those who live for pleasure will never be satisfied. Elton John has struggled to fill the empty void in his soul with sex, drugs, and fame.  Elton John lives a lifestyle that is doomed and headed toward destruction. John has stated, "In most artists there’s a self-destructive streak. Drugs, sex and doomed liaisons were my form of destruction." Besides his sexually perverse lifestyle Elton John has been known for his temper tantrums and deep depression. Pray for Elton John's conversion, and that of Bernie Taupin. If they don't change they will join their "hero" Bergoglio, spending eternity with the Evil One they all served so well.