The Four Temperaments---Choleric (Part II)

 

To My Readers: I have received several requests for posts on the subject of The Four Temperaments. This week's post is the seventh installment to this most important and interesting topic. I will follow-up with other posts so that by sometime in 2025, I will have concluded the series, and hopefully do some justice to presenting the Four Temperaments. 

I want to acknowledge that I take no credit for the posts on this topic. My primary sources will be from theologian Schagemann and his work entitled Manual of Self-Knowledge and Christian Perfection (1913).  Also, the work of theologian Hock The Four Temperaments (1934) will be used throughout this series of posts, with various other sources. I take absolutely no credit whatsoever for the content of this post (or the ones on this topic to follow). All I did was condense the material of these theologians into a terse post that hopefully will be advantageous for  those looking for information, but without time to read an entire book or two from the pre-Vatican II era on the subject.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Bright Side of the Choleric Temperament

If the choleric develops his faculties and uses them for good and noble purposes, he may do great things for the honor of God, for the benefit of his fellow men, and for his own temporal and eternal welfare. He is assisted by his sharp intellect, his enthusiasm for the noble and the great, the force and resolution of his will, which shrinks before no difficulty, and the keen vivacity which influences all his thoughts and plans.

Saul, the persecutor of the infant Church, became Paul, the great Apostle who, as he himself said, did more than any other apostle for the spread of Christianity. He made himself "all things to all men that I might save all." (1. Cor. 9:22.) He suffered all kinds of trials and persecution (See 2 Corinthians 12) in order to preach Christ, and Him Crucified, and sealed his mission by his martyrdom for the Gospel.

Many Saints, men and women, have done likewise, dedicating their unremitting labor and intense sufferings under severe persecutions to the service of Christ, as is proved by the thousands and thousands of martyrs of years past and of the present, outstanding among them Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary.

The choleric may with comparative ease become a saint. The persons canonized, with few exceptions, were choleric or melancholic. The choleric who is able to control his temperament is recollected in prayer, because by his strong will he can banish distractions and especially because by force of his nature, he can with great facility concentrate his attention upon one point. The latter may also be the cause why the choleric so easily acquires the prayer of simplicity, or as St. Francis calls it, the prayer of recollection. 

With no other temperament do we find the spirit of contemplation, properly so called, as often as with the choleric. The well-trained choleric is very patient and firm in endurance of physical pains, willing to make sacrifices in sufferings, persevering in acts of penance and interior mortification, magnanimous and noble toward the indigent and conquered, full of aversion against everything ignoble or vulgar. Although pride penetrates the very soul of the choleric in all its fibers and ramifications, so much so that he seems to have only one vice, i.e., pride, which he shows in everything he undertakes, he can, nevertheless, if he earnestly aspires for perfection, easily bear the greatest and most degrading humiliations and even seek them. 

Because the choleric has not a soft but a hard heart, he naturally suffers less from temptation of the flesh and can practice purity with ease. But, if the choleric is voluntarily addicted to the vice of impurity and seeks his satisfaction therein, the outbursts of his passion are terrible and most abominable.

The choleric is very successful also in his professional work. Being of an active temperament, he feels a continual inclination to activity and occupation. He cannot be without work, and he works quickly and diligently. In his enterprises he is persevering and full of courage in spite of obstacles. Without hesitation he can be placed at difficult posts and everything can be entrusted to him. In his speech the choleric is brief and definite; he abhors useless repetitions. 

This brevity, positiveness, firmness in speech and appearance gives him a great deal of authority especially when engaged in educational work. Choleric teachers have something virile about themselves and do not allow affairs to get beyond their control, as is often the case with slow, irresolute, melancholic persons. A choleric can keep a secret like a grave.

The Training Needed for a Choleric to Make Spiritual Advancement

1. A choleric needs high ideals and great thoughts; he must draw them from the word of God by meditation, spiritual reading, sermons, and also from the experience of his own life. There is no need of a multiplicity of such thoughts. For the choleric St. Ignatius it was sufficient to think: All for the greater glory of God; for the choleric St. Francis Xavier: What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his soul? One good thought which deeply impresses the choleric acts as a miraculous star which leads him, in spite of all obstacles, to the feet of the Redeemer.

2. A choleric must learn day by day and repeatedly to implore God fervently and humbly for His assistance. As long as he has not learned to beg he will not make big strides on the road to perfection. To him also apply the words of Christ: "Ask and you shall receive." The choleric will make still greater progress if he can humble himself to ask his fellow men, at least his superiors, or his confessor, for instructions and direction.

3. The choleric must above all keep one strong resolution in his mind: I will never seek myself, but on the contrary I will consider myself: a) An instrument in the hands of God, which He may make use of at His pleasure. b) A servant of my fellow men, who desires to spend himself for others. He must act according to the words of Christ: "Whosoever will be first among you, shall be the servant of all", (St. Matthew 20:27 or St. Mark 10:44), or as St. Paul says of himself: He must become all things to all men, in order to save them. (1 Corinthians 9:22).

4. The choleric must combat his pride and anger continually. Pride is the misfortune of the choleric, humility his only salvation. Therefore he should make it a point of his particular examination of conscience for years.

5. The choleric must humiliate himself voluntarily in confession, before his superiors, and even before others. Ask God for humiliations and accept them, when inflicted, magnanimously. For a choleric it is better to permit others to humiliate him, than to humiliate himself.

6. He must practice a true and trusting devotion to the humble and meek Heart of Jesus.

Considerations in Spiritual Training

Cholerics are capable of great benefit to their family, their surroundings, their parish, or to the state on account of their ability. The choleric is naturally the born and never discouraged leader and organizer. The well-trained choleric apostle indefatigably and without fear seeks souls who are in danger; propagates good literature perseveringly, and in spite of many failures labors joyfully for the Catholic press and societies and consequently is of great service to the Church. On the other hand, the choleric can, if he does not control the weak side of his temperament, act as dynamite in private and public and cause great disturbance. For this reason it is necessary to pay special attention to the training of the choleric, which is difficult but fruitful.

1. The choleric should be well instructed so that he can apply his good talents to the best advantage. Otherwise he will in the course of time pursue pet ideas to the neglect, of his professional work, or what is worse, he will be very proud and conceited, although in reality he has not cultivated his faculties and is not, in fact, thorough. Cholerics who are less talented or not sufficiently educated can make very many mistakes, once they are independent or have power to command as superiors.

They are likely to make life bitter for those around them, because they insist stubbornly upon the fulfillment of their orders, although they may not fully understand the affairs in question or may have altogether false ideas about them. Such cholerics often act according to the ill-famed motto: Sic volo, sic jubeo; stat pro ratione voluntas: Thus I want it, thus I command it; my will is sufficient reason.

2. The choleric must be influenced to accept voluntarily and gladly what is done for the humiliation of his pride and the soothing of his anger. By hard, proud treatment the choleric is not improved, but embittered and hardened, whereas even a very proud choleric can easily be influenced to good by reasonable suggestions and supernatural motives. In the training of cholerics the teacher should never allow himself to be carried away by anger nor should he ever give expression to the determination to 'break' the obstinacy of the choleric person.

 It is absolutely necessary to remain calm and to allow the choleric to 'cool off' and then to persuade him to accept guidance in order to correct his faults and bring out the good in him. In the training of the choleric child one must place high ideas before him; appeal to his good will, his sense of honor, his abhorrence of the vulgar, his temporal and eternal welfare; influence him voluntarily to correct his faults and develop his good qualities. Do not embitter him by humiliating penances, but try to show him the necessity and justice of the punishment inflicted; yet be firm in what you must demand.

Conclusion

This concludes the examination and consideration of the Choleric temperament in this series of posts. In the next installment, the Phlegmatic temperament and "mixed temperaments" will be considered. 

Contending For The Faith---Part 36

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Recovering From The Truth

One of my readers brought to my attention an anti-Traditionalist website called Trad Recovery. It is run by and for disaffected Traditionalists who have apostatized to the Vatican II sect. It describes itself as follows:

Trad Recovery was established in February of 2023 to provide resources and community for individuals who are leaving traditionalist environments or ideologies and coming into full communion with the Catholic Church. By "traditionalism," we refer to the harmful or negative elements of a movement that is often motivated by desire for reverence, beauty, and devotion in our faith. While we support certain elements of the movement (including the Latin Mass according to the Missal of 1962, which many of our site members still attend), we at Trad Recovery are here to support those who want to remain orthodox and faithful in their Catholicism while recognizing that disobedience and schism are not compatible with being truly traditional. (See https://www.tradrecovery.com/about-4).

The website (hereinafter "TR") lumps sedevacantists with R&R under the term "Traditionalist." The site contains mostly (1) testimonials of priests who left the SSPX (but NOT to join the V2 sect), (2) a blog with bad theology, and (3) resources from the usual V2 apologists like Siscoe and Salza. 

Under the "resources" section, there is a 323 page prolix monograph entitled "Contra Sedevacantism:

A Definitive Refutation of Sedevacantism."

The first chapter has the ambitious (and false) title "Sedevacantism is Heretical." I must admit, at first blush it does seem impressive. The anonymous author(s) use citations from approved pre-Vatican II theologians. It is way above anything written by a Feeneyite, yet it nevertheless does a masterful job of proving nothing. 

Luckily, even though I have no time for a 323 post rebuttal, such isn't necessary. I have written on this before, in different forms. My next "Contending For The Faith" post in March will expose the false theology of Vatican II which TR tries to defend. First, I will show why sedevacantism is not heresy, and how TR gets it all wrong.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

The monograph is basically a rehashing of John Sala's arguments. The resurrected Salza arguments boil down to sedevacantism being heretical because we have no bishops (at least none of whom we know) possessing Ordinary Jurisdiction, which the approved pre-Vatican II theologians seem to tell us is necessary for Apostolicity; one of the Four Marks of the Church. TR claims this "refutes" sedevacantism. Then there is the nonsense regarding formal declarations against a pope and he remains in office until/unless such takes place. No one needs to even try a direct refutation.

When a Vatican II sect apologist says, "How do you explain (such and such) if sedevacantsim is true?" do not attempt an answer. The Great Apostasy is a unique time and it makes sense if we don't have all the answers at our fingertips. If Bergoglio and his sect are the One True Church, as V2 sect apologists contend (and we know very well what things must be like with the Church in normal conditions), the question must be asked of the sect's apologist, "If Bergoglio is pope and Vatican II is a legitimate Council of the Church, then how do you explain the almost word for word contradictions between pre- and post-V2 teachings?" 

 Everyone recognizes that there are serious differences with what purports to be the Roman Catholic Church today and how She existed prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). What was always believed and taught was now outright contradicted. The Mass and sacraments were substantially altered. It is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible and will exist until the end of time. This presented a big problem for Catholics worldwide. It seemed like there was a new religion operating inside formerly Catholic churches. The clergy tried telling the people that only outward appearances changed, but the "substance" of the faith, morals, Mass, and sacraments remained. 

This simply was not the case. The teaching of the Church regarding such topics as ecclesiology, religious liberty, and collegiality was completely different. The "Mass" was now identical to the invalid bread and wine "Lord's Supper" at the local  Lutheran church, and it introduced practices that had been condemned pre-Vatican II. Either the Church had been wrong from its founding by Our Lord Jesus Christ until Vatican II (in which case the Church was never founded by Christ and is a lie), or the Church was wrong after Vatican II (however, the dogma of Indefectibility teaches that the Church cannot teach error or give evil and She will last until the end of the world). The answer is to be found in the traditional teaching of the approved theologians and canonists: that it is possible for the pope, as a private theologian, to publicly profess heresy as a private theologian and fall from the pontificate by Divine Law. It is also taught that a heretic cannot obtain the papacy. 

These very real theological possibilities are referred to as sedevacantism (meaning "the seat/See of St. Peter is vacant"). Sedevacantism, broadly speaking, is the position that there is currently no pope, and the man Jorge Bergoglio, commonly accepted and called the pope, is in fact a false pope, with no known real pope at present. More specifically, it is the position that the men considered successors to Pope Pius XII are not legitimate successors, and the last known pope was Pius XII. (TR states sedes consider Roncalli the last true pope, but I know of not a single Traditionalist who still holds this view. It must be an extreme minority, if any do still exist). 

The Church under Pope Pius XII had the Four Marks and was clearly the One True Church in continuity with all popes before going back to St. Peter. The problem began when Roncalli started to rehabilitate all the Modernist theologians censured under Pope Pius XII and called the Council to "update" the Church. Roncalli either never obtained to the papacy (in my opinion the more likely scenario) or lost his authority after the election by public profession of heresy as a private theologian. Only a false pope could have signed Pacem in Terris. 

First Things First: Can Bergoglio Be The Pope?

Canon 188 of the 1917 Code simply restates what the Church has always taught: that a heretic is barred by Divine Law from obtaining the papacy. The pre-Vatican II canonists affirm that it is not canon law, but rather God's Law that prevents a heretic such as Bergoglio from obtaining the office of pope in the first place.

Proof: According to canonist Coronata, "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)

According to Wernz-Vidal: "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…" (Jus Canonicum 1:415; Emphasis mine).

Bergoglio was a heretic much prior to his alleged "election" in 2013.  According to the Anti-Deformation League: "Cardinal Bergoglio maintained a close relationship with the Jewish community in Argentina. He has celebrated various Jewish holidays with the Argentinian Jewish community, including Chanukah where he lit a candle on the menorah, attended a Buenos Aires synagogue for Slichot, a pre-Rosh Hashana service, the Jewish New Year, as well as a commemoration of Kristallnacht, the wave of violent Nazi attacks against Jews before World War II."

 (See adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-congratulates-new-pope-francis; Emphasis mine).

"Cardinal" Bergoglio also participated in an ecumenical service wherein a Protestant minister "laid hands on him" as a religious action: "...then-Cardinal Bergoglio—metropolitan archbishop of Buenos Aires, primate of the Catholic Church in Argentina, and president of the Argentinian Bishops’ Conference—is kneeling, head bowed, between Father Raniero Cantalamessa and Catholic Charismatic leader Matteo Calisi, with Evangelical Pastor Carlos Mraida extending his hand toward the cardinal’s head, as the people invoke the Holy Spirit over him." 

(See catholicworldreport.com/2014/09/05/francis-ecumenism-and-the-common-witness-to-christ/; Emphasis mine).

Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (See theologian Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.)

Hence, Bergoglio could never have attained the papacy in the first place. Yet, just as a cause can be known by its effects, the Argentinian apostate continues to deny dogma as the "pope."

Jorge Bergoglio denies many dogmas, but I will focus on two: (a) There is only One True Church, and (b) that One True Church is absolutely necessary for salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus--Outside The Church There Is No Salvation). Pope Eugene IV, in the Apostolic Constitution Cantate Domino, teaches ex cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms-deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (See Denzinger #714; Emphasis mine)

Pope Innocent III in 1215: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423; Emphasis mine)

Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctum (1302), infallibly declared, "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The Nicene Creed: "...I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." (Emphasis mine).

That pretty much makes the case that the Magisterium has defined there is only ONE True Church, and outside of Her, no one is saved. Theologian Salaverri teaches: "From the documents of the Church it is clear that the necessity of belonging to the true Church is a dogma of faith." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB [1955], pg. 446; Emphasis in original). Also, "Therefore it is an Article of divine and Catholic Faith to be professed by all that the Church necessarily and indefectibly is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." (Ibid, pg. 472; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine).

What has Bergoglio said? "Proselytism is solemn nonsense." Is it taken out of context? Not if you believe his good friend and co-author, Rabbi Abraham Skorka. (Together they published a book in 2010, On heaven and Earth while Bergoglio was "Cardinal") The leftist rabbi has said, "When he [Francis] speaks about evangelization, the idea is to evangelize Christians or Catholics," to reach "higher dimensions of faith" and a deepened commitment to social justice, Skorka said. "This is the idea of evangelization that Bergoglio is stressing — not to evangelize Jews. This he told me, on several opportunities." (See https://news.yahoo.com/rabbi-whose-good-friend-became-pope-060646630.html).

It is impossible to believe there is no salvation outside the Church and not try to convert everyone--including Jews--just as Our Lord commanded us to do in The Great Commission, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded thee. And surely I am with thee always, to the consummation of the world." (St. Matthew 28:19-20).

How about "I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being." (See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pope_Francis). The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. As Pope Pius XII taught: If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ."But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond. (See Mystici Corporis Christi, [1943], para. #13 and 14). God and His Church are inextricably united. God is indeed Catholic because that is His One True Church; His Mystical Body on Earth.

Furthermore, Bergoglio adheres to the teaching of Vatican II, which says, "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation..." (See Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #3; Emphasis mine). He believes in the false ecclesiology of Vatican II, wherein there is a "Church of Christ" distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, yet resides there in its "fullness" because it contains all of the "elements" of the Church of Christ. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good too, and leads to salvation. The New Ecclesiology is mutually exclusive of the True Ecclesiology pre-Vatican II.

Yet, the protests will come that Bergoglio "wasn't understood correctly," or he was "ambiguous" and it can be interpreted in an orthodox way.  For example, TR might say something along the lines that when Bergoglio said, "There is no Catholic God," what he really meant was that God created all people and not just Catholics, so in that sense "there is no Catholic God" because he is Creator of all regardless of religion. Of course, TR would have to ignore the context as well as the testimony of men like Skorka, to whom Bergoglio explained himself. Nevertheless, we need not bother delving into that difficulty.

The Church cannot (and does not) teach ambiguously in expressing theological truths. Any deliberate ambiguity must be interpreted against the orthodoxy of the one teaching ambiguously. Propositions that are ambiguous or admit of interpretations that are either orthodox or heterodox are deemed "heretical by defect." This is also the case with propositions that are true, but are calculated to omit pertinent truths or terms they ought to include. The following proposition of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia was condemned:

"After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances."

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned that proposition in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei because "it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of Faith...insofar as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of Faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question."

What about pleas for the need of "warnings" (even as a "Cardinal") because he doesn't know something he said was heretical? The objection fails miserably:

According to theologian MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (See The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, CUA Press, [1932], pg. 35) Again, MacKenzie, "If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him." (Ibid, pg. 48; Emphasis mine). Now of course we have one final objection...

Who are you to judge the pope a heretic?

A famous Vatican II sect and R&R "boogeyman:" Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter they are  correct, "The First See is judged by no one" as Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code clearly states. As explained by canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. 'The First See is judged by no one.' (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) However, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic loses his office by DIVINE LAW, and an apostate, like Bergoglio, cannot attain the office. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. (To name but a few, Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta).  Sedevacantists depose no one, we just recognize a fact that has already happened..

First Summation:

1. Bergoglio was a heretic prior to his "election" as "pope." 

2. The heresy is apparent. 

3. Heresy is a Divine impediment to becoming pope.

Inescapable Conclusion: Bergoglio is not pope, and his clergy are not Catholic. 

Second Things Second: Sedevacantism and The Four Marks

Let the TR explain away how they have the Four Marks with a pope teaching heresy. As to sedevacantism, do WE possess the Four Marks as Traditionalists?

Is Apostolicity gone? No. Attempting to cite to any approved pre-Vatican II theologian to the contrary is useless because they were speaking about Apostolicity in normal times, not extraordinary times. There is a distinction which will be discussed next. 

 Approved theologians taught there could be an extended interregnum as we have today, and therefore it cannot be incompatible with maintaining the Four Marks.

According to theologian Dorsch, "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)

Therefore, the Church can remain for many years deprived of a pope, and the form of government remains "then in a different way." Moreover, there was a historical situation in the Church for 51 years called The Great Western Schism. From 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or possibly none) could have been the true pope. Which one, if any, was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit?  There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. In an age of much shorter life spans there could have been no bishops left with Ordinary jurisdiction, had none of the claimants been a true pope. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith.

As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine). So too, Traditionalists stand "willing to give that allegiance" when there is a true pope. 

The real nail in the coffin was delivered by theologian Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century. He wrote a book in 1882 (a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. 

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. 

We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. (Emphasis mine).

Theologian Zubizarreta teaches:

When the Chair is vacant and the Church is temporarily deprived of its visible head, She retains the privileges of indefectibility and infallibility in both its passive infallibility of the body of the faithful in matters of belief  as well as the active infallibility of the Episcopal body in its teaching role, however without being able to infallibly define dogma not yet already declared. (Theologia Fundamentalis, 1:369, [1937]). 

The following points are made unmistakably clear:

• The Vatican Council's 1870 decree on the papacy has been misconstrued. The institution of the papacy is perpetual; there is no need nor guarantee of actual men to fill that See at every point in time.

• The Great Western Schism sets historical precedent for a de facto interregnum of 51 years, since no one knew which papal claimant was pope, and there was a real possibility that none of the claimants was Vicar of Christ. 

• The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church.  Therefore, all Four Marks, including Apostolicity and everything else the Church requires, continue of necessity, even if we may not know the exact answers in any given situation. The Magisterium would not allow theologians to teach a hypothetical situation as a real possibility, if that would somehow be incompatible with the dogma of Indefectibility and the promises of Christ. 

• It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as a "heretical pope"--an oxymoron)

 Finally, Some Interesting Omissions from TR:

In their alleged "refutation" of sedevacantism, TR quotes frequently from theologian Elwood Sylvester Berry's work The Church of Christ [1955]. I wonder if  TR bothered to read it, or if  they even understand it. Here are some of Berry's teachings from the same treatise:

A False church with a false pope and false sacraments lead by Satan. On pgs. 65-66,  The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church. (Emphasis in original). A false church! Could Bergoglio and the Vatican II sect be paving the way for the end times?

Apostolicity as one of the Four Marks. On page 88: Apostolicity, as a mark, is thus restricted to succession, and that a material succession, since legitimacy is not an external quality easily recognized by all, whereas material succession, i.e., an unbroken line of pastors reaching back to the Apostles, can be known even by the unlearned as easily as the succession of civil rulers in the State. But since Apostolicity of material succession may, and probably does, exist in some schismatical churches, it constitutes a negative mark only.

So material succession determines Apostolicity as a Mark of the Church. Berry, on page 104, explains why schismatic sects like the Eastern Orthodox don't have a positive Apostolic mark, In no case do they [Eastern Schismatics] have legitimate succession; there is no transmission of jurisdiction because they have withdrawn from communion with Rome, the center and source of all jurisdiction. Sedevacantists have never withdrawn from communion with Rome! In order to prove we have, Contra must beg the question by asserting Bergoglio is a true pope, which is the very matter under dispute. 

A Doubtful Pope is No Pope. On page 229, A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case no one is bound to obey him, for it is an axiom of the law that a doubtful law begets no obligation---lex dubiat non obligat. But a superior no one is bound to obey is really no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. (Emphasis in original)

Can you say, "Roncalli"? 

Conclusion

Don't allow "Trad Recovery" to fool you. It is the Vatican II sect apologists that must explain how contradictory and ambiguous teachings can be taught as being in continuity with what the Church always held as true prior to Vatican II. Just because we may not know every answer about the functioning of the Church in a unique state doesn't mean She has not the Four Marks, as the Church Herself shows.  Likewise, not knowing exactly how or when we will get a real pope again doesn't make Bergoglio and his sect "pope and Church by default." I feel sorry for those who may have been hurt by thoughtless Traditionalist clerics or laity. Yet just because there was Judas doesn't mean we should abandon Christ.

I sincerely hope and pray these people come to their senses and recover the Truth which they tragically threw away.

Padre Pio: A Skeptical View

 

To My Readers: This week my guest poster, Dominic Caggeso, offers a well-reasoned (yet sure to be controversial) examination of Padre Pio, a "saint" of the Vatican II sect, who is also revered by many Traditionalists. 

Feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Padre Pio: A Skeptical View

By Dominic Caggeso

In their efforts to make their new, counterfeit religion appear credible, the Novus Ordo sect has employed many tactics. One of their schemes is the creation and promotion of imitation “saints”. These pseudo-holy men and women, often known for their false signs and lying wonders, employ various religious deceptions to achieve their ends. Mother Teresa’s apparent care for the poor distracted from her rejection of the necessity of the true Faith for salvation. Similarly, the rock-star status of John Paul II served as a smokescreen for his numerous public acts of apostasy.

There is a clear litmus test for these fake “saints”: their acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo religion, and/or their rejection of the Traditional Catholic Faith. Thus, it is relatively easy for Traditional Catholics to discern the genuine from the counterfeit. It is possible that someone who died before the Second Vatican Council and was “canonized” by a Vatican II antipope lived a sufficiently holy life to be considered a Saint. However, because such a person was promoted by the Novus Ordo sect, they must immediately be considered suspect of heresy or apostasy. Not all “saints” canonized by the Novus Ordo sect are heretics or apostates, but our default position towards these “saints” should be one of skepticism and prudence.

Over the years, through numerous conversations with other sedevacantists, I've come to notice that there are a few Novus Ordo “canonized saints” who are widely regarded as genuinely holy. Among these, Fr. Maximilian Kolbe (who seems genuine as far as I can tell) and Padre Pio stand out. While there may be others I have overlooked, these two are often held in high esteem, with Padre Pio receiving the most devotion from Traditional Catholics. 

He is seen as a staunch promoter of Catholic Tradition, particularly in the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council. To be frank, I believe that some Traditional Catholics are also captivated by his purported fantastic miracles. Let’s delve into some of the significant events in Padre Pio’s public life and examine them more closely. Perhaps he should be counted among the other counterfeit Novus Ordo “saints."

General Information About Padre Pio

• Padre Pio was born in 1887 in Pietrelcina, Italy.  He died on September 23rd 1968, shortly after the end of the Second Vatican Council (which ended in 1965) and he died shortly before the promulgation of the Novus Ordo rite of Paul VI, which took place on April 3rd 1969.

• He entered the novitiate of the Franciscans in 1903 around the age of 16 years old.  He was ordained a priest in 1910.

• Padre Pio is famous for his alleged stigmata, and for the many reports of wonders and miracles that he performed throughout his adult life.  

• He was "beatified" in 1999 by John Paul II. He was "canonized" in 2002 by John Paul II.  

Condemnation by the Pre-Vatican II Holy Office

One of the most compelling reasons for skepticism regarding Padre Pio’s authenticity as a true Catholic saint are the numerous condemnations he received from the Pre-Vatican II Holy Office, spanning multiple decades. These condemnations take on further gravity considering they were issued and upheld by two steadfast defenders of Catholic teaching and Tradition: Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val and Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. Cardinal Merry del Val, a close friend and confidant of Pope St. Pius X, led the Holy Office from 1914 to 1930. Cardinal Ottaviani succeeded him, serving from 1959 to 1968.

The initial condemnations of Padre Pio were made by Cardinal Rafael Merry del Val. Cardinal Ottaviani chose to maintain these condemnations, along with subsequent censures placed on Padre Pio in the 1930’s and 1950’s.

Here is a list of the acts of the Holy Office pertaining to Padre Pio through the first half of the 20th century:

1. On June 22nd, 1922 the Holy Office issued its first decree against Padre Pio:  

• “He will celebrate Mass in private.

• He will not bless the people.

• He will not show to anybody the so called stigmata.

• He will stop immediately any communication with Padre Benedetto, his spiritual director.

• To best execute the above orders Padre Pio will be immediately transferred to a convent preferably in Northern Italy.

• Padre Pio will no more answer letters.

Wishing all the best, Cardinal Rafael Merry Del Val."

2. On May 31st, 1923 another decree came from the Holy Office:

• “The Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, responsible for upholding the faith and defending morals, held an inquiry on the phenomena attributed to Padre Pio of Pietrelcina, a member Friar Minor of the Capuchins at the Monastery of San Giovanni Rotondo in the Diocese of Foggia, and declares that: it cannot confirm from this inquiry any basis for the supernatural character for this phenomena and exhorts the faithful to conform their practices to this declaration."

3. On July 24th, 1924 the Holy office issued a warning for anyone to avoid contact with Padre Pio.

4. On April 23rd 1926, the Holy Office condemned a book written about Padre Pio, and put it on the index of forbidden books.

5. Another book was written about Padre Pio in 1931 and it was placed on the index of forbidden books by the Holy Office.

6. In May of 1931, the Holy Office stripped Padre Pio of all his ministerial functions.

7. In Fall of 1931, the Holy office confirmed all its previous condemnations concerning Padre Pio.

8. In 1933, he had his ministerial functions restored.

9. In 1952, the Holy Office condemned and placed on the index of forbidden books, eight books about Padre Pio.  Previous to 1952, any book written about Padre Pio was regularly placed on the index of forbidden books.

10. On Jan 1952, the Holy Office made a report after having visited Padre Pio's monastery.  The report said that the monks should discourage any pilgrims from coming to see Padre Pio, and to stop handing out pictures of him to pilgrims.

Padre Pio and the lead up to the Second Vatican Council

The drama surrounding Padre Pio, his followers, and various figures in the Catholic Church, unfolded over several decades, starting in the 1930s and continuing until his death in 1968. This drama was highly publicized, and at times, scandalous accusations were made by Padre Pio's supporters against certain Catholic Church officials. This controversy captivated the attention of Catholics in Italy, fostering strong feelings and opinions on both sides of the debate.

The drama reached a crescendo in the decade before the Second Vatican Council and persisted throughout the Council. Whether intentional or not, this controversy diverted the attention of many devout Italian Catholics away from the Second Vatican Council and onto Padre Pio. With the benefit of decades of perspective, it seems to me that this diversion was a convenient way for the Modernists to draw pious-minded Italian Catholics’ attention away from the events transpiring during the Council. 

As Traditional Catholics, we can now see in hindsight that the Second Vatican Council was an immense evil that nearly devastated the Catholic Faith and religion worldwide. If Padre Pio was truly a wonderworker and mystic, how is it that he failed to sufficiently raise the alarm about Vatican II? He had three years after the Council's conclusion in 1965 until his death in 1968 to read its documents and point out the clear heresies contained within them. There could have been no better use of his miraculous powers than to alert the Faithful about the impending worldwide great apostasy!

As a final note on the issue of Padre Pio's silence regarding Vatican II, it's worth mentioning that he wrote a letter to Paul VI on September 12th, 1968, nearly three years after the conclusion of the Council. This letter contains no condemnation of the Council's false doctrines; on the contrary, it praises Paul VI for his “lofty teachings”.

Notably, Padre Pio commended Paul VI's encyclical, "Humanae Vitae." However, Traditional Catholics have pointed out that "Humanae Vitae" obscures the traditionally taught hierarchy of the ends of marriage, a timeless teaching that places procreation first, followed by mutual aid to the spouses. This disruption of this hierarchy, as laid out in "Humanae Vitae" is the foundation for the Novus Ordo teaching that marriage is as much for the pleasure of the spouses as it is for procreation.

This letter, allegedly written by Padre Pio, was published in the L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's newspaper, on October 10th, 1968.

Padre Pio the Wonder Worker

Our Lord warned us that in the end days, there will arise many false Christs and false prophets. One very likely fulfillment of this warning of Our Lord are the anti-popes of the Vatican II sect. A real pope is the true vicar of Christ on Earth, and in that sense, he is another Christ. Therefore, an anti-pope would be a false Christ. Our Lord said the following in the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter 24: 

24 For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. 25 Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. 26 If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not. 

The original Greek word used for "closets" is "tameiois," which is given the meanings "inner rooms" or "closets." By a very basic and rudimentary examination of the word "cloister," we can see that one of its synonyms is the word "closet."

Thus, is it possible that Our Lord was warning us that in the end days there will be false prophets who will play the role of cloistered monks or nuns? It certainly does appear that way!

As for working great signs and wonders, there is no modern man with as great of a reputation for this than Padre Pio. In fact, one of the names given to him is the "wonder worker." Even though Padre Pio is regarded as a worker of miracles, there doesn't appear to be any other lasting legacy for him. He did not found any great Catholic reform movement, such as St. Francis or St. Ignatius of Loyola. He did not add to the body of Catholic study and understanding as St. Thomas Aquinas did. He did not battle the modernists who, at his time in the 1950s and 1960s, were infesting the Church, as St. Pope Pius X did. All he seems to be famous for is principally the wonders he worked.

Summary and Conclusion

Given that Padre Pio was “beatified” and “canonized” by the arch-heretic, John Paul II, and given the numerous condemnations and censures issued to him by the pre-Vatican II Holy Office, and given the convenient timing of the “Padre Pio drama” that transpired in the lead up to the Council, perhaps it is best that we let go of Padre Pio. But most of all, because he did not use his “miraculous” abilities to identify the errors of Vatican II and then broadcast them to Catholics around the world, I argue that we should stop all practices of devotion to Padre Pio. Let us stop posting his quotes on social media, let us take down his pictures in our homes and let us focus our attention on Catholic Saints whom we know are genuine because they were declared Saints by the true Catholic Church of Christ.

If you would like to view my video about Padre Pio on YouTube, which offers these points and many others, enter the following video title in the YouTube search bar. 

Behold He is in the Closets, Believe it Not

Singing For Satan: Special Edition

 

From August 2017 to August 2019, I ran a series of posts exposing the evil in rock, pop, and rap music, and I called the series of posts "Singing For Satan." Although that "first Monday of the month" series ended almost six years ago, I reserved the right to bring up another post on the topic if I thought any artist(s) not previously covered needed to be exposed or if new developments with those I had covered took place. I feel the necessity to present the facts on Eminem's latest album, Stevie Nicks' new song, Billy Joel, and the music/musicians involved at the funeral and in the life of former President Jimmy Carter. I combined original research about these developments with that from the past.  I will reproduce the brief overview that accompanied the Singing For Satan series before exposing the artists.  God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Introduction to the original series of posts:

This week I continue my 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.

WARNING!! This post contains material that is extremely graphic, and may be found very disturbing. Reader discretion is advised.

Eminem: Is "Slim Shady" Really Dead?

Eminem (b. Marshall Mathers III in 1972) came from a humble start. Eminem became the best selling artist of 2000-2010, having sold an incredible 47.4 million albums in the United States alone, and he is listed as #83 in Rolling Stone magazine's "100 Greatest Artists of All Time." He was born to a dysfunctional family. His father left home when he was young, and his mother Debbie (who recently died, and whom Eminem despises), raised him. Eminem spent most of his youth growing up in a very poor, predominantly African-American community in Detroit, referred to by some as "8 Mile" because of 8 Mile Road that separates the poor from the rich. 8 Mile would become the title of his box office smash movie in 2002, basically telling his story. He derives his stage name from his initials, "M and M."

I took an interest in Eminem when he started and followed his career. He is one of the most vile, obscene, anti-Christ artists in the world. He embodies all seven of the evil elements in today's music. He is friends---and collaborated with---open Satan worshipper Marilyn Manson. On July 12, 2024, Mathers released his 12th studio album entitled The Death of Slim Shady (Coup de Grace). 

For those who don't know, Eminem's burst into fame came after he created an "alter-ego" he named "Slim Shady." In Spin magazine's cover story ("The Devil and Mr. Mathers..."), the rapper admits that he encountered an "entity" in his bathroom mirror which identified itself as Slim Shady. When Slim Shady started writing his lyrics, he became a superstar. In his song My Darling, he raps about his encounter:

And the dark shall emerge from the fiery depths of hell
Then swallow the shell, all the hollow who dwell
In the shadows of all who are willing to sell their souls
For this rap game and it g-g-goes
One-two-three, chk-chk, one-two-three
Chk-chk, one-two-three, that ain't the hook, now follow me
There's nothing else for me to say, my public adores me
Everybody bores me, they're just so corny
So at night before I sleep, I look in the mirror
The mirror grows lips and it whispers: "Come nearer!"...

He then tells of the price he had to pay. Slim Shady speaks to him as follows:

You remember that night you, prayed to god (sic)
You'd give anything to get a record deal, well Dre signed you
This is what you wanted your whole life Marshall, right through
Look at this house, look at these cars, I'm so nice, wooo!
Oh, but you didn't know, fame has a price too

Just a publicity stunt? According to Marcia Dawkins' biography, Eminem: The Real Slim Shady, Some scholars believe that Eminem uses his music to dramatize a deep and intense spiritual battle. He admits as much in "Must Be The Ganja" (2009) where he confesses he can identify with both the Dalai Lama (good) and Jeffery Dahmer (evil). As he seeks deeper spiritual commitment, Marshall Mathers, the redeemed or spiritual Everyman wrestles against the sinful Slim Shady persona. In Rap and Religion: Understanding the Gangsta's God, Ebony A. Utley suggests that the Slim Shady persona is downright demonic. Utley writes that, 'In the introduction to the Slim Shady EP, a foreboding voice not unlike the one attributed to the Devil in 'My Darling' taunts Eminem even though he repeatedly states, 'I thought I killed you,' 'What do you want from me?' and 'Leave me alone." (pg. 81; Emphasis mine). The Dalai Lama is evil, leading souls to Hell, and so is Dahmer for obvious reasons. There is no one Eminem identifies with who is truly good. Dawkins writes, "In fact, as Slim Shady, Eminem is known for being at odds with everything sacred and being passionate about anything profane." (pg. 79).

While Spin magazine reported that he first met the spirit of Slim Shady when he was in the bathroom, in his song, Low, Down, Dirty, he sings about "Hearing voices in my head while these whispers echo, 'Murder Murder Redrum" (redrum is murder backwards and made famous in the movie The Shining, where actor Jack Nicholson portrays a writer whom is driven insane by demonic forces).

Now, the rumors are flying that Eminem has killed off his alter ego, and will end his career. Such is not the case. While the album is a "battle" between the rapper and Slim Shady, the lyrics are evil and vile, showing Slim Shady will remain very much alive. Turning 53 this year, Mathers will not be ending his drive for more money and fame.

The following is taken directly from The Death of Slim Shady album.  WARNING! The lyrics of this artist are extremely vile and disturbing. I've censored them as much as possible.

In the song "Lucifer," Eminem tells his mother she really gave birth to Lucifer (Satan) and that the rapper's followers are a "Satanic cult" and then compares himself to infamous killer Charles Manson:

Haters can meet the same exact fate as my dad, wait

'Least he didn't miss me graduate (okay, yeah, great)

But, Mom, do I still act eight?

Uh, maybe a little, Debbie (what?) Like a snack cake (slut)

But if this is what he do to his mom

Imagine what he'd do to you, I'm a lunatic armed

And if it's you I use the clip on, for you to respond

Is ludicrous, ma, look at what your uterus spawned, Lucifer...

Now my followers are like a Satanic cult (what?)

Yeah, they listen to me like when Manson spoke (shh)

They say I don't know struggle no more, that's a joke (haha)

Bitch, the fu****' elevator in my mansion's broke (see?)

I have to walk like half a block to get a can of Coke (Emphasis mine).

In the song "Antichrist," Slim Shady is the one speaking and proclaims Marshall (Mathers) the Antichrist:

Marshall, he's the antichrist

He will slice and dice

Sluts, whores, men, women, and children (one more time, what's my name?)

His name is Marshall, he's the antichrist

He will slice and dice

Skanks, sluts, whores, men, women, and children

You wanna dance with the devil, dance with the devil, dance with the devil?

You wanna dance with the devil, dance with the devil, dance with the devil?

You wanna-

(I ain't goin' nowhere)

It's about to get scary

Bizarre (I'm still here, ay-ay, ay-ay, ay-ay) (Emphasis mine).

In the song "Guilty Conscience 2," it makes it seem that Mathers has returned to his "old self" and killed off Slim Shady, but the outro to the song says Mathers hasn't changed, he was just dreaming:

Oh, woah, what the f**k?

Come on, come on, come on, come on

Yeah?

Paul

You're not gonna f***ing believe this, bro

I had this dream, it was f***ing crazy

It was like, the old me came back on the new me

And took over my brain and had me sayin' all this f***ed-up shit

About little people and Caitlyn Jenner and

PC police were chasin' me

And fucking Gen Z was tryna kill me

And quadriplegics, and Christopher Reeves

And I was saying all this fucked-up shit

And I couldn't stop sayin' it

And then I wake up and it was like I was still dreamin'

F**k you

Wait

Hahaha (Emphasis mine)

Stevie Nicks: Anthem from a Baby-Killing Witch

Stevie Nicks was born Stephanie Lynn Nicks in 1948. She was unable to pronounce her first name as a small child, saying "tee-dee," resulting in her childhood nickname of "Stevie" which she adopted as her stage name. Nicks enjoys dressing in long, flowing witches gowns, usually with a hood. She inserts Wiccan imagery and incantations into the albums of both Fleetwood Mac and her solo endeavors. Her "soft rock" image serves as a cover for the sinister messages she brings through her music.

Nicks believes she is the reincarnation of a Welsh witch named " Rhiannon," and her music is published under the name "Welsh Witch Publishing Co." Although Nicks now denies ever having involvement in witchcraft, her past interviews and song origins/lyrics give the lie to that contention. According to a feature story about Nicks in  The Ringer, Nicks wrote the song [Rhiannon] after stumbling upon Mary Leader’s Triad: A Novel of the Supernatural in an airport bookstore. At the time she just liked the way the name "Rhiannon" sounded, but later she’d grow to feel a kinship with the Celtic deity’s origin story. Ever since, she’s taken to using the word as an adjective: To this day, if someone or something has good vibes, Stevie Nicks considers it "very Rhiannon."

 (See https://www.theringer.com/music/2017/11/21/16683772/stevie-nicks-book-career-fleetwood-mac).

 Even in her attempt to distance herself from Wicca, we see the name Rhiannon is of a pagan Celtic "goddess" obtained from reading a book on the supernatural; not a very reassuring denial. She claims to have been able to write the song in a mere ten minutes after reading the book (which deals with demon possession).  While touring, Stevie would sometimes open this song by informing the audience the tune is about "an old Welsh witch." Here are the lyrics:

Rhiannon rings like a bell through the night/And wouldn't you love to love her?/Takes to the sky like a bird in flight/And who will be her lover?/All your life you've never seen a woman taken by the wind/Would you stay if she promised to you heaven?/Will you ever win?/She is like a cat in the dark/And then she is the darkness/She rules her life like a fine skylark/And when the sky is starless/All your life you've never seen a woman taken by the wind/Would you stay if she promised to you heaven?/Will you ever win?/Will you ever win?/Rhiannon/Rhiannon/Rhiannon/Rhiannon (Emphasis mine). In live concert, the following lyric was added: "Once in a million years, a lady like her rises. 'Rhiannon' you cry but she's gone, and your life knows no answer, and your life knows no answer."

Nicks claims that the hit song Sara was written in memory of one of her four aborted children she conceived with different men. This particular child was conceived with Don Henley, the occult practicing drug addict from the band The Eagles. (See www.lifesitenews.com/news/stevie-nicks-confirms-she-wrote-hit-song-about-baby-she-aborted-with-don-he). 

Nicks said she would have named the child Sara if she had chosen not to murder the baby and it was a girl. Henley was going to build a house for them when he found out she was pregnant, but Nicks thought her career was more important, which is why she murdered all four of her unborn babies. She murdered one child fathered by Henley, one by then-boyfriend Buckingham, one by rock star Joe Walsh, and another by whoever she was sleeping around with at the time. The pertinent part of Sara:

Sara, you're the poet in my heart
Never change, never stop
And now it's gone
They say it doesn't matter what for
When you build your house, call me…

All I ever wanted was to know
That you were dreaming
There's a heartbeat
No, it never really died

You never really died 

Yes, your unborn baby really died, and you murdered her. Yet Nicks assures us,"...  It's much more fun to be the crazy auntie [of a child] than it is to be the mom, anyway." (See http://www.theage.com.au/news/music/a-magical-life/2006/02/09/1139465789637.html?page=fullpage).

Now, in 2024, Nicks has released an ode to abortion in the aftermath of the wonderful U.S. Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) that had declared a "right to abortion" was protected by the U.S. Constitution. Whether or not to allow abortion (and to what extent) is up to each individual state. 

In the song "The Lighthouse," the witch who killed four of her own children, tells women to fight for the right to kill their babies, and "be afraid" if they can't murder them. 

"Don’t close your eyes and hope for the best / The dark is out there / The light is going fast / Until the final hours," she sings. "Your life’s changed forever / And all the rights that you had yesterday / Are taken away / And now you’re afraid / You should be afraid.”...

“I find it very sad, at 76 years old, I had to see Roe v. Wade taken away," Nicks tells PEOPLE exclusively in an email interview. "Two years ago, when I realized the consequences of women’s rights that are vanishing, I watched a lot of news, and I was like a sponge — it just went into me.”

Following the news, the Grammy winner and Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductee channeled that sadness into song.

“One morning I woke up… which, I never write when I wake up in the morning, and all of a sudden went, ‘I have my scars, I have my scars,’ so I just grabbed my notebook, and I started writing the whole thing," she says. "It was a long-form poem, and I didn't know what kind of song that would be. I found an instrumental that I loved and within two or three days, I had recorded the song. I never redid the vocal — it's an original vocal — and it's taken me two years.”...

The topic of women's reproductive rights is a personal one for Nicks, who in 2020 revealed to The Guardian that she "would have had to walk away" from Fleetwood Mac if she didn't get an abortion in 1979. Without the procedure, "I’m pretty sure there would have been no Fleetwood Mac," she added at the time.

Now, she tells PEOPLE, “All the stories that we tell about the necessity for women's healthcare and the necessity for a safe and legal abortion option for women is absolutely necessary."

(See https://people.com/stevie-nicks-discusses-new-song-the-lighthouse-abortion-access-exclusive-8719365). 

Ultimately, what Nicks is saying is that in order for women to be powerful and in charge of their lives they need the ability to kill their own preborn children. The notion of women needing to have abortions to be successful is not only wrong, but grossly misogynistic and pure evil. It's an idea that Nicks has frequently promoted; and why wouldn't she do so? Wiccans are advocates for abortion

The wicked song proclaims that murdering children is like "The Light" and saving them is darkness. Immediately Isaiah 5:20 came to mind, "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter."(Emphasis mine). 

Nicks is going on tour with another avowed enemy of Christianity, Billy Joel.

Billy Joel: Only The Evil Die Eternally

William Martin (Billy) Joel (b. 1949) is a Jew born in New York City and raised on Long Island. He began playing the piano at a young age, and was discovered in 1972 when his song "Captain Jack" got noticed. The song is based on a drug dealer who sold heroin near where Joel grew up. It was also the first song on the radio to specifically use the word masturbate:

Saturday night and you're still hangin' around

You're tired of livin' in your one horse town

You'd like to find a little hole in the ground for a while

So you go to the village in your tie-dye jeans

And you stare at the junkies and the closet queens

It's like some pornographic magazine, and you smile

But Captain Jack will get you high tonight

And take you to your special island

Captain Jack will get you by tonight

Just a little push 'n' you'll be smilin'

Oh yeah, yeah

Your sister's gone out, she's on a date

And you just sit at home and masturbate

Your phone is gonna ring soon,

But you just can't wait, for that call

Joel produced 12 studio albums and is still touring. He has sold over 160 million records. Joel was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1992, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1999, and the Long Island Music Hall of Fame in 2006. His net worth is estimated at approximately $250 million dollars. Although his parents are Jewish, he was not raised in the religion. He would attend true Masses pre-Vatican II with his friends, and was baptized unbeknownst to his parents in a Protestant church when he was 11 years old. Yet, he claims it was peer pressure and is a self-proclaimed atheist.

His 1977 song "Only The Good Die Young" is about a Jewish boy trying to convince a devout Catholic girl to fornicate with him. 

Come out, Virginia, don't let me wait

You Catholic girls start much too late

Aw, but sooner or later it comes down to fate

I might as well will be the one

Well, they showed you a statue, told you to pray

They built you a temple and locked you away

Aw, but they never told you the price that you pay

For things that you might have done

Well, only the good die young

That's what I said

Only the good die young

Only the good die young

You mighta heard I run with a dangerous crowd

We ain't too pretty, we ain't too proud

We might be laughing a bit too loud

Aw, but that never hurt no one

So come on, Virginia, show me a sign

Send up a signal, I'll throw you the line

The stained-glass curtain you're hiding behind

Never let's in the sun

Darlin', only the good die young

Whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa

I tell ya only the good die young

Only the good die young

You got a nice white dress and a party on your confirmation

You got a brand new soul

Mmm, and a cross of gold

But, Virginia, they didn't give you quite enough information

You didn't count on me

When you were counting on your rosary

Oh-whoa-whoa

And they say there's a heaven for those who will wait

Some say it's better, but I say it ain't

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints

The sinners are much more fun

You know that only the good die young, oh, baby

I tell ya only the good die young

Only the good die young

Said your mother told you all that I could give you was a reputation

Aw, she never cared for me

But did she ever say a prayer for me?

Oh-whoa-whoa

Come out, come out, come out, Virginia, don't let me wait

You Catholic girls start much too late

Sooner or later it comes down to fate

I might as well will be the one

You know that only the good die young

Tell you, baby

You know that only the good die young

Only the good die young

Only the good

Only the good die young

Ooh-ooh, ooh-hoo

Ooh-ooh-hoo-hoo

Ooh-ooh, ooh-hoo

Ooh-ooh-hoo-hoo

Ooh-ooh, ooh-hoo

Ooh-ooh-hoo-hoo

Only the good die young

Only the good die young  (Emphasis mine)

Interestingly, as Joel was nearing the peek of his fame at this point, he wanted to buy a mansion on Long Island to show off to the people who said he would never make it when he began his career in music. He had his eye on a beautiful place in the posh area of Oyster Bay Cove. The home was going cheaper than most as a murder had occurred there. Joel waited a day too long to make his move and it was sold to Archbishop Lefebvre, who consecrated it as a Church. In 1983, it became (and remains) the signature Church of the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV) when they broke from Abp. Lefebvre.

Billy Joel has this to say about going to Mass as a child:

I viewed the whole business as a lot of very enthralling hocus-pocus. There's a guy hanging upon the wall in the church, nailed to a cross and dripping blood, and everybody's blaming themselves for that man's torment, but I said to myself, 'Forget it. I had no hand in that evil. I have no original sin. There's no blood of any sacred martyr on my hands. I pass on all of this.'

He says of his atheism that it is like a father-child relationship (in a perverse way):

You decide first of all that will not ask Daddy – meaning God in all of his imagined forms – for a helping hand when you're in a jam. Then you have to try and make some sort of sense out of your problems. And if you try and find you can't, you have no choice but to be good and scared – but that's okay!

(See https://hollowverse.com/billy-joel#http%3A%2F%2Fwww.celebatheists.com%2Fwiki%2FBilly_Joel). 

His nastiness is legendary. I worked with a woman who was out on Long Island and saw Joel reading a newspaper on a bench. Excitedly and nervously, she approached him to ask for his autograph. Without looking up, he replied, "F*** off." 

He has struggled with depression. According to one source:  According to Joel, he often felt like life was meaningless and that there was no point in living. (See https://westwindrecovery.com/recovery-blog/celebrities-with-mental-health-issues/#1698780174435-620c897d-3d44). 

Jimmy Carter and "Good Christian Music"

Former U.S. President James Earl ("Jimmy") Carter died on December 29, 2024 at the age of 100. He lived longer than any other president in American history. Carter is often lauded as a "devout Christian," yet supported abortion on demand. At his funeral, Garth Brooks, a country singer, played the detestable John Lennon song "Imagine," an atheist anthem. 

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us, only sky

Imagine all the people

Livin' for today

Ah

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion, too

Imagine all the people

Livin' life in peace

You

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world

You

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one (Emphasis mine).

While claiming to believe in nothing but himself, Lennon and The Beatles promoted pagan religion and a Satanist, Aleister Crowley. The man who wanted us to "imagine no possessions" was a multi-millionaire. He was anti-war and denounced the United States for acts of violence while beating his wife Cynthia, emotionally abusing his son Julian, and on at least one occasion was filmed making fun of the physically-challenged. He was a raging drug addict and advocated drug use. Why would "devout Christian" Carter want THAT song by THAT man at his funeral? Like Lennon, Carter was more focused on the things of this world than the next. Building houses was more important than seeking your heavenly home.

Brooks (b. 1962) likes to "thank Jesus" frequently, claims to be Christian, yet espouses no denomination and has no regular church attendance. Nominally Republican, he was a supporter of baby killer, pro-sodomite, Communist Barak Obama. He also sang an overtly atheist anthem for Carter's funeral. Brooks admitted to cheating on his first wife, Sandy Mahl, in 1989. Last year, an anonymous hairstylist is suing Brooks for sexual assault. 

Finally, Jimmy Carter holds the infamous distinction of being the only president to pardon a convicted child molester. On January 19, 1981, one day before his term ended and Ronald Reagan became president, Carter pardoned Peter Yarrow of the folk group Peter, Paul, and Mary. Yarrow died on January 7 of this year at the age of 86. Only Paul Stookey remains alive. Mary Travers died in 2009.

Yarrow was the ultimate liberal, secular Jew, having been born here in Manhattan and being the quintessential anti-American hippie. In 1970, Yarrow (then 34 years old) was visited at his hotel room by a 17 year old girl and her14 year old sister; they were hoping to see him and get an autograph. He asked the 17 year old to wait in the living room while he took 14 year old Barbara Winter into the bedroom and made her masturbate him. He was arrested, and at trial, claimed the little girl was a "willing participant." The judge found Yarrow guilty and sentenced him to a mere three months in jail. 

For reasons unknown, Carter gave the folk singer an Executive Pardon. Yarrow then admitted to the crime and confessed that Winter had not been a "willing participant." In 2021, another allegation came forth. According to the Washington Post:

Then, 40 years after Carter’s pardon, another woman stepped forward with an accusation of her own. In a lawsuit filed in New York on Feb. 24, 2021, she alleged that Yarrow lured her to a Manhattan hotel when she was a minor in 1969 and raped her.

Through an attorney, Yarrow, who turns 83 this month, declined to respond to questions about how he acquired his pardon or the new allegation against him. The lawsuit, which sought unspecified damages, also named the band Peter, Paul and Mary as co-defendants, alleging that Travers and Stookey “knew that Yarrow liked to have sexual intercourse with and perform other sex acts on minor children.”

Travers died in 2009. “This is all a surprise to me,” Stookey told The Post. “It’s not in his character. If anything he’s over solicitous in making people comfortable.”

Court records indicate the woman reached a settlement with Yarrow and the band in April. She and her attorneys did not respond to multiple requests for comment. (See https://web.archive.org/web/20210517122113/https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/05/17/peter-yarrow-carter-pardon-assault/).

As if all this isn't sick enough, Barbara Winters said that after she masturbated Yarrow (not knowing what she was doing and afraid) he told her, “not to tell anybody except for, because I was a Catholic, I could tell the priest in confession.” He knew enough that a Catholic priest can never break the seal of Confession. 

The only reason Yarrow could be sued after so many years was because the New York State Legislature allowed any sexual assault lawsuit regarding a minor to be initiated, regardless of how long ago in the past, in response to the raping of children by the Vatican II sect's clergy. 

I had the dubious distinction of meeting Yarrow in person 25 years ago when he was starting "Operation Respect," a program which was aimed primarily at school bullying, but was also at first a general anti-bullying message. One of the partners at my firm wanted me to take the day off to go and see Yarrow's presentation at a nearby hotel to see if HR could use any of his "cultural sensitivity" material. His presentation was attended by about 100 people. We sang anti-bullying songs, he told stories about the bad effects of bullying, and gave out some literature on how to be inclusive.

Peter, Paul, and Mary had a famous song, "Puff, The Magic Dragon." "Magic dragon" was 1960s slang for marijuana. The song tells it like a children's story. It even became a children's cartoon. Yarrow always swore the song was not about drugs despite all the dope-laden references. As the time to end approached, Yarrow asked, "Before we leave, does anyone have any questions for me?" I had to go for it. I raised my hand.  Yarrow pointed to me (the only one with a raised hand) and smiled. "yes, the young man in the blue suit!" I asked, "Mr. Yarrow, with all the drug references throughout 'Puff, the Magic Dragon' isn't it really about marijuana?" He turned red with rage and screamed "NO!!!" at the top of his lungs and ran out. The audience was in stunned silence. So much for anti-bullying and being respectful. 

Conclusion

This concludes my update on the sorry condition of most modern musicians and the evil messages they convey. Let this post serve as a warning to be careful of the music which you listen to and allow in your home. If you think you are immune from its influence, think again. Medical doctor and brain specialist, Richard Pellegrino, who is a consultant to the entertainment industry, wrote an article for Billboard Magazine, about the power of music. Dr. Pellegrino stated: Take it from a brain guy. In 25 years of working with the brain, I still cannot affect a person’s state of mind the way that one simple song can.

Then think of what the demonic Eminem stated in his song "Marshall Mathers:" I think I was put here to…destroy your little 4-year-old boy or girl.