Monday, September 20, 2021

A Most Pernicious Error


What do Vatican II sect apologists, "Recognize and Resistors (R&R)," and Feeneyites all have in common? A most pernicious error: that a pope can teach error when not speaking ex cathedra and still be pope. Hence, "conservative" Vatican II sect apologists who disagree with Bergoglio will say his teaching isn't infallible so it "doesn't matter" for the faith, or they will claim it is a "development of doctrine" and only an apparent contradiction with past teaching. The R&R will profess that a pope need not be followed (he can be "resisted") if (a) the teaching is non-infallible and (b) it "goes against Tradition."

Feeneyites, like Fred and Bobby Dimond, think that any teaching that is not a dogma may be discarded if it goes against (what they erroneously believe) to be dogmatic teaching. Additionally, they are not even logical in applying their error. When Bergoglio or any false pope since Roncalli teaches something contrary to dogma, they (correctly) conclude he can't be pope. However, when true popes affirm Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, they make incredulous excuses for such papal giants as Pius IX, St. Pius X, and Benedict XV as to why they "didn't really" teach Baptism of Desire, and it "wasn't infallible" anyway. 

This post will show (a) true popes must be obeyed even when not teaching infallibly, (b) what constitutes legitimate, Catholic development of dogma, and (c) how the false popes since Roncalli (John XXIII) teach almost word-for-word contradictions to past Church teaching.

Papal Authority
1.  A Catholic is not allowed to accept from the Church only what seems correct to him or only that which is declared infallibly.

Pope Pius XI: Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

(See Casti Connubii, para. #104; Emphasis mine). 

Theologian Cardinal Franzelin (1816-1886):
The Holy Apostolic See, to whom the guarding of the Deposit has been committed, and on whom the duty and office of feeding the entire Church, unto the salvation of souls, has been laid, can prescribe theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones) as to be followed, or proscribe them as not to be followed, not only with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly by definitive sentence, but also without that intention, with the need and the intention of exercising care, either simply or with specified qualifications, for the safety of Catholic doctrine. In this sort of declarations, even though there is not the infallible truth of the doctrine because there is not the intention of deciding this, but nevertheless, there is infallible safety. By safety, I mean both objective safety as to the doctrine so declared (either simply or with such and such qualifications), and subjective safety, to the extent that it is safe for all to embrace it, and it is not safe, nor can it be free from the violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium, that they should refuse to embrace it.

(See On Divine Tradition, [1875; reprinted 2016], pg. 179; Emphasis mine). 

Here, Card. Franzelin, one of the most eminent theologians defending papal infallibility at the Vatican Council of 1870, teaches the following points:

  • The pope can instruct the faithful to hold theological opinions (or other opinions to the extent that they are connected with theological ones), or forbid the faithful from holding certain theological opinions
  • The Holy See can do so either with the intention of deciding the truth infallibly, but also without that intention
  • Without the intention of deciding infallibly the Holy See would have the intention of exercising care for the safety of Catholic doctrine
  • This means that the doctrine so declared does not undermine any of the truths of the faith, and it also means that it is safe for all to embrace it
  •  It is also true that it is not safe for anybody to fail to embrace the doctrine
  • If anybody fails to embrace such a doctrine they commit a sin by refusing proper submission to the teaching authority of the Church.
True and False Development of Doctrine
From The Anti-Modernist Oath of Pope St. Pius X (1910):
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.
(Emphasis mine).

For Modernists, Divine Revelation given to the Church by God, is a continuing process that will not be finished until the end of time. Earlier statements of truth can be modified or even contradicted by later statements "more suited to the age" in which the Church finds Herself. For Catholics, Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, St. John, in the year 100 A.D. It develops insofar as to be more fully grasped as time goes on, but to be passed on faithfully, in its entirety, undiminished and uncorrupted. Modernists deny the absolute truth of dogmas, and assert that dogmas may be valid at the time declared, but they are subject to additions, omissions, substantial alterations, and even abolishment at other time periods. They are moral and doctrinal relativists, like Bergoglio.

Is it the same Church?
Here is just a small sampling of what the Church and the Vatican II sect teach on certain subjects. Ask yourself, could both these teachings come from the same Church instituted by Christ? (Church teaching shall be in red font. Vatican II sect [Modernist] teaching will be in normal black font.---Introibo).

Is the Church complete?

Pope Pius XI:
 And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. (Mortalium Animos, para. #7).

Karol Wojtyla:
Christ calls all his disciples to unity. My earnest desire is to renew this call today, to propose it once more with determination, repeating what I said at the Roman Colosseum on Good Friday 1994, at the end of the meditation on the Via Crucis prepared by my Venerable Brother Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. There I stated that believers in Christ, united in following in the footsteps of the martyrs, cannot remain divided. (Ut Unum Sint, para. #1; First Emphasis in original, Second Emphasis mine).

Do non-Catholics need to convert to the Church for salvation?

Fourth Lateran Council (1215):
One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved...

Vatican II:
For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (Unitatis Redintegratio, #3).

Jorge Bergoglio:
Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.

Can false sects be given freedom by the State to give false worship in public?

Pope Leo XIII:
Again, that it is not lawful for the State, any more than for the individual, either to disregard all religious duties or to hold in equal favor different kinds of religion...

Vatican II:
Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles. (Dignitatis Humanae, para. #4). 

What is the Mass?

Traditional Mass: Council of Trent, Session 22:
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence.

Novus Bogus: Paragraph #7 General Instruction on the Roman Missal, 1969
The Lord's Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the People of God gathering together, with the priest presiding, in order to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. 

What is the primary purpose of the Sacraments?
Traditional Sacraments:
Baptism: Remission of Original Sin (and all actual sins/temporal punishments for remitted sin in adults), imparting of an indelible character on the soul, membership in the Church, and the infusion of Sanctifying Grace.

Penance: The forgiveness of sins committed by those with the use of reason after baptism when confessed to a priest. The penitent must have at least attrition for all sins, a firm resolve to avoid all mortal sin with God's Grace, and faithfully carry out the imposed penance. 

Holy Eucharist: It is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ received under the mere appearance of bread. It increases sanctifying grace and the fervor of charity: just as food supports and increases the life of the body, so the Holy Eucharist preserves and increases grace which is the life of the soul: It forgives venial sins; It is of great help for final perseverance: by diminishing concupiscence, preserving from mortal sin, strengthening the soul in the practice of good works, and producing spiritual consolation.

Confirmation: Reception of an indelible character on the soul and strengthened by the Gifts of the Holy Ghost to be Soldiers of Christ; willing to endure even martyrdom for the sake of Christ and His One True Church.

Holy Orders: The conferral of an indelible sacerdotal character upon a man which renders him "another Christ" (alter Christus). He has the power to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice for the living and the dead, to forgive sin, and to administer the sacraments of the Church 

Holy Matrimony: To unite a man and woman together for life in order to effectuate the procreation and education of children as God intended.

Extreme Unction: A sacrament for those in danger of death from sickness and/or old age. The effect is the grace of the Holy Ghost, whose anointing takes away sins, if there are any still to be expiated, and removes the trace of sin; and it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person. It gives him great confidence in the divine mercy. Encouraged by this, the sick man more easily bears the inconvenience and trial of his illness and more easily resists the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel. This anointing occasionally restores health to the body, if health would be of advantage to the salvation of the soul.

Vatican II "sacraments:"
Baptism: To initiate someone into the People of God. "In Baptism, the Holy Spirit moves us to answer Christ's call to holiness. In Baptism, we are asked to walk by the light of Christ and to trust in his wisdom. We are invited to submit our hearts to Christ with ever deeper love." (United States Conference of Catholic [sic] Bishops [sic]; See

Reconciliation:  A time of healing and reconciling that invites all to experience God’s love and forgiveness through the actions of the priest.

Holy Eucharist: Christ is present in a special manner to bring us closer to God and other Christians. 

Confirmation: A Christian Rite of Passage whereby it gives an increase and deepening of baptismal grace from the Holy Spirit to have a mature faith. 

Holy Orders: Configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ’s instrument for His Church.

Holy Matrimony: Gives spouses the grace to love each other with the grace with which Christ has loved His Church. 

Anointing of the Sick: The hoped-for effect is that, if it be God's will, the person be physically healed of illness. But even if there is no physical healing, the primary effect of the Sacrament is a spiritual healing by which the sick person receives the Holy Spirit's gift of peace and courage to deal with the difficulties that accompany serious illness or the frailty of old age.


The Vatican II apologists, R&R, and Feeneyites must come to grips with their most pernicious error if they wish to be Catholic. Catholics must assent to the authoritative teachings of the pope. Internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See authentically approved by the Supreme Pontiff. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, [1955], pg. 241). Catholics must reject the Modernist idea of the development of doctrine, as taught by Pope St. Pius X. Having established these two facts, even a casual look at perennial Church teaching with that of the counterfeit Vatican II sect (claiming falsely to be the Catholic Church), shows there has been contradictory teachings and practices. In order to be a member of the Vatican II sect you must do one of the following:
  • Claim that the Church can defect and deny the dogma of Indefectibility (like $teve $kojec)
  • Assert that somehow the Vatican II sect contradictions are only apparent, not real (Any attempt at this I've ever seen is a joke)
Otherwise, you must realize that since the Church cannot defect, and the doctrinal/moral/sacramental contradictions are real, not apparent, the Vatican II sect is a man-made sect and not the True Church. This happened because a heretic cannot become or remain pope. As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches, If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate. (See Oeuvres Completes 9:232; Emphasis mine). 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). Such was the unanimous teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. 

Jorge Bergoglio is not therefore, the pope, but a heretic who couldn't attain the office in the first place. The One True Church continues as a remnant through the Traditionalists. It's an easy fact to recognize, yet a painful reality many wish to resist, much to their own detriment. 


Monday, September 13, 2021

Last Rites And Wrongs


Both my parents were very blessed to have received the Last Rites of Holy Mother Church just before they died. Tragically, millions of members of the Vatican II sect will have their scandal-laden clergy giving them invalid sacraments when they are about to appear before Christ to be Judged. It is hard to conceive of a more horrific crime against humanity. Our Lord Himself said, "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hell." (St. Matthew 10:28). Yet this is what the Vatican II sect does; lead you away from Heaven and towards Hell. The sect's dying members will have an invalidly ordained priest (in almost all cases), who can't absolve from sin, brings mere bread for "Holy Viaticum," and gives an invalid "Anointing of the Sick" in place of the sacrament of Extreme Unction. None of this prepares them for Judgement. 

In 1973, the Vatican II sect officially replaced the aforementioned Sacrament of Extreme Unction, which focused primarily on remitting sin, strengthening the soul with grace, and preparing the recipient for Judgement. In it's place is an invalid pseudo-sacrament called the Anointing of the Sick which focuses primarily on health and healing of the body, and pays little attention to the immortal soul. While it is true that Extreme Unction has as one of its effects, the restoration of bodily health (if it is God's Will), that was the secondary effect, subordinate to the primary spiritual effects. 

This post will compare the Catholic Sacrament of Extreme Unction to the Vatican II sect's Anointing of the Sick. Even presuming a valid priest, it will be shown to be invalid with moral certainty. 

Extreme Unction
1. Preliminary Considerations
According to theologian Kilker, for the valid reception of Extreme Unction, three requisites must be present: "1. He must be a "fidelis" (i.e. Catholic--Introibo) 2. He must have acquired the use of reason 3. He must be in danger of death from sickness or old age" (See Extreme Unction, [1926], pg. 123, Emphasis mine). Kilker states that the sickness must proceed from an internal cause (Ibid, pg. 165) which excludes from validity the conferral (rampant in the Vatican II sect) of anointing those about to have an operation, go into military battle, or be executed, as these are all external causes of death. 

The purpose of the sacrament is expressed in the Catechism of St.Pius X which states: "Extreme Unction is a sacrament instituted for the spiritual as well as for the temporal comfort of the sick in danger of death." (Emphasis mine). Hence, there is an invalidating obex (i.e., impediment on the part of the recipient) in anointing anyone who is not reasonably considered to be in danger of death (e.g., an otherwise healthy middle aged person with a common cold), or faces death from an external cause such as a criminal prior to execution. Just as Holy Orders is invalid if the recipient is a woman, so too is Extreme Unction invalid on such persons just described. 

The effects of Extreme Unction were defined at the Council of Trent:
The effect is the grace of the Holy Ghost, whose anointing takes away sins, if there are any still to be expiated, and removes the trace of sin; and it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person. It gives him great confidence in the divine mercy. Encouraged by this, the sick man more easily bears the inconvenience and trial of his illness and more easily resists the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel. This anointing occasionally restores health to the body, if health would be of advantage to the salvation of the soul. (See14th Session on Extreme Unction; Emphasis mine).

The Rite
Many people will die at home surrounded by their family and friends praying for them. Therefore, the Rite often refers to the "home." Today, the home or the hospital/hospice will still be the place most people will die. (All emphasis in the Rite is mine---Introibo). Extreme Unction may be loosely translated as "Last Anointing"--not because someone will definitely die after it ( as some superstitious people believe and therefore neglect the sacrament), but because in the usual course of time it is last after the anointing in  Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. 

1. Introductory Prayers
Arriving at the place where the sick person is confined, the priest on entering the room says:

P: God's peace be in this home.
All: And in all who live here.

The priest places the holy oil on the table, and then vests in surplice and stole. Next he presents a crucifix to be devoutly kissed by the sick person. After that he sprinkles holy water in the form of a cross on the patient, the room, and the bystanders, saying:

Purify me with hyssop, Lord, and I shall be clean of sin. Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Have mercy on me, God, in Thy great kindness. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.

All: As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

P: Purify me with hyssop, Lord, and I shall be clean of sin. Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

If the patient wishes to go to confession, he hears his confession and absolves him. Then he speaks words of consolation to him and if time permits briefly explains the power and efficacy of this sacrament. When advisable he adds words of encouragement and directs the patient's thoughts to hope of everlasting life.

The sacrament begins with the priest reciting the Fourth Penitential Psalm, Psalm 50:9, recalling King David's confession and confidence in God's mercy. This prepares the person to to make a good and humble Confession. Extreme Unction gets directly to the Sacrament of Penance. After absolution, the priest resumes Extreme Unction and calls attention to the supernatural battle for the dying person's soul. The priest invokes the angels to cast out the devil, evil spirits, wicked strife, and diabolical power. Satan is referred to no less than six (6) times during the sacrament. 

2. After Penance
P: Our help is in the name of the Lord.
 All: Who hath made heaven and earth.
 P: The Lord be with thy spirit.
 All: And also with thy spirit.

Let us pray.

Lord Jesus Christ, as we, in all humility, enter this home, let there enter with us abiding happiness and God's choicest blessings. Let serene joy pervade this home and charity abound here and health never fail. Let no evil spirits approach this place but drive them far away. Let your angels of peace take over and put down all wicked strife. Teach us, O Lord, to recognize the grandeur of Thy Holy Name. Sanctify our humble visit and bless + what we are about to do; Thou Who art Holy, Thou Who art Kind, Thou Who abideth with the Father and the Holy Ghost  world without end.

All: Amen.

Let us pray and beseech our Lord Jesus Christ to bless this dwelling more and more and all who live in it. May He give them an able guardian angel. May He prompt them to serve Him and to ponder the wonders of His law. May He ward off all diabolical powers from them, deliver them from all fear and anxiety, and keep them in good health in this dwelling; He who liveth and reigneth with the Father and the Holy Ghost, world without end.

All: Amen.

Let us pray.

Hear us, holy Lord Father, almighty everlasting God, and in Thy goodness send Thy holy angel from Heaven to watch over and protect all who live in this home, to be with them and give them comfort and encouragement; through Christ our Lord.

All: Amen.

(If time does not permit, all or part of the foregoing prayers may be omitted. Next comes as usual the general confession of sins (Confiteor), after which the priest says:)

May almighty God have mercy on thee, forgive thee thy sins, and lead thee to everlasting life.
All: Amen.

P: May the almighty and merciful Lord grant thee pardon, absolution, + and remission of thy sins.
All: Amen.

3. The Laying on of Hands
Before the priest begins to anoint the sick person he invites all present to pray for him. And if circumstances are favorable and those present are able to do so they should recite the seven penitential psalms and Litany of the Saints or other prayers while the priest administers the sacrament.

The priest extends his right hand over the head of the sick person, saying:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; may any power the devil has over you be destroyed by the laying-on of our hands and by calling on the glorious and blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, her illustrious spouse, St. Joseph, and all holy angels, archangels, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins, and all the saints.

All: Amen.

Extreme Unction seeks to destroy the power of Satan at the most important time in a person's life. It also shows the power of the invocation of the saints. In particular, The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, who crushed the head of the serpent, and St. Joseph, The Terror of Demons.

4. The Anointings (The Sacrament)
The matter of the sacrament is olive oil alone[consecrated by a bishop] (See Catechism of the Council of Trent). The Holy Office under Pope Gregory XVI declared (September 14,1842), that "it is rash and close to error, to assert that this sacrament could be valid with another oil." The olive oil must be consecrated by a bishop. According to theologian Pohle, Pope Innocent I insists the episcopal blessing must be performed by a bishop for validity and not by a mere priest. Pope Paul V proscribed in 1611 the proposition that "Extreme Unction may be validly administered with oil not consecrated by a bishop" as being "rash and bordering on error." In 1842, the Supreme Sacred Congregation was asked if, in case of emergency, a parish priest could consecrate the oil for Extreme Unction. The reply was "In the negative." It has always been held that a priest could validly consecrate the oil for Extreme Unction if power to do so were delegated to that priest by the pope. In 1595, Eastern Rite priests were all given that power by Pope Clement VIII.  (See Dogmatic Theology, [1924], 11:18-19). 

The priest anoints six body parts with the consecrated oil, for the purpose of remitting sin. The form of the sacrament is: By this holy unction and His pious mercy, may God forgive thee whatever sins thou hast committed by the evil use of sight (hearing, smell, taste and speech, touch). (See Traditional Roman Ritual) The anointing should be done on these parts: on the eyes because of sight, on the ears because of  hearing, on the nose because of smelling, on the mouth because of taste or speech, on the hands because of touch, on the feet because of walking. (See Council of Florence). 

Anointing the Eyes (on the eyelids)

By this holy anointing and by His most tender mercy may the Lord forgive thee all the evil thou hast done through the power of sight.

All: Amen.

After every anointing the priest  wipes the part anointed with a fresh pellet of cotton or similar material. These pellets are deposited in a clean receptacle and later taken to church where they are burned and the ashes thrown into the sacrarium.

Anointing the Ears (on the lobes)

By this holy anointing and by His most tender mercy may the Lord forgive thee all the evil thou hast done through the power of hearing.
All: Amen.

Anointing the Nose (on each nostril)

By this holy anointing and by His most tender mercy may the Lord forgive thee all the evil thou hast done through the sense of smell.
All: Amen.

Anointing the Mouth (on closed lips)

By this holy anointing and by His most tender mercy may the Lord forgive thee all the evil thou hast done through the sense of taste and the power of speech.
All: Amen.

Anointing the Hands (on the palms if a layman; on the back of the hands if a cleric)

By this holy anointing and by His most tender mercy may the Lord forgive thee all the evil thou hast done through the sense of touch.
All: Amen.

Anointing the Feet (either on the instep or sole)

By this holy anointing and by His most tender mercy may the Lord forgive thee all the evil thou hast done through the ability to walk.
All: Amen.

5. Concluding Prayers
These prayers assure the soul that it has been made strong against the devil. It also prays for the restoration of bodily health if it is God's Will and would benefit the person's soul unto salvation.

When the priest has finished the anointings he rubs his thumb with particles of bread, then washes his hands and wipes them with a towel. The water used for this purpose together with the bread is later thrown into the sacrarium, or for lack of such, into another decent receptacle. Afterward the priest says:

Lord, have mercy. Christ, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Our Father (the rest inaudibly until:)
P: And lead us not into temptation. All: But deliver us from evil.
P: Save thy servant.
All: Who trusts in Thee, my God.
P: Lord, send him (her) aid from Thy holy place.
All: And watch over him (her) from Sion.
P: Let him (her) find in Thee, Lord, a fortified tower.
All: In the face of the enemy.
P: Let the enemy have no power over him (her).
All: And the son of iniquity be powerless to harm him (her).
P: Lord, heed my prayer.
All: And let my cry be heard by Thee.
P: The Lord be with thy spirit.
All: May He also be with thy spirit.

Let us pray.

Lord God, who spoke through Thy Apostle James, "Is anyone of thee sick? He should call in the priests of the Church, and have them pray over him, while they anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. That prayer, said with faith, will save the sick person, and the Lord will restore him to health. If he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him." We beg Thee, our Redeemer, to cure by the grace of the Holy Ghost this sick man's (woman's) infirmity. Heal his (her) wounds, and forgive his (her) sins. Rid him (her) of all pain of body and mind. Restore him (her), in your mercy, to full health of body and soul, so that having recovered by Thy goodness, he (she) may take up his (her) former duties. We ask this of Thee who liveth and reigneth with the Father and the Holy Ghost, God, world without end

All: Amen.

Let us pray.

We entreat Thee, Lord, to look with favor on Thy servant, N., who is weak and failing, and refresh the life Thou hast created. Chastened by suffering, may he (she) know that he (she) has been saved by Thy healing; through Christ our Lord.

All: Amen.

Let us pray.

Holy Lord, almighty Father, everlasting God, in pouring out the grace of Thy blessing on the bodies of the sick, Thou showeth Thy loving care for Thy creatures. And so now as we call on Thy Holy Name, come and free Thy servant from his (her) illness and restore him (her) to health; reach out Thy Hand and raise him (her) up; strengthen him (her) by Thy might; protect him (her) by Thy power; and give him (her) back in all desired well-being to Thy Holy Church; through Christ our Lord.

All: Amen.

Anointing of the Sick
The name "Anointing of the Sick" shows the emphasis is on physical healing. (All emphasis in Anointing of the Sick mine---Introibo). 

1. Preliminary Considerations
The recipient of the sacrament (I will use the term "sacrament" without quotation marks for sake of brevity---Introibo) according to the "Introduction to the rite of anointing sick and to the pastoral care of the sick" (Dec. 7, 1972):

Elderly people may be anointed if they are weak, though not dangerously ill. (Emphasis mine).

According to the "United States Conference of Catholic Bishops" (USCCB):

The Rite of Anointing tells us there is no need to wait until a person is at the point of death to receive the Sacrament. A careful judgment about the serious nature of the illness is sufficient.
(See; Emphasis mine)

Groups of people can receive the Anointing of the Sick. According to the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):
Like all the sacraments the Anointing of the Sick is a liturgical and communal celebration, whether it takes place in the family home, a hospital or church, for a single sick person or a whole group of sick persons.

According to Health Progress, the Journal of the Catholic (sic) Health Association of the United States:
Who may be anointed?
Baptized members of the Christian faithful who have reached the age of reason and who begin to be in danger due to sickness or old age may receive the sacrament of anointing. Participation in the rites is encouraged broadly. For example:
  • The elderly who are weakened, even though no notable illness is present, may choose to participate in the ritual
  • Those who face surgery due to serious illness
  • Those who suffer serious mental illness
(See; Emphasis mine).

It should be clear that the emphasis of the Vatican II sect sacrament is on healing and many incapable of receiving the sacrament validly are given it. This includes the elderly without  being in danger of death, those going into surgery (external cause), and even the mentally ill to ostensibly "cure" their mental problems. Never in Church history, was Extreme Unction given to groups of people as in the Vatican II sect's Anointing of the Sick. 

The purpose of the sacrament is expressed in the heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):
By the sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of the priests the whole Church commends those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord, that he may raise them up and save them. And indeed she exhorts them to contribute to the good of the People of God by freely uniting themselves to the Passion and death of Christ. Notice that any mention of the individual's possible death and dying have been purged.

The effects of the sacrament are described by the "United States Conference of Catholic Bishops" (USCCB):
When the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is given, the hoped-for effect is that, if it be God's will, the person be physically healed of illness. But even if there is no physical healing, the primary effect of the Sacrament is a spiritual healing by which the sick person receives the Holy Spirit's gift of peace and courage to deal with the difficulties that accompany serious illness or the frailty of old age.
The healing of the body is first mentioned and the "spiritual healing" consists of "[the] gift of peace and courage to deal with the difficulties that accompany serious illness or the frailty of old age." There is no mention of the forgiveness of sin or preparation for death and Judgement.

The Rite
1. Introductory Prayers
Priest(P): The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Response(R): And with your spirit.

Sprinkling If it seems desirable, the priest may sprinkle the sick person and those present with holy water.

P: Like a stream in a parched land, may the grace of the Lord refresh our lives.

The prayer does nothing to prepare for Confession and speaks in the communal plural "you all," "us," because the "assembly of the People of God" is always supreme in the Vatican II sect.

The sacrament of Reconciliation (the Vatican II sect's answer to Penance) is optional. Instead there is a Protestant Instruction. It is Protestant because the Lutherans pray over the sick and dying using the Epistle of St. James at the outset. By doing this, the priest makes it appear as a physical healing service. 

The sick came to Jesus for healing. Through the apostle James, he has commanded us: “Are there any who are sick among you? Let them send for the priests of the Church, and let the priests pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord.” Let us therefore commend our sick brothers and sisters to the grace and power of Christ, that he may save them and raise them up.

Once more, the plural is used because "the faith community" always takes precedence over the individual. Next there is a "Penitential Rite" usually used when Reconciliation is discarded.

My brothers and sisters, to prepare ourselves for this holy anointing, let us call to mind our sins. (silence)

Lord, Jesus, you healed the sick: Lord have mercy
R. Lord have mercy
Lord Jesus, you forgave sinners: Christ have mercy
R. Christ have mercy
Lord Jesus, you give us yourself to heal us and bring us strength.
R. Lord have mercy.
R.  Lord have mercy

2. The Reading
With Protestant over-emphasis on the Bible, the priest reads from the Scriptures and there is a meditation.

At that time Jesus answered, “I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him. “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” (St. Matthew 11:25-30)

This is meant to show confidence that God will bring us rest that only Jesus can give. There are two other "options:" St. Mark 2:1-12 (Jesus reconciles us with God), and St. Luke 7:18-23 (The healing Hand of Christ is a sign of God's presence).How can someone really ill appreciate any of these readings? It's for the "community." 

3. The Litany
The Penitential Psalms and Litany of the Saints are eliminated. It is replaced by the following:

The priest may adapt or shorten the litany according to the condition of the sick person.

P. My brothers and sisters, in our prayer of faith, let us appeal to God for our brothers and sisters.
Come and strengthen them through this holy anointing: Lord have mercy.
R. Lord have mercy

P. Free them from all harm: Lord have mercy
R. Lord have mercy

P. Free them from sin and all temptation: Lord have mercy
R. Lord have mercy

P. Relieve the sufferings of all the sick who suffer from addiction: Lord have mercy
R. Lord have mercy

P. Assist all those dedicated to the care of the sick: Lord have mercy
R. Lord have mercy

P. Give life and health to our brothers and sisters on whom we lay our hands: Lord have mercy
R. Lord have mercy

These are like the "petitions" in the Novus Bogus bread and wine service. Note that five out of the six "petitions" are for temporal healing and goods (strength, deliverance from harm, relieve the sufferings, assist caregivers, give life and health), and only one treats of sin and temptation. Some apply to the "community of faith" and not the recipient (caregivers), and all are in plural. This is where the priorities are in the Vatican II sect.

4. The Laying on of Hands
 This is omitted unless: 
In silence and, if so desired, the priest may lay his hands on the head of any person suffering from addiction. Why "suffering from addiction"? The laying on of hands is optional and, if done, it is done in silence. The invocation of the Saints (especially the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph) to fight against Satan and evil is not ecumenical and must be eliminated. 

5. Prayer Over The Oil
 The Vatican II sect has virtually no more valid bishops to bless anything. Additionally, according to "Pope" Paul VI's "Apostolic Constitution" Sacram unctionem infirmorum, November 30, 1972, The sick are to be anointed with blessed olive oil or, as circumstances suggest, with another oil extracted from plants. (Emphasis mine). Moreover, the priest may "bless" (consecrate) it. The use of another oil or lack of episcopal consecration of the oil make the matter of the sacrament highly doubtful at best. You have moral certainty of invalidity. 

If "blessed" already, the priest prays:
Praise to you, God, the almighty Father. You sent your Son to live among us and bring us salvation.
R. Blessed by God who heals us in Christ.

Praise to you, God, the only-begotten Son. You humbled yourself to share in our humanity and heal our infirmities.
R. Blessed by God who heals us in Christ.

Praise to you, God, the Holy Spirit, the Consoler. Your unfailing power gives us strength in our bodily weakness.
R. Blessed by God who heals us in Christ.

God of mercy, ease the sufferings and comfort the weakness of your servants whom the Church anoints with this holy oil. We ask this through Christ our Lord.
R. Amen
It us all about physical health and healing. The only mention of anything spiritual makes it sound as if salvation is assured because "You sent your Son to live among us and bring us salvation."

If the priest must "bless" the oil, he prays:

Let us pray.
God of all consolation, you chose and sent your Son to heal the world. Graciously listen to our prayer of faith: send the power of your Holy Spirit, the Consoler, into this precious oil, this soothing ointment, this rich gift, this fruit of the earth.

Bless this oil + and sanctify it for our use. Make this oil a remedy for all who are anointed with it; heal them in body, in soul, and in spirit, and deliver them from every affliction. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
R.  Amen
This asks for healing in body (first), then "soul" and finally, "spirit"--what's the difference between soul and spirit? It's ambiguous from the text. 

6. The Anointings (Sacrament?)
Six anointings are reduced to two: the forehead and the hands. 
First, he anoints the forehead, saying:

Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit.
R.  Amen

Then, he anoints the hands, saying:

May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up.
R. Amen

The phrase "the Lord Who frees you from sin" merely states God's power to forgive sin. It is not a a declaration made in persona Christi to remit sin as in Extreme Unction,"...God forgive thee whatever sins thou hast committed by the evil use of ..."  The terms "raise you up" and "help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit" are likewise ambiguous and do not univocally mean forgiveness of sin. 

7. Prayer After Anointing/Conclusion

Let us pray.

Father in heaven, through this holy anointing grant them comfort in their suffering. When they are afraid, give them courage, when afflicted, give them patience, when dejected, afford them hope,
and when alone, assure them of the support of your holy people.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.
R. Amen

There are seven optional prayers and four optional blessings, none of which reflect preparation for death and Judgement, the battle against Satan, and only one mentions forgiveness of sin. How can something so vital be a mere "option" in a single prayer? 

It should be clear that the Anointing of the Sick is an invalid prayer service for physical healing, and nothing at all like the Sacrament of Extreme Unction instituted by Christ and maintained by His One True Church. Anointing of the Sick has defect in matter, form, intention, and in many cases, the recipient has an invalidating obex. To deprive someone of graces at the point of death, when they need them most, is a crime of epic proportion. Pity the poor Vatican II sect members who put their hopes in a physical cure, and when it doesn't happen, lose their faith. Pray everyday for the grace of final perseverance and the grace to receive the True Last Rites of Holy Mother Church before you die. There is no greater grace than that God can bestow.

Monday, September 6, 2021

When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 25


This is the next installment of my series to be published the first Monday of each month.

There are members of false sects, like Jehovah's Witnesses, that come knocking door-to-door hoping to convert you. Instead of ignoring them, it is we who should try and convert them. In 1 Peter 3:16, our first Pope writes, "But in thy hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks thee to give the reason for the hope that thou hast. But do this with gentleness and respect,..." Before the Great Apostasy, the Church would send missionaries to the ends of the Earth to make as many converts as possible. 

Those in false religions don't always come (literally) knocking at your door. It may be a Hindu at work who wants you to try yoga. It could be a "Christian Scientist" who lives next door and invites you to come to their reading room. Each month, I will present a false sect. Unlike the Vatican II sect, I do not see them as a "means of salvation" or possessing "elements of truth" that lead to salvation. That is heresy. They lead to damnation, and the adherents of the various sects must be converted so they may be saved.

In each month's post, I will present one false sect and give an overview of: 

  • The sect's history
  • Their theology
  • Tips on how to share the True Faith with them


One of the most misunderstood, little known, and dangerous sects is that of Anthroposophy. If you've ever heard of Waldorf Schools, the occultist Rudolf Steiner, founder of  Anthroposophy, started the Waldorf education system. Before becoming an attorney, I was a New York City science teacher. I had heard of these private schools in my education courses both as an undergrad, and as a graduate student, but they were glossed over for the most part, just like Montessori Schools. (Dr. Maria Montessori, was an Italian physician who also developed a "child-centered" theory of education. She died in 1952). Although I was taught various educational theories, Waldorf education was presented as a place for rich parents to send their kids for a 1960s "hippie" type of learning experience.

Children at these schools learn at their own pace, and most don't read until they are about 9 years old. They generally have only two or three teachers from first through eighth grade, because the teachers stay with them for about three grades each (in education, this is known as "looping"). The price is hefty, tuition is about $18,000 per year (plus additional charges), and many executives from technology firms send their kids there, in spite of the fact Waldorf schools eschew technology for the most part. To educate a child from first grade through high school would cost approximately $235,000 when all is said and done. There are about 1,100 Waldorf schools in the world and approximately 160 are in the United States. Rudolf Steiner was an occultist, and the goal of his educational method is to train children to become clairvoyants who can make contact with the spirit world.  I know it sounds like an episode of the Twilight Zone, but I haven't lost my mind. To read the rest of what I wrote about Waldorf Schools, please read my post: 

In this post, I will expose the truth about Anthroposophy, and the connection to the Vatican II sect.

Rudolf Steiner and the Founding of Anthroposophy

(I would like to credit The Development of Anthroposophy since Rudolf Steiner’s Death by T.H. Meyer, trans. by Matthew Barton [2014], Autobiography: Chapters in the Course of My Life 1861-1907 by Rudolf Steiner, trans. by Rita Stebbing, [1999 updated edition], and information from the series of books, Foundations of Waldorf Education published by Anthroposophic Press, which was started by Steiner himself, in the formation of this post---Introibo). 

The truth about Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) is much different from the sanitized version of his life I received in graduate school where it was taught he was a "child psychologist and scientist." Steiner considered Anthroposophy as a "spiritual science" which was “a path of knowledge aiming to guide the spiritual element in the human being to the spiritual in the universe.” He was born in Kraljevec, the son of an Austrian railroad engineer. He pursued his undergraduate education at the Vienna Institute of Technology, supplementing his scientific studies with wide reading in philosophy. 

Steiner earned a PhD in philosophy at the University of Rostock in 1891, and was a Freemason. He became interested in the occult at age nine, when he claimed he saw the soul of his aunt appear to him and ask for help. Later, he found out she had just died in village far away when she allegedly appeared. Steiner then grew up to became a follower of the occult belief system of Theosophy. At some point, he joined the Masons. In 1899 Steiner experienced what he described as a life-transforming inner encounter with the "being of Christ." Being a Mason, he hated Christ, but thereafter, his relationship to Christianity remained entirely founded upon this personal experience, and he envisioned it as non-denominational and different from Catholicism, or any other sect which professed Christianity.  He split with other Theosophists circa 1912 after most accepted an Indian child named Krishnamurti as the new “World Teacher” and "reincarnation of Christ."  He ridiculed the idea that a "Hindu lad" (as Steiner called him) could be the new cosmic leader. He took with him the German speaking Theosophists to found his own occult religion which he called Anthroposophy. 1912 is considered the year of its founding.

Anthroposophy is directly cultivated by the 52,000 members of the General Anthroposophical Society, which has national branches in fifty countries. Far more people participate in “initiatives” rooted in Anthroposophy. These include the Waldorf network of schools, the biodynamic movement in agriculture, the form of  corybantic dancing ("spiritual movement") known as eurythmy, the Camphill network of intentional communities, the religious sect known as the Christian Community, and specifically anthroposophical forms of medicine, architecture, banking, speech, and care for disabled people. The reach of Anthroposophy is vast; more than most realize, and it is all based upon occult beliefs--especially contacting the dead and "spiritual entities." These occult-contacted spiritual entities are better known as demons.

He Sees Dead People
What made Steiner so influential? The answer is given by Tore Ahlback in a research article entitled, Rudolf Steiner as a Religious Authority:

Steiner’s alleged ability to see into the hidden was the attribute that primarily separated him from other people. Steiner ‘lived in a vision and he could talk with prophets and saints about their experiences as an equal’ (Steffen 1925c: 114; Rittelmeyer 1925: 38, 41). This visionary ability is given as the explanation to his knowledge of things religious. Steiner could see into the invisible world. He ‘dared construct a theory of knowledge on the angelic realm’. But there was nothing of Swedenborg here, nothing medial. It was a ‘seeing with a clear intellect, but with higher organs’. (Rittelmeyer 1925: 40.) It was important for the Anthroposophists that Steiner should not be perceived as a medium, or a spiritist

Steiner’s clairvoyant ability also explains why his doctrines include ideas found elsewhere, for example, in Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism. He has not borrowed the ideas from others, but they originate in the same source as the contents of Gnosticism or Neo-Platonism. Steiner took his ideas from the Akasha Chronicles, a universal memory which contains all that has happened since the beginning of the world. He could read the Akasha Chronicles and he conveyed more information from these chronicles than any other living person. (Rittelmeyer1925: 37–40.) Steiner is also said to have had the ability to communicate with the spirits of the dead, which were present even when he lectured (Rittelmeyer 1925: 40).  (page 4; Emphasis mine).

How does someone "communicate with the dead," and yet not be a spiritist or medium? Steiner's followers deceived others by making him somehow exempt from that charge, and a "special" leader, so as not to put off Catholics (and others) who knew such was wrong. Anthroposophists also lie that Steiner was a scientist and child psychologist. He held no doctorate or advanced degree in any scientific discipline nor did he have such in the field of child psychology. 

Steiner taught that human beings evolve upward as they gain "knowledge of higher worlds" — that is, knowledge of the "spiritual worlds above the ordinary plane of existence." To gain this knowledge firsthand, people must develop clairvoyance. Clairvoyance is the alleged supernatural ability to perceive events in the future or beyond normal sensory contact. Preparation for clairvoyance involves such things as heightened imagination and dream consciousness. Therefore, the ultimate goal of Anthroposophy is to evolve via "knowledge of higher worlds" by making contact with the dead and other spirit entities. Steiner had some very strange doctrines  which included:
  • Everything evolves, and there has been "reverse evolution" wherein people became certain animals
  • There are several "bodies:" a physical body composed of the same material elements as minerals, plants, and animals; an etheric or “life” body that is common to plants, animals, and humans; an astral or “soul” body similar to that possessed by animals; and an integrating “I” that is uniquely human
  • Our evolutionary process began not on planet Earth but on a much earlier planet with some spiritual correspondences to Saturn. This planet was reincarnated in phases corresponding to the Sun and the Moon, making our Earth the fourth in what will be an ongoing series of incarnations
  • People have twelve senses but only learn to use five
  • Goblins exist and Buddha now lives on Mars

If anyone thinks Steiner should have been committed to a mental institution, I couldn't disagree. His whacky beliefs are a hodgepodge of Theosophy, Gnosticism, Freemasonry, and astrology. A syncretism of pure poison.  This poison would go on to help usher in the Vatican II sect.

Anthroposophy and Vatican II
There were three people influenced by Steiner's Anthroposophy that would play a key role in bringing about the Great Apostasy. Each would be a big player at Vatican II:

1) Angelo Roncalli (aka "Pope" "St." John XXIII)
Roncalli was censured for teaching the occult theories of Steiner:

Then in 1924, after the death of his beloved bishop [Bp. Tedeschi], he [Roncalli] was called back to Rome and given a minor post in the Association for the Propagation of the Faith. At this time he also became a part time Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, only to be relieved of his post within months "on suspicion of Modernism" and for "teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner." (See The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, World Wisdom Press, 2006, pg. 134 & Footnote 17, pg. 154).

2) Karol Wojtyla (aka "Pope" "St." John Paul II)
Karol Wojtyla was a close friend of one Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk, the director of the Rhapsodic Theatre, which he co-founded with him. Kotlarczyk was an Anthroposophist who admired and believed the doctrines of Steiner. His plays were productions of Rudolf Steiner’s mystery dramas. Kotlarczyk wrote a book, The Art of the Living Word: Diction, Expression, Magic, published by the Papal Gregorian University in 1975. Kotlarczyk listed the sources of his ideas in the book, which included Madame Helena Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, and Rudolph Steiner. In 1919, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office condemned Theosophy and forbade Catholics to read anything they published. 

Steiner's Anthroposophy comes primarily from Theosophical thought, and one can only imagine how much Modernism, Masonry, and occultism had pervaded the former Catholic Vatican by 1975 that they would permit this garbage to be published. The preface was written by---Karol "Cardinal" Wojtyla. He had this to say in the first paragraph:

Writing these words that precede Dr. Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk's three-part work, I wish to repay a debt of gratitude to the author. I first knew Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk in our native town of Wadowice in the late twenties and early thirties. I got to know him as the pioneer of an original theater, in the noblest sense of the word; as an exponent of the true Polish and Christian (!) traditions of that art, traditions passed on to us by all our literature, and especially by the great romantic and neo-romantic literature.
Rome, 6 November 1974
Karol Cardinal Wojtyla
Metropolitan of Krakow (Emphasis mine).

3) Fr. Hans Urs Von Balthasar (1905-1988)
Von Balthasar was a Modernist who supported and wrote in favor of the heretics at Vatican II. He preached universalism, which "conservative" Vatican II sect members deny (even as the sect itself preaches universalism). Von Balthasar was praised by both "Pope" John Paul II and "Pope" Benedict XVI. JPII actually named him a "cardinal" in 1988, but he died just two days before his promotion would have taken effect. He cannot rightly be called a theologian as his 1928 doctorate was in German Literature and Philosophy. 

Von Balthasar wrote a laudatory preface to a book by Valentin Tomberg (1900-1973), an admitted member of Anthroposophy and self-described "hermetic magician" (whatever that appellation means). Tomberg later converted to the Eastern Schismatics, and became Catholic in 1946. One problem: Tomberg's conversion was insincere. He wrote the aforementioned book entitled, Meditations on the Tarot, in 1960. The name alone should sound warning bells that it's occult--which it is for the promotion of reincarnation. Published posthumously in 1967 (in French), and in 1984 (in English), Von Balthasar wrote the Foreword to the French edition, which was then published as the Afterword in the English edition. The Foreword/Afterword begins:

 Having been asked to write an introduction to this book, which for most readers enters into unknown terrain, and yet is so richly rewarding to read, I must first of all acknowledge my lack of competence concerning the subject matter. I am not in a position to follow up and approve of each line of thought developed by the author, and still less to submit everything to a critical examination. However, such an abundance of noteworthy material is offered here, that one may not pass it by with indifference. (Emphasis mine). 

Immediately, one has to ask why an educated cleric would write a glowing Foreword to a work (a) that contains an occult title, (b) in which he claims no competence, (c) and has glaring occult and heretical teachings (like reincarnation) which requires no special "competence " to detect. We must conclude Von Balthasar was either culpably ignorant or purposively deceptive in helping get notoriety to a book on the occult.  Von Balthasar is a "hero" to "Bishop" Robert Barron, who never ceases to ensnare people in the Vatican II sect through his Word On Fire media campaign. Ironically, he undermines the very raison d'etre of his stated mission in promoting Von Balthasar. Like his spiritual mentor, Barron believes there are "objective grounds" to hope that all humanity will be saved and Hell will only be for Satan and his demons. 

Proselytizing Those In Anthroposophy
It is important to remember what we are dealing with; namely people who wittingly or unwittingly make contact with demons. As I've written many times before, mediums are condemned by both the Bible and Church teaching. "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.) According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it. Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium." (See Moral Theology, pg. 100; Emphasis mine). 

Those who are convinced of Anthroposophy's message are to be prayed for and have Masses offered for them. They are under demonic influence and it will take God's intervention more than argumentation to get them away from the sect. However, there are many people who are genuinely ignorant of Anthroposophy. I spoke to a married couple who sent their daughter to a Waldorf School. When I gave them the background information, and copies of the books, they were horrified--"We've been lied to by that school!" They thanked me over and over for enlightening them. The very next week they pulled their daughter out and placed her in a charter school. 

The best weapon against both the unwary (and the convinced if you choose) is to expose the crazy occult teachings. Any rational person who sees doctrines about goblins and "reverse evolution" must stop and think when you (a) show them proof that this is taught (if they don't already know it) and then (b) ask, "What proof does Steiner give for these ideas?" "Why do the Waldorf Schools lie to parents about Steiner's educational philosophy?" "If lying is wrong, can an institution that supports and encourages lying be good?" 

Anthroposophy seeks to brainwash children and adults alike into making contact with the "spirits." They then want them to go out into the world and influence all institutions with the doctrines of demons. Roncalli, Wojtyla, and Von Balthasar were all influenced by Anthroposophy and helped to create the Vatican II sect, thereby driving the One True Church "underground," so to speak, as a remnant. There is also quite an impressive list of those educated by Waldorf occultism who are now in many influential positions.  A small sample of notables include:
  • Actresses Jennifer Aniston and Sandra Bullock
  • Former CEO of American Express Kenneth Chenault
  • American film director Austin Chick
  • Renowned Biochemist Thomas Sudhof 
  • Former Member of Finnish Parliament (and first admitted sodomite elected) Oras Tynkkynen
  • Norwegian author and journalist Karin Beate "Linn" Ullmann

Satan is using Anthroposophy to win converts to his cause and place them in all walks of life. If only we Traditionalists, the remaining members of Christ's One True Church, were as solicitous for converts. Then we might see this rotten world get a little better.  

Monday, August 30, 2021

Unrealistic Messages


I have received comments from my readers for some time now (both published and those who requested me not to publish their comment), asking about what is and is not acceptable to watch in terms of movies and TV. A regular reader of my blog has put out an excellent Traditionalist blog of her own in which, among other good things, she warns of many of the dangers in children's movies. Spanish is her native language (she is from Mexico), and the English version can be read here:

This motivated me to give an answer to the question: "What should be the Traditionalist response to modern entertainment?" I will begin by showing a disturbing trend in adult movies; an indoctrination to the idea that there are no absolutes--not just moral absolutes---but absolutes of any kind whatsoever. It is the philosophy of postmodernism, which is the belief that there is no underlying objective reality or meaning to existence. Certainly, there are harmless movies not based in reality (e.g., the Spiderman franchise) in which we suspend our disbelief and allow ourselves to be entertained.

However, the films infected with postmodernism seek to have us suspend our beliefs, thereby giving in to lessons embedded within the motion picture's story that tell us how to behave, think, and even perceive reality. How many movie viewers find themselves hoping that a man commits adultery with the wife of his next door neighbor, that an embezzler will not get caught, and that a murderer will escape, because the plot of the movie makes circumstances such as to seemingly "turn bad deeds into good ones" based on the situation? Bye-bye objective morality. The people who cheer for the wrongdoing still (most likely) realize the action is always wrong, but how often can someone subject himself to such experiences with no effect on Faith and morals? 

According to theologian Butler, whose exposition of Catholic principles regarding plays applies equally to movies, writes :
True drama [entertainment] considers the plights of man and treats them with sympathy and good taste. When it fails to do this, it is failing to mirror human life and thus failing in its purpose. The theater becomes part of the American way of life. Once one has acquired a love for the theater, he will return time and time again. No one will deny that the constant spectator will be influenced in some degree by the plays [movies] which he is continually viewing. "For it is impossible in the nature of things that the scenes exhibited there should not exert a powerful influence, good or bad, upon both actors and spectators."  (See The Moral Problems of the Theater, [1958], pg. 6). 

Movies That FUSE Reality and Fantasy
(I wish to credit Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide [2017], and VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever 2021 for summaries of movies and some movie dialogue. Also used was the Internet Movie Data Base---Introibo).

Postmodernism concludes that because movies cannot be about reality (since it teaches there is no underlying reality), it must be about itself. There are action/animation hybrids such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988), Cool World (1992), and Monkeybone (2001), in which the protagonists knowingly and willingly interact with cartoon fantasy worlds which they understand are cartoon fantasy worldsHook (1991) is live action fantasy, wherein a lawyer "forgot" he was really Peter Pan, and Neverland is real; once more blurring the lines between what actually exists and what is imaginary.

The most popular example of fusing reality and fantasy is the movie that reignited interest in the horror genre--Scream (1996) and its sequels. Scream is a horror movie within a horror movie, a so-called meta-narrative. Writer Kevin Williamson has the characters talking about classic horror films such as Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, and Friday the 13th throughout the movie while similar things happen to them. They even speak of their world as a horror movie. 

Scream's protagonist, Sidney Prescott, is called by the killer on the phone and he asks her why she doesn't watch horror movies. Sidney responds that they are all the same with a deranged killer going after some pretty girl who can't act and just screams a lot; when confronted by the killer, the girl in the horror flick doesn't run out the door, but runs up the stairs instead. Later, the killer comes after Sidney and the front door is locked so she can't go out, and she goes running up the stairs while screaming; just like a stereotypical horror movie. Later, Sidney tells her boyfriend, "But this is life. This isn't a movie." He answers, "Sure it is, Sid. It's all a movie. Life's one great big movie. Only you can't pick your genre." The film even recites "the rules of horror movies" that get played out in Scream.

The idea of a "story within a story" is hardly new. Shakespeare used it in his plays. The difference is in the postmodern view, the focus is on the story only as a story. There is no tangible metaphor that relates to the real world; meaning is only a construct of the human mind.

Movies That CONFUSE Reality and Fantasy
How can we know what is real? In postmodernism, we can't ever be certain. This is seen in movies such as The Sixth Sense (1999). The main character is a child psychologist named Malcolm (played by Bruce Willis). There is one problem: Malcolm is dead but thinks he is alive. (Now that's confusion!). He tries to help a young "psychic" child named Cole who claims, "I see dead people." After Malcolm helps Cole accept himself and his "gift," only then does he realize he's dead and only Cole could see and interact with him. I have met several members of the Vatican II sect who believe if someone dies quickly (like in an automobile crash/explosion), the person doesn't "realize he/she is dead" until they complete some task.

When I inquire as to how a disembodied soul could not go to Judgement or realize he's dead (let alone figure out the "task" they must allegedly perform), I was always met with a blank stare and a pregnant pause. The usual reply was they heard it from a "friend of a friend" kind of story. I spoke to these individuals after 1999 and the huge success that was The Sixth Sense. I don't think it's coincidental.

The movie that truly makes reality confusing is The Matrix (1999), and its sequels. It is based on the old philosophical "mind in a vat" epistemic problem in philosophy, i.e., how do you know that what you're perceiving is real and that you are not just a brain in a vat with a mad scientist manipulating you to have your sense impressions? Some people have actually interpreted The Matrix as some Christian allegory, which it is most certainly not. It incorporates many false ideologies about the nature of reality. The result should be obvious; we can never know about God (if He exists) or which religion, if any, is true.

The movie depicts a dystopian future in which humanity is unknowingly trapped inside a simulated reality, the Matrix, which intelligent machines have created to distract humans while using their bodies as an energy source. When computer programmer, Thomas Anderson, under the hacker alias "Neo" (an anagram for the "ONE"), uncovers the truth, he is drawn into a rebellion against the machines along with other people who have been freed from the Matrix. (See At one point, Anderson/Neo is given a choice to take a blue pill which will make him think the Matrix is reality, while the red pill will enable him to see reality as it is. He chooses the red pill, and a new term for realizing the truth, i.e., "red pilled" was born into American parlance.

Some claim The Matrix suggested a parallel between Neo and Christ as Neo is referred to throughout The Matrix trilogy as the One, that is, the chosen one, which also describes Christ—a messiah, sent to deliver salvation. The idea of a mere human being as The Christ is blasphemous, but that is not the message of the movie; it is actually based on Gnosticism and Buddhism. According to The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Gnosticism is:

The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know.

In The Matrix, the people need liberation from their illusions, not necessarily salvation. Neo is a liberator, not a savior. Gnostics believe that by learning about one’s self, one’s world, and one’s spiritual essence, one may reveal "divine sparks" of original spirit (God). At the end of The Matrix, Neo actually seems to glow, because knowledge of the self  is the key to liberation and power. The most obvious and Buddhist theme can be found in the basic principle that, in the world of The Matrix, what most people think of as "reality" is a computer-generated simulation. This appears to align closely with the Buddhist doctrine that the world as we know it is maya, illusion, of which we must break out in order to achieve "enlightenment." Indeed, according to Buddhism, the biggest problem that faces humanity is our inability to see through this illusion. By presenting a patchwork of religious themes, The Matrix makes clear that reality is not objective, and all religions are equally useless. 

What Constitutes Unfit Entertainment?
The answer of the Church on what makes a movie fit, or unfit, for watching was beautifully elucidated by His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, in his Address to the International Union of Theater Owners and Film Distributors, given October 28, 1955. All emphasis is mine.

Movies in Relation to Religion
The first: in the plot-films, is it permitted to take religious topics as subject-matter of plot-films? The answer is that there seems no reason why such topics should be, in general and on principle, excluded; the more so, since experience, tested in this type, has already given some good results in films whose content is strictly religious.

But further, when the theme is not expressly such, the ideal plot-film should not pass over the religious element. Indeed, it has been noted that even films morally above reproach can yet be spiritually harmful if they offer the spectator a world in which no sign is given of God or of men who believe in and worship Him, a world in which people live as though God did not exist. A brief moment in a film can sometimes be sufficient, a word on God, a thought directed towards Him, a sigh of confidence in Him, an appeal for divine help. The great majority of people believe in God, and in their lives religious feeling plays a considerable part. Nothing, then, is more natural and more suitable than for due account to be taken of this in films.

Films Representation of Evil
The second question about the content of the ideal film of action concerns the representation of evil: is it lawful to choose, and with what precautions must one treat, evil and scandal, which without doubt have such an important part in the lives of men? Surely human life would not be understood, at least in its great and momentous conflicts, if our eyes were closed to the faults which often cause these conflicts. Pride, unbounded ambition, lust for power, covetousness, infidelity, injustice, depravity -- such, unhappily, are the marks of the characters and actions of many, and history is bitterly interwoven with them. But it is one thing to know evil, and to seek from philosophy and religion its explanation and cure; quite another to make it an object of spectacle and amusement. Yet for many there is an irresistible fascination in giving artistic shape to wrongdoing, in describing its power and its growth, its open and hidden paths, and the conflicts it generates or by means of which it advances. One might say that for a basis of story and picture many know not where to look for artistic inspiration and dramatic interest except in the realm of evil, even if only as background for good, as shadow from which light may reflect more clearly. To this psychological attitude of many artists corresponds an analogous one in the spectators, about which We have spoken previously.

Now then, can the ideal film take such matter for its theme? The greatest poets and writers of all times and of all peoples have grappled with this hard and thorny theme, and will continue to do so in the future.

To such a question a negative answer is natural, whenever perversity and evil are presented for their own sakes; if the wrongdoing represented is at least in fact, approved; if it is described in stimulating, insidious or corrupting ways; if it is shown to those who are not capable of controlling and resisting it.

But when none of these causes for exclusion are present; when the struggle with evil, and even its temporary victory, serves, in relation to the whole, to a deeper understanding of life and its proper ordering, of self-control, of enlightenment and strengthening of judgement and action; then such matter can be chosen and inserted, as a part of the whole action of the film. The same criterion applies here that must rule any like artistic medium: novel, drama, tragedy, every literary work.

Even the Sacred Books of the Old and New Testaments, faithful mirrors of real life, contain in their pages stories of evil, of its action and influence in the lives of individuals, as well as in families, and peoples...

Therefore the ideal film should flee from any form of apology, much less of glorification, of evil, and should show its condemnation through the entire course of the film and not merely at the end; frequently it would come too late, i.e. after the spectator is already beguiled and entrapped by evil promptings.

Theological and Practical Considerations
When trying to determine what you (and your family) will and will not watch, theologian Butler gives some considerations in addition to the sage guidance of Pope Pius XII:

If a movie portrays anything blasphemous or directly contrary to the Natural Law and/or Divine Positive Law, it must be shunned. Next, you must consider the occasion of sin, which is defined as any "person, place, or thing external to man, inclining him to sin." The occasion may be remote, when the danger of sinning is slight, and no sin is usually committed. The occasion is said to be proximate when the danger of sinning is grave and very often sin is committed.

The proximate occasion of sin is absolute when it would induce the generality of mankind to commit sin. It is relative if it is such an inducement to certain persons only. 

Three principles must govern the person watching movies:

1. To expose oneself to the proximate occasion of mortal sin without sufficient reason is itself a mortal sin. If a man knows that a movie which shows scantily dressed women (however briefly) will cause him to sin against holy purity, he must avoid this movie and all movies like it.

2. The person who willing remains in the proximate danger of mortal sin chooses to sin. If something presents itself during a movie which could cause you to sin, you must leave the room, shut it off, or leave the theater. If you continue to watch you commit sin by choosing to remain in proximate danger of mortal sin.

3. One is never allowed to commit mortal sin for any reason, and God will always give us the grace to overcome it; a person must likewise take all reasonable means to avoid the occasion of such mortal sin. (See The Moral Problems of the Theater, [1958], pgs. 111-113). 

Having read my post thus far, it should be obvious why the postmodern movies are off-limits. I have also presented the correct principles and guidelines of the Church to apply in your life. What may be a proximate occasion of sin to one person, may not be such to another. What is morally acceptable for an adult will not necessarily be the same for a minor. Men and women will have different sensibilities. There is no way I can produce an exhaustive enumeration of movies. That used to be the job of many people in the Legion of Decency, long since disbanded by the Vatican II sect. You must learn to discern using said guidelines/principles of Holy Mother Church.

That being said, remember In Medio Stat Veritas--loosely translated as "the truth lies in the middle." Every single movie is not evil, and Traditionalists do themselves (and others who are potential converts) no favor when they condemn every film except the explicitly religious, such as the wonderful The Passion of The Christ. People will perceive our faith as "simplistic and overly rigid.” Here are some tips for having a healthy view of movies, in my opinion:
  • Do not generalize every non-religious movie as worldly, and every depiction of sin as wrong without regard to context
  • Do not claim all entertainment is a "waste of time." Entertainment is not intrinsically evil, and can be mentally/spiritually healthy
  • Do not watch any film indiscriminately, without considering the subject matter and getting a synopsis. You will avoid having to leave or turn it off in most cases
  • You should spend more time in prayer and spiritual reading than in watching secular movies
  • Always ask yourself, "Is this movie against my faith and morals in any discernable way?"
You have to decide what you allow into your life. What goes into your mind will come out in your life. Watch movies that have a postmodern worldview, and you may begin to lean towards a relativistic attitude where there is no absolute reference point to decide between good and evil, true and false. I had to wince when a secretary in my office said she "binge-watched" the TV series Breaking Bad, and loved it. She was rooting for the main character ("protagonist" would be a meaningless appellation here) who was a science teacher turned drug dealer. How does cheering for such a grotesque character not have a negative impact on your sense of morals and decency? Keep inviting such evil in your home, and don't be surprised if one day you see something sinful and see it as "not that big of a deal.” You may even ask yourself, "Who am I to judge?"