Killing The Killers

Later this year, there will be a short, ten episode return of the show Dexter. Originally broadcast from 2006-2013, the eponymous protagonist (if you can call him that) is a serial killer. How do people cheer for a murderer? Here's the set-up: Dexter Morgan was orphaned at three years old when his mother was brutally killed with a chainsaw by drug dealers. He is subsequently adopted by police officer Harry Morgan. Harry notices that the trauma has given his son sociopathic tendencies and a "blood lust" making him have urges to kill people. Harry decides to "save" his son from being locked-up for life in a mental institution by helping him obtain employment as a forensic analyst for the Miami police. This enables Dexter to live a double life. When not working at his police force job, his father teaches him to murder other murders who slipped through the cracks of the justice system. In this way, "justice is served" and Dexter doesn't kill innocent people--what a guy!

This warped sense of morality has been used by pro-abortionists. Their argument runs like this: 

If abortion is the legal mass murder of innocents, like in Nazi Germany and Communist China, then how is it wrong to kill abortion providers? "Pro-lifers" don’t even believe their own claims and don’t think abortion is quite the same as murder--because it isn't. Therefore, since abortion is not murder, the Church is wrong in condemning it. If abortion were really murder, then those against abortion should be celebrating those who kill abortion doctors, not condemning them.  Think about it: If a Nazi soldier was coming to kill Fr. Maximillian Kolbe, wouldn't you be justified in killing the soldier to protect Fr. Kolbe?

In this post, I shall tackle their reasoning head on and demonstrate why the Church is correct in (a) declaring abortion as murder and (b) condemning the killing of abortion "doctors" (anyone who murders babies is not a healer--doctor--but a cold-blooded killer). 

Abortion: Biologically and Theologically Constituting Murder

(a) Biology. 

It is in vouge to ask the question, "When does life begin?" Pro-abortionists want you to think the subject boils down to a matter of opinion. Since opinions shouldn't be forced on others, then women should be free to decide for themselves when life begins, and whether or not to procure an abortion. Under the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, abortion is legal right up until minutes before the baby is born. While certain states have placed restrictions on abortion (and many have been upheld by the Supreme Court), such restrictions are not mandated. Here, in New York State, there are no restrictions whatsoever. When restrictions are placed, they usually involve various "tests" for determining whether the unborn should be considered a life which cannot be taken. For example, viability (i.e., when an unborn baby can live outside the womb) and "vital functions" (i.e., heartbeat and/or brainwaves) are two such factors used to impose restrictions on killing innocent babies. 

Biology is the study of life, and it is biologists who give us the answer as to when life begins. A group of noted biologist, including Dr. Thomas L. Johnson, calling themselves Scientists for Life, put out a concise and scientifically accurate publication entitled The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life. The biological answer as to when life begins is simple: Life is continuous. There is no period in between when life "starts" and "stops." Human cells can only come from other living human cells. That's not to say life is a process over time. Everything is a process. If an event takes place in zero time it would require an infinite amount of energy to be released, which the known laws of physics tell us is impossible. Hence, at fertilization, a new human being with a unique set of chromosomes and DNA is made.

The objection will immediately be made, "Since death is the permanent stopping of all vital functions (e.g., heartbeat, breathing, brainwaves, etc.) even though cells are still alive, why should people consider cellular life (fertilization and the zygote which comes into being) which has none of those attributes to be the beginning of human life?" Simply put, vital functions are different, not absent in the zygote. The vital functions of the zygote are metabolism and cleavage. Eventually, brainwaves and the vital functions of beings at later stages of life will begin. It is no more justified to say a zygote isn't human because it has no heartbeat and brainwaves than to say an infant isn't human because he can't walk erect or speak fluently in a language. 

It is also a biological fact that the "product of conception" as pro-baby killers call him/her will be born as a human baby. The burden of proof is therefore on pro-abortionists to prove that at all times prior to birth the baby is somehow not human. If it cannot be so proven, abortion must be forbidden (on secular grounds alone) because the unborn could be human. If a hunter sees movement in a bush and doesn't know if it is a human or a deer, must he not refrain from shooting because it might be human life and the unjust taking thereof? So too with abortion, even if we concede, ad arguendo, that we "don't know when life begins." 

(b) Theology.

Pro-abortionists make the false claim that abortion was not considered murder by the Church until Pope Pius IX in 1869. The fact is that the Catholic Church always regarded abortion as murder, regardless of ensoulment. The approved theologians, and all Magisterial authorities did not hesitate to condemn abortion as murder whether or not the soul is present. 

Proof:

 Thou shalt not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant.---

The Didache ("The Lord's Instruction to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles"). II, 2, translated by J.A. Kleist, S.J., Ancient Christian Writers, [1942],Volume VI:16).

For us Christians, murder is once and for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother's blood is still being drawn on to form the human being, it is not lawful for us to destroy. To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one takes away the life once born or destroys it as it comes to birth. He is a man, who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in the seed.---

Tertullian (when Catholic), 197, Apologeticus, page 9 (Emphasis mine).

The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us. Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for homicide.---

St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), First Canonical Letter, from the work Three Canonical Letters. Loeb Classical Library, 3:20-23. 

In 1679, Pope Blessed Innocent XI condemned the teachings of two theologians, Thomas Sanchez and Ioannis Marcus, who taught that abortion was lawful if the fetus was not yet animated or ensouled and the purpose of the abortion was to prevent shame to the woman. (See Enchiridion Symbolorum, 13th edition, pg. 327, Condemned proposition #34). Condemned proposition #35 from that same document of Pope Blessed Innocent XI is even more explicit: "It seems probable that every fetus (as long as it is in the womb) lacks a rational soul and begins to have the same at the time it is born; and consequently it will have to be said that no homicide is committed in any abortion."

On December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary a dogma of the Faith. In Ineffabilis Deus the pontiff defined, We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. (Emphasis mine).

Notice well that the definition says that Mary's soul was free from conception (not ensoulment), giving credence to immediate animation of the human being at biological fertilization. Had immediate animation been part of Mary's unique privilege, you would expect the theologians to teach about it--especially those who wrote post-1854-- but they do not. While "silence implies consent" is not a theological maxim, it is a weighty argument that immediate animation was implicitly taught, and no approved theologians have taught differently since. The very idea of delayed animation was based on the disproven biological theories of Aristotle.

Therefore, it was not surprising that in 1869, Pope Pius IX officially removed the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus from the Code of Canon Law. (See Codicus Iuris Canonici Fontes, specification number 552). Pro-abortionists jump on this as "proof" of the first penalty against abortion, when all Pope Pius was doing was making a uniform condemnation of abortion and removing any distinctions between animated (ensouled) and unanimated fetuses. This was done to bring the penalty in line with Church teaching that ensoulment is at fertilization (conception).

 In any case, the matter of when the body is 'ensouled' has historically made no difference to the Church. Saint Thomas Aquinas recognized that ensoulment and abortion were two distinct and separate issues. He condemned abortion in the strongest possible terms even though he believed in delayed ensoulment based on the science of his day. For example, in his commentary on murder, he states: “He that strikes a woman with child does something unlawful: wherefore if there results the death either of the woman or of the animated fetus, he will not be excused from homicide.” (See Summa Theologica II-II, q.64, a.8) Also, dealing with whether to baptize a baby in the mother's womb, he writes,  “If, however, the mother die while the child lives yet in her womb, she should be opened that the child may be baptized.” (Ibid, III, q.68, a.11; no mention of animation).   Finally, the Angelic Doctor knew extraordinarily well all of these ancient Church teachings on abortion, and that it was forbidden at any stage of development. He never disagreed. 

Why Not Abort the Abortionist?

There are four circumstances in which killing another human being is morally justified; two of those circumstances involve a person acting as an agent of the State, and the other two concern individuals in their capacities as private citizens. As an agent of the State, a person make take another's life in the carrying out of a lawful execution (i.e., capital punishment), and when he takes part in a just war. A private citizen acting on his own, may take a life in legitimate self-defense of his own life and/or property of great value, and to defend the life of an innocent third party against unjust aggression. 

In the case of legalized abortion (such as exists in the United States since 1973), it is obvious that the killing of an abortion doctor could not be justified as an act of capital punishment nor as part of a just war. Could it be justified as defending the life of an innocent third party (the unborn baby) against unjust aggression (horrible death from an abortionist)? In a word: No. In order to understand why, the moral principles of the Church must be properly understood and applied.

According to theologians McHugh and Callan: This right of self-defense is grounded in the Natural Law itself and has been denied by but few moralists...The principles on defense of one's own life against an unjust aggressor, even at the cost of the latter's life, may be applied to the life of an innocent third party. What are these principles? (a) The assault must be a true aggression (i.e., an act of violence threatening the life of the person assaulted) and unjust (i.e., an attack made without public authority); (b) the resistance must be true self-defense (i.e., an act used to ward off attack or to make the assailant powerless) and moderate (i.e., the person attacked must not use more force than necessary and he must not intend to kill the aggressor). Moreover, in the defense of another:(a)...it is necessary to defend the innocent person, even if the aggressor has to be killed, when one is bound to give this person protection by natural duty (e.g., because the innocent person is one's child or father and the aggressor is not a relative), or by contract (e.g., because one is a hired bodyguard or policeman). (b) It is lawful to defend the innocent person, even if the aggressor has to be killed, and even though there is no duty of nature or contract to give this protection (Exodus 2:12). But it is disputed whether it is necessary to do this.(See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:104-109; Emphasis mine). 

It is clear that in the defense of oneself or another, there must be no intent to kill the aggressor, it must be an unintended consequence. Furthermore, in defending another there is no certain opinion as to whether or not a moral obligation exists apart from a duty contracted. The principle that a private individual cannot intend directly to kill the aggressor is echoed by the great moral theologians:

Prummer: Principle: One may defend oneself against an unjust aggressor even to the point of killing him, provided one does not injure him more than is absolutely necessary to ensure self-protection. (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1957], pg. 127; Emphasis mine).

Slater: In defense of my own life from unjust attack I may use whatever violence is necessary and even go to the length of killing the aggressor, if I cannot otherwise save my life...I may also do the same in [an innocent person's] defense. Although I may lawfully do this, yet there is seldom an obligation of doing it, for the obligation would only arise in charity...(See A Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], 1:198-199; Emphasis mine). 

Jone: The defense must be moderate, i.e., the assailant must not be injured more than is absolutely necessary to ensure self-protection known as moderamen inculpatae tutelae, or moderation of blameless defense. (See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 141; Emphasis mine). 

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church and Greatest of Moral Theologians: The law of nature permits that you may repel force with force and that you may forestall and kill an assailant who unjustly tries to take your life from you or those things that are necessary for you to lead a worthy life, such as temporal goods, honors, chastity, or the integrity of your members. Nevertheless, that it is done with a mind to defend yourself and with moderamen inculpatae tutelae, namely not by causing greater damage or using greater force than is necessary to prevent harm. (See Theologia Moralis, Book IVa, pg. 408; Emphasis mine). 

To intentionally kill another innocent human being is morally unjustifiable. It should also be (and is) legally unjustifiable (except in the case of abortion). An abortionist can hardly be labeled innocent. Nevertheless, even in self-defense or defense of others, against an aggressor, the intent must be to defend rather than to kill. One who shoots an abortionist has the motive to save children. However, his intent in shooting the abortionist is to kill the baby's murderer to achieve that purpose of saving children. Apart from capital punishment, the just war, or the justified rebellion, which derive from God's authority, no one may ever intentionally kill anyone. God is the Author of Life, therefore only God--and those who are given authority by Him--may take human life. 

In countries that have legalized abortion, is rebellion against the government justified? This is where the attempted analogy to Nazi Germany breaks down as shall be shown in the next section of this post.

The Conditions When Justified Rebellion Are Permitted

People have a right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government that goes against God's law. However, to resist the government is always an extreme measure, and therefore it can only be resorted to in extreme cases and under certain well-defined conditions of Natural Law. The most terse and eloquent exposition of the four (4) requirements when open opposition to the government is permitted was penned by theologian Rickaby in the Dublin Review, April 1865 on resisting tyrannical government; De Regimine Principium. 

The First Condition. The government must become substantially and habitually tyrannical. It must lose sight of the common good, and pursues its own selfish objectives to the manifest detriment of the people, most especially when their religious interests are concerned. The people cannot resort to physical resistance for the redress of any and every grievance.  If they could, civil war would be the common condition and peaceful progress would wholly cease. In every nation there are innumerable conflicting interests to be considered and some people are bound to suffer injustice. These ordinary injustices should be remedied through the lawmaking authority available to them, whether by voting, or by appealing to those in power. Resistance to the government can only be tolerated in the case of a government that is substantially and habitually tyrannical and therefore opposed to the common good. 

The Second Condition. All legal and peaceful means have been tried in vain to recall the ruler/government to a sense of duty. The conditions of lawful self-defense are substantially the same in the case of resistance to private, individual aggression and that of aggression by the government. Now, in the former case, a man cannot kill another in self-defense if he can escape the aggression in any other way. [In secular law, this is also applied in many states. Here, in New York, if someone tries to start a fight with you, there is what the law calls "The Duty to Retreat," whereby you must try to get away from the aggressor. This duty extends to all situations except if you are in your home or in your place of business. Then you may immediately fight back---Introibo] So also, if a tyrannical government can be brought back to reason by legal means it has the right to be brought back by legal means. In a republic, such as the United States, rebellion is very difficult to justify because the government can be rejected at the polls. 

The Third Condition. There must be a reasonable probability that resistance will be successful, and not entail greater evils than it seeks to remove. Therefore, the reasonable hope must exist that the tyranny will be overthrown and end, or at least the beginnings of improvement will be effectuated. If the uprising would result in greater misery and suffering for the people, resistance cannot be undertaken.

The Fourth Condition. When the judgement is formed as to the evil of the government, and the resistance necessary, it is not the opinion of a few, or some instigating group, but it is the manifested sentiment of the majority of the people, so that it may be morally considered as the judgement of the nation as a whole. In countries, there is often a group trying to incite revolution "for the good of the people" when it is actually for the group's own good.  They have no right to incite the masses through fear-mongering and acts of violence. 

The Principles of Justified Rebellion As Applied To Legalized Abortion

A justified rebellion involves the assumption by private persons of the prerogative of the State to wage a just war. In a rebellion the war is waged against the State itself. The rebellion itself would be a just war, in which the abortionist, as someone directly a part of the "substantially and habitually tyranny" justifying the rebellion, would be rightly regarded as a combatant and therefore a legitimate target. (See Prof. Charles Rice & John P. Tuskey, The Legality and Morality of Using Deadly Force to Protect Unborn Children from Abortionists, 5 Regent U. L. Rev. 83 (1995), pgs. 83-151). Remember that all four conditions must obtain to have a justified rebellion; the Church sets a high standard to meet.

As to the first condition, I would argue that the government has become "substantially and habitually tyrannical" by stripping a whole class of human beings of their right to life. This condition (in my opinion) is satisfied.

As to the second condition, I argue it is not satisfied. Overall, pro-life initiatives have been winning at the state level, and the Supreme Court has upheld most of them. Expect more victories with three new pro-life Trump-appointed Justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barrett). We also have elections, and not all can be classified as "stolen." Therefore, we must bring the government back by legal means only, not rebellion--and there is hope for success.

As to the third condition, I argue rebellion would bring about greater evils than good. Take the case of an active shooter in an elementary school who has killed several children and threatens many more. If you kill the shooter, the threat is neutralized and no other children will suffer. However, if you kill an abortionist the mother can simply find someone else to murder her child. The killing of individual abortionists is ineffectual; there is no evidence that murdering abortion providers has prevented the murder of any unborn children, nor is there any reasonable assumption that it would ever do so. The only thing violence would do is paint pro-lifers as "radicals," "hypocrites," and draw sympathy for the abortionists. No one would look at the horror of abortion--it would be overshadowed by the violence of shootings. Abortionists would just dig their heels in deeper and hire armed bodyguards (as some already do). 

As to the fourth condition, I argue it has not been met because there is no clear pro-life consensus as the manifest sentiment of the majority; nor is there a clear consensus by a majority that rebellion is necessary. 

Therefore, with three of the four conditions not having been met (and all four being both necessary and sufficient for justified rebellion), there is no right to a justified rebellion in the case of legalized abortion.

Conclusion

Abortion is the murder of an innocent unborn child. It is therefore one of the Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance. I have been involved in the pro-life movement since age 16. We must not allow our zeal for the unborn to blind us to the principles of true morality. In an age were antiheros like Dexter are cheered, it's no wonder people lose their moral compass. Compound this with the Church driven underground, and the Vatican II sect being led by a moral relativist. It's no wonder people are confused in making good moral choices.

Killing abortionists is immoral and would only be a setback to the right-to-life movement. Let us remember the words of St. Augustine, "A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evildoer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him." 

When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 20

 

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

Voodoo/Santeria/Yoruba

I wish to credit  Alfred Metraux Voodoo in Haiti (2016), and Jeffrey Anderson Hoodoo, Voodoo, and Conjure: A Handbook (2008) for much of the informtion in this post.---Introibo

The word voodoo conjures up images of Africans in tribal clothes engaging in corybantic dancing  while someone sticks pins in a doll. While not entirely untrue, there is more to it than that. In 1993, John Paul the Great Apostate visited the African country of Benin. The L’Osservatore Romano gave this definition of voodoo upon the occasion of his visit:

VOODOOISM (voodoo-deity) is a religion originating in West Africa (particularly Benin) that is also widely practiced in Haiti and the Antilles. It is characterized by various rites to the “Great Master” or good God who is the creator of the spirits responsible for protecting human beings. The great God and the spirits are identified with the Christian God and the saints of the Catholic Church. The calendar of voodoo feasts imitates that of Christian worship.

Voodoo ceremonies consist of rituals invoking the spirits and the great God and are marked by drums and songs accompanying an animal sacrifice. The rite culminates in a trance in which a ritual dancer is thought to be possessed by a divinity. Ceremonies are conducted by a man (hungan) or a woman (mambo), who are often knowledgeable about witchcraft as well.

While the practitioners of voodoo have a nominal belief in a “master creator,”--similar to the "Great Architect of the Universe" in Masonry-- it is a "god" incompatible with the Theistic God of Christianity. Voodoo does believe in a deity above the other gods, though one without many of the qualities the Church recognizes in the True God, such as omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, etc. It is a god far removed from the affairs of the world, which it allows "lesser spirits" or "lesser gods" to control. These spirits are thought to reside in trees, water, animals, and other natural phenomena. This primitive cosmology is known as animism.

Likewise, the Yoruba religion system is comprised of traditional African practices and spiritual concepts. They believe that before one is born, they determine their destiny. They decide long before they ever arrive on Earth on what they will be doing in the world, where they will live, and who they will love, and even on how they will die. The religion also states that after one is born into the world all their plans and promises are forgotten and similarly their destiny is even forgotten. There are orishas or spirits that inhabit things and act for or against humans. Olorun (also called Olodumare) is the supreme deity. You must become one with him through successive reincarnations. Unlike Eastern pagans (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.) they view reincarnation as something positive; each alleged rebirth bringing you closer to Olorum.

Santeria derives from the correspondences made by some devotees between the Yoruba deities and the saints (santos) of  Catholicism. It has its origins in Cuba, and many identify as "Catholics." They will also pray to the statues of the true saints, but to them those saints signify demonic "deities." The very name is Spanish for “The Way of the Saints." Santeria is based upon the development of personal relationships through divination, sacrifice, initiation, and mediumship between practitioners of the religion and the orisha deities, who provide their devotees with protection, wisdom, and success. About 60 percent of Cuba's 11 million people are baptized in the Vatican II sect, however, an equal number practice Santeria or another form of Afro-Cuban religion. 

Voodoo and Santeria began in the West when African slaves brought their pagan traditions with them as they were transported to the New World. However, they were generally forbidden from practicing their evil religion. To get around these restrictions, the slaves started to equate their gods with Catholic saints. They also performed their rituals using the items and imagery of the Catholic Church. These sects have no so-called sacred texts only oral traditions. It's not hard to understand how backwards, poverty-stricken countries like Haiti would cling to pagan traditions from Africa. The Church was trying (successfully) to make in-roads eliminating such false religions--but then came Vatican II. 

Why would people in the United States and other developed countries choose to practice voodoo? It lures a dark part of the human psyche that covertly craves uninhibited behavior and revenge. Voodoo dolls are mostly associated with a form of African folk magic called “Hoodoo,” which is a mixture of animism, spiritism, and a combination of other religious beliefs and practices originating in Africa. Hoodoo/Voodoo dolls have traditionally been made to represent an individual who the practitioner is attempting to put a spell or curse upon during a religious ceremony. It satisfies a person's anger and desire for revenge.

There is no hierarchy, only lone practitioners in these pagan sects. They believe that all objects have indwelling spirits; hence the spirits can be invoked by means of objects they manipulate as amulets and charms. Hungans and mambos sacrifice animals to the "spirits" and channel them, asking that they may injure someone who hurt their client in some way, or cure said client of illness, or bring some other benefit upon them. Hence, at the heart of Voodoo, Santeria and Yoruba is spiritism. The Bible makes it clear:

 "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,[1961] pg. 100; Emphasis mine). 

While "spiritism is for the most part fraud," it sometimes is not. When Fr. Jone's theology manual was published in 1961, the Great Apostasy had not yet occurred. Most of spiritism at that time consisted of old ladies reading palms and pretending to contact spirits (or souls of the dead) for extra money; it was a fraud. Since Vatican II there has been an occult and pagan explosion world-wide, such that Fr. Jone couldn't comprehend at the time of his writing. While some spiritism is still fraudulent, I dare to say much--if not most---is real today. The direct and deliberate calling upon "spirits" (i.e., demons) to enter your life will rarely go unheeded. I will examine the striking similarities between Biblical accounts of possession and voodoo practitioners in Haiti calling upon a loa; their name for the Yoruban orishas. 

Demonic Possession in the Bible

There are nine (9) cases of possessed people in the Bible:

1. The demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum (St. Mark 1:23-26; St. Luke 4:33-37)

2. The Gadarene demoniac (St. Mark 5:1-20;  St. Matthew 8:28-34; St. Luke 8:26-39)

3. The daughter of the Syro-Phenician woman (St. Mark 7:24-30; St. Matthew 15:21-28)

4. The demoniac boy (St. Mark 9:14-29; St. Matthew 17:14-20; St. Luke 9:37-43)

5. The mute ("dumb") man (St. Matthew 9:32; St. Luke 11:14-15)

6. The blind and mute ("dumb") man (St. Matthew 12:22-28)

7. The crippled woman (St. Luke 13:11-16)

8. The slave girl at Philippi (Acts 16:16-18)

9. The strong man at Ephesus (Acts 19:13-17)

According to theologian Sagues, the signs of someone possessed are: (1) to speak a foreign language never studied or to understand someone speaking it; (2) to know things hidden far away; (3) to possess strength beyond one's age or natural condition. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, II B:221; these signs are also mentioned in the Rituale Romanum). 

The first sign is not expressly mentioned in the Bible. 

The second sign is also referred to as clairvoyance; which is defined as perceiving things or events in the future or beyond normal sensory contact. The clearest example of this is the slave girl in Philippi. In other instances, the possessed person appeared to recognize Jesus for all that He was without ever having been introduced to Him. This happened in both of the cases in the book of Acts as well as in the cases of the Capernaum and Gadarene demoniacs.

The third sign of superhuman strength is not mentioned in every Biblical case, but the exhibition of unusual or supernormal strength characterizes some instances of Biblical demon possession. The possessed man in Ephesus overpowered seven other men. The Gadarene demoniac could tear chains apart. 

The three signs of possession are primary, but not exclusive. Demons can display themselves possessing a human in other ways. (See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344067436_The_Devil's_Habits_and_Exorcism_in_the_Catholic_Church_Father_Amorth's_Account).  Two such traits exhibited in the biblical accounts are moral impurity and seizures.  The Gadarene demoniac, for instance, ran about naked, and the spirits in him seemed to have no regard for the property rights of others. The demoniac boy had seizures, convulsions, and other symptoms such as rigidity and foaming at the mouth. According to Alfred Metraux in Voodoo in Haiti (2016), mambos and houngans need the "gift of eyes" to see the future; often dress half or fully naked; roll on the ground frothing at the mouth; speak strange words; and can lift heavy objects when in a trance. Sounds like possession? I'll let the readers decide. 

The Great Apostate and Voodoo

Keeping in mind all that has been shown about Voodoo, Santeria, and Yoruba, here is what Wojtyla ["St" John Paul II] had to say to a Voodoo houngan in Benin on February 4, 1993 [English translation of Wojtyla's words from page 4 of L'Osservatore Romano 2/6/93]:

Dear friends,

I am pleased to have this occasion to meet you, and I very cordially greet you. As you know, I came to Benin principally to visit with the Catholic community, to encourage it and confirm it in the faith. However, I have always thought that contact with persons who belong to other religious traditions is an important part of my ministry. Indeed, the Catholic Church[sic] is favorable to dialogue: dialogue with Christians of other churches and ecclesial communities, dialogue with believers of other spiritual families, and dialogue even with those who do not profess any religion. The Church establishes positive and constructive relations with persons and human groups of other creeds for a reciprocal enrichment.

Vatican Council II …. recognized that there are truth and good, seeds of the Word, in the various religious traditions. …These provide the foundations for a fruitful dialogue, as the Apostle Paul said to the first Christians: “Everything that is true, noble, just, pure, amiable, honorable, whatever is virtuous and deserves praise, let all these things be the object of your thinking.” From this comes our approach of respect [toward you]: respect for true values wherever they are, and overall respect for the man who looks to live these values that help him set aside fear.

You are strongly attached to the traditions which your ancestors transmitted to you. It is legitimate to be grateful to the ancestors who transmitted to you the sense of the sacral, faith in a one and good god [sic], the taste for celebrations, and consideration for moral life and harmony in society. (Emphasis mine). How can anyone maintain this man was "pope"? A true pope would not, indeed, could not say such about paganism.

Proselytizing Members of Voodoo Sects

I have dealt with people who practice Santeria. Since those sects (Yoruba/Voodoo/Santeria) will have some superficial knowledge of the Vatican II sect, they will claim to be "Catholic," and even cite to Wojtyla's approval. I was shown a pamphlet by the National African Religion Congress, which said, “Voodoo is based on the belief in one God. We recognize Christ as the Savior and we believe in the Holy Spirit (the Holy Loa). The Loa (singular or plural) are divine forces or the messengers of God. You may know them as the Holy Spirit, the saints or as angels. The Loa guide us and govern the activities of our daily lives.” They teach the (alleged) compatibility of Voodoo and Christianity. This is  syncretism, i.e., he combining of different beliefs, sometimes even when incompatible. 

Traditionalist Catholicism cannot be combined with Voodoo or with any other form of religious worship. To worship Christ at all is to worship Christ alone. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life” (St. John 14:6); He did not say, “I am a step along the way, a partial perspective on the truth, and one among many equally-valid lifestyle choices.” With Christ it is Him and His One True Church alone that saves. 

Point out the contradictions between Voodoo, etc. and Church teaching. Remember the words of Jesus himself: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven” (St. Matthew 7:21). The native pagan African religions are a good example of what Christ meant. None of them believe that the one true God exists in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For them, the Holy Ghost is not a Person, but a "divine force." Or He is made up of hundreds of angels (which are really demons in disguise). Since these pagan religions do not recognize God’s true Spirit, they cannot worship the true Christ, Who has unity with the Father and with the Holy Ghost but does not consort with pagan gods and goddesses.

A person could even use the heretical 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, to show inconsistencies. If the Voodoo follower then asks, "Then why did the pope say what he did?" that would be a great opportunity to talk about sedevacantism and True Catholicism. Remember, these people converse with demons. You should always, in today's evil world, carry a St. Benedict medal on your person.  Leave them with somethings to think about and pray for them much.

Conclusion

The African pagan sects are on the rise thanks to Vatican II and its ecclesiology from Hell. Have nothing to do with these sects and their works of darkness; to do otherwise is to invite evil into your life. By giving such evil recognition, Wojtyla was, in fact, helping them spread their wickedness. With apologies to Cole Porter, John Paul the Great Apostate is paying the price for doing that voodoo he did so well. 

On The Subject Of In Vitro Fertilization

 

To My Readers: I will be praying you all have a Happy and Blessed Holy Week and Easter in 2021. Thanks to my guest poster, A Simple Man, I  have the opportunity to attend all Holy Week services with greater ease and to spend more time with my family this Easter. As always, I will respond below to any comments, especially those addressed to me. I hope you all enjoy this week's post and find it as interesting and informative as I did!

God Bless you all---Introibo

On the Subject of In Vitro Fertilization

By A Simple Man

 

[ASM’s Note: This post will be discussing mature topics related to matters of human sexuality, the reproductive act, and certain sins of impurity. Although no vulgarity will be employed by yours truly, the terms employed by approved moral theologians may seem frank and quite candid to impressionable minds. Reader discretion is advised.]

While browsing headlines recently, an article from InsideHook (an online platform dedicated to news and luxury lifestyle articles for affluent men) published on January 8, 2021 caught my eye: “There’s a Pandemic Sperm Shortage, and “Sperm King” Megadonors Are in High Demand.” What an outlandish title, to say the least!

A brief summary follows: as the COVID-derived lockdowns continue on, demand for sperm banks has risen, while “supply” is at a shortage; to meet this demand, men are donating sperm (the “sperm kings” in question) more and more through online networks, sometimes free of charge; the sordid reasons for why these men donate sperm is given (some explicitly want to pass on their genes without the responsibility of parenthood); a linked follow-up article (Bowles, Nellie. “The Sperm Kings Have a Problem: Too Much Demand” New York Times, published Jan. 8, 2021) goes into further detail, but I think the following words from Ms. Bowles fully capture the moral absurdity on display:

“And so in the capitalist crunch, Sperm World — the world of people buying and selling sperm — has gotten wild. Donors are going direct to customers. They meet with prospective mothers-to-be in Airbnbs for an afternoon handoff; Facebook groups with tens of thousands of members have sprung up. The reason I know this at all is simple enough: I am 32 years old, partnered to a woman, stuck at home and in the market for the finest sperm I can get.”

Sperm is treated as a commodity (selling up to $1,100 a vial per the prior article!), much like the babies that result from them. All of this has been made possible by the process known as IVF: in vitro fertilization.

What is IVF? “In vitro” is Latin for “in the glass”; IVF describes the process where egg cells are extracted from a woman and combined with a man’s sperm in a laboratory dish or some other receptacle (hence the colloquial term “test tube baby”). After fertilization has occurred, the zygote is then returned to the woman’s uterus with the intention of establishing a successful pregnancy. This form of artificial insemination achieved public notoriety with the birth of Louise Joy Brown on July 26, 1978 (Source: History.com Editors. “World’s first "test tube" baby born.” HISTORY, published Mar. 12, 2010, last updated Jul. 23, 2020); since then, births accomplished via IVF account for up to 1 through 2 percent of all U.S. births as recently as 2012, as reported by Penn Medicine.

The specific outcomes of this procedure have resulted in chaotic “family” arrangements, as already seen from the above articles (particularly with regards to lesbian couples seeking to have children using their own ova without having a man involved). However, with regards to a husband and wife seeking to overcome issues of infertility, is IVF morally permissible? This is what we shall investigate.

What would IVF be morally classified as? Let us first consider that, as far as the man is concerned, sperm banks obtain their samples through acts of onanism, providing pornographic material to help “facilitate” their donation. (For the sake of propriety, I will not link to any articles with stories about this aspect of sperm donation; needless to say, this can be independently verified via articles through publishers like VICE, the UK Daily Mail, etc.) It goes without saying that we’re already on bad footing.

Secondly, before providing numerous excerpts from McHugh, O.P. and Callan, O.P.’s Moral Theology, let us recall some definitions: fornication is the copulation of an unmarried man with an unmarried woman who is not a virgin; adultery (a distinct species of lust) is sexual intercourse with the husband or wife of another, while a type of imperfect adultery occurs if unlawful familiarities occur without intercourse; coition is another term for natural sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

Without further ado, I will let the Dominicans have their say. The following section is cited entirely from the 1958 edition of Moral Theology, as hosted online by Project Gutenberg:

2520. The Consummated Sins of Impurity.—There are in all seven species of completed acts of impurity. (a) Thus, some sins of impurity are against reason because they do not observe the ends of sexual intercourse…(b) Other sins of impurity are against reason because they violate a right of the person with whom intercourse is had (incest), or of a third party to whom that person belongs. If the third party is injured in conjugal rights, there is adultery; if in parental rights, there is defloration or rape, according as the injury is done without or with force; if in religious rights, there is sacrilege…

2521. Comparative Malice of the Sins of Consummated Lust.—(a) In the abuse of an act, the worst evil is the disregard of what nature itself determines as the fundamentals upon which all else depends, just as in speculative matters the worst error is that which goes astray about first principles. Now, the prime dictates of nature as to sexual intercourse are that it serve the race and the family. Hence, the sin of unnatural lust (which injures the race by defeating its propagation) and the sin of incest (which injures the family by offending piety) are the worst of carnal vices. (b) In the abuse of an act a lesser evil is that which observes the natural fundamentals, but disregards what right reason teaches about things secondary, in the manner of performing the act. But reason requires that in sexual intercourse the rights of the individual be respected. A most serious violation of individual right is adultery, which usurps the right of intercourse belonging to another; next in gravity is rape, which violently seizes for lust a person under the care of another or undefiled; next is defloration, which trespasses on the right of guardianship, or removes bodily virginity, but without violence; last among these sins is fornication, which is an injury done not to the living, but to the unborn.

[…]

2523. [On Fornication] […] (a) […] Onanism is an aggravating circumstance of fornication, or rather a new sin of unnatural intercourse…

2524. Sinfulness of Fornication.—It is of faith that fornication is a mortal sin. (a) Thus, it is gravely forbidden by the divine positive law… (b) Fornication is gravely forbidden by the natural law. For it is seriously against reason to cause an injury to the entire life of another human being; but fornication does this very thing by depriving the unborn child of its natural rights to legitimacy, to the protection of both parents, and to education in the home circle. True, in some cases there may be no prospect of a child, or there may be provision for its proper rearing; but these cases are the exception, since fornication from its nature tends to the neglect of the child, and the morality of acts must be judged, not by the exceptional and accidental, but by the usual and natural. Those who commit fornication are thinking of their own pleasure rather than of duty, and will generally shirk the difficult burdens of parenthood. Society also would be gravely wounded if unmarried intercourse were at any time lawful. Hence, St. Paul reproves the pagans, though ignorant of Scripture, for their sins of fornication (I Cor., vi. 9-11; Eph., v. 1-6), since reason itself should have taught them the unlawfulness of this practice…

[…]

2526. Circumstances of Fornication.—(a) Circumstances that aggravate the malice are the condition of the person with whom the sin is committed (e.g., that the female is a widow, or the employee of the man, or his ward, or a minor). (b) Circumstances that add a new malice to fornication are of various kinds. Thus, previous circumstances are the distinct desires of the sin entertained beforehand, the solicitation and scandal of the other party or parties with whom the sin was committed; concomitant circumstances are the quality of the persons (e.g., fornication is sacrilegious if one of the parties is consecrated to God, and also, according to some, if one party is a Christian and the other an infidel; it is unjust if one of the couple is betrothed to a third party), or the quality of the act itself (e.g., if it is performed onanistically, though pollution may be excused if it results accidentally from the good purpose to discontinue the sinful act); subsequent circumstances are injury done to the partner in sin (e.g., by refusal to pay the support or restitution due) or to the offspring (e.g., by exposure, abortion, neglect)…

2530. Adultery.—Adultery is also a distinct species of lust. […] (c) Degrees of Malice.—There are three degrees of malice in adultery. The first is that in which a married man sins with a single woman; the second that in which a married woman sins with a single man; the third that in which a married man sins with another man's wife. The second is worse than the first, on account of its consequences (e.g., sterility, uncertainty of paternity, rearing of an illegitimate child in the family); the third is worse than the second, because in addition to the consequences just mentioned, it contains a double injustice (viz., unfaithfulness to an innocent wife and unfaithfulness to an innocent husband), and it multiplies the sin. If an adulterer's husband or wife is also unfaithful, the injustice is lessened, but not removed; for not merely the two married persons are to be considered, but also the children, the family, society, and God; and the wrong done by one of the parties does not take away the right to fidelity pledged absolutely to all of these in marriage…

[…]

2534. Unnatural Lust.—Worst among the sins of impurity, as such, are crimes of unnatural lust, for they exercise the sexual act, not only illicitly, but also in a manner that defeats its purpose of reproduction…(a) For procreation nature requires copulation, and hence pollution is unnatural, for it exercises semination without copulation, either alone (self-abuse, solitary vice, masturbation) or with another (softness). (b) For procreation nature requires proper copulation, that is, one that will permit of a fertile union between the two life elements, the sperma and the ovum. Hence, unnatural coition does not comply with this necessity, for it does not employ the proper organ of sexual union, substituting rectal for vaginal intercourse, or else by some form of natural or artificial onanism it frustrates the act of its destined conclusion. This sin is worse than pollution, since pollution omits to use intercourse, whereas unnatural coition positively abuses it.

[…]

2535. Pollution.—Pollution is the voluntary emission of semen apart from coition. […] (c) It is apart from coition, and thus it differs from other consummated sins. But pollution may be committed either alone (solitary vice), or with another, and in the latter case it pertains reductively to adultery, fornication, sodomy, etc., as the case may be. (d) It is voluntary directly or indirectly: directly, when one intends it as an end (e.g., for the sake of the pleasure) or as a means (e.g., as a relief from temptation or bodily itching, to obtain a specimen of semen for medical diagnosis); indirectly, when one unjustifiably does something from which one foresees that pollution will result. In all these cases pollution is formal or sinful, and it is not to be confused with material or natural pollution, which is a discharge of semen or distillation that is involuntary or unimputable.

[…]

2538. Proximate and Remote Occasions of Pollution.—It is never lawful to expose oneself to the immediate danger of sin, for he who loves the danger loves the sin (see 258, 260); but if one uses means to make the danger remote, one may lawfully encounter it for a good reason (see 258, 260, 261). It is lawful to permit an evil effect when there is sufficient justification according to the principle of double effect (see 103 sqq.). (a) Hence, if there is proximate danger of formal pollution (that is, of consent to sin), no reason excuses an act even of a non-sexual kind, such as horseback riding. But if the act is necessary, the danger must be made remote by the use of special means, such as prayer, firm resolves, etc. (see 2497 sqq.)…

2539. The Theological Malice of Sinful Pollution.—(a) From its nature pollution is a mortal sin, because it is an act of impurity (1494) and a perversion of nature (2534). Moreover, its consequences are most injurious to society (it tends to self-indulgence and the avoidance of the burdens of marriage) and to the individual (when habitual, it weakens mental and will power and often brings on a breakdown of bodily vigor especially among young people), In Scripture it is represented as gravely illicit (I Cor., vi. 10; Gal., v. 19; Eph., v. 3). Hence, pollution is always a mortal sin when directly willed (e.g., when practised deliberately in order to be rid of a temptation or of bodily irritation or itch certainly due to superfluity of semen or to passion), and also when indirectly willed if there is proximate danger of consent to sin (e.g., when one who has always committed formal pollution in certain company goes into that company without necessity, or without use of means to prevent a fall) or grave danger of pollution and no sufficient reason for permitting it (e.g., undue familiarities from which nocturnal pollution is foreseen as most probable).

[…]

2541. The Moral Species of Sinful Pollution.—(a) The general species of pollution is distinct from other consummated sins of impurity, since it is unnatural, and this in a special way (see 2534, and Denzinger, n. 1124), But some authors regard equivalent pollution (see 2493, 2535) as not a consummated sin, since it is without true semination, and hence according to them it may be confessed simply as impure pleasure (see 2519 b). (b) The particular species of pollution is derived from circumstances that give it a new essential malice. If it is solitary, and committed by one who is under no bond of marriage or vow, and accompanied by no thought or desire except in reference to self or self-gratification (autoerotism, narcissism), there is the single sin of pollution. But there are other sins if it is committed by one under special obligation (i.e., adultery or sacrilege), or if committed with another person (e.g., seduction, coöperation, rape), or if committed with impure thoughts or desires about others (e.g., mental adultery, fornication, sodomy, bestiality). The manner in which pollution is performed (e.g., whether coöperative pollution is active or passive, by irrumation or concubitus or touch, with or without an instrument) is per se an accidental circumstance. According to some authors, coöperative pollution brought on by touch alone is not diversified in species, if there is no special affection for the other person, but only the desire of carnal gratification, and hence it may be declared simply as pollution from touch.

To summarize, regardless of the marital status of the individuals involved, IVF begins with an act of unnatural lust, proceeding to a form of unnatural intercourse at the point of fertilization (whether it be within a laboratory, or with a woman utilizing an artificial implement to inseminate herself). As such, even if a sacramentally married man and woman were struggling with infertility (being unable to naturally conceive a child of their own), it would not justify the use of IVF. Even appealing to the obligation of paying the marital debt will not suffice; for as McHugh and Callan say elsewhere in paragraph 2615.c, such a request would be “unreasonable” due to being "seductive (e.g., when it is an invitation to commit onanism) by its nature. This is also notwithstanding the deleterious effects on family life and society which inevitably come from such a process becoming more commonplace.

Finally, having covered some general principles behind why IVF is intrinsically sinful, we turn to authoritative magisterial teaching on artificial insemination. Courtesy of Pope Pius XII (whose words will be in red), as cited by McHugh and Callan (bolded words are emphasis mine):

2619. Nota.— 

[…]

(c) Artificial Insemination. The subject-matter of the latter part of the preceding paragraph is distinguished from several unlawful practices considered by moralists under the heading of artificial insemination. Pope Pius XII on several occasions has given a clear, accurate and complete statement of Catholic teaching on the subject. We append here his texts:

1) The practice of artificial insemination, when it refers to man, cannot be considered, either exclusively or principally, from the biological and medical point of view, ignoring the moral and legal one.

Artificial insemination, outside of marriage, must be condemned as essentially and strictly immoral. Natural law and divine positive law establish, in fact, that the procreation of a new life cannot but be the fruit of marriage. Only marriage safeguards the dignity of the spouses (principally of the wife in the present case) and their personal good. It alone provides for the well-being and education of the child.

It follows that no divergence of opinion among Catholics is admitted on the condemnation of artificial insemination outside of marriage. The child conceived in those conditions would be, by that very fact, illegitimate.

Artificial insemination produced in a marriage by the active element of a third party is equally immoral and consequently to be condemned without appeal.

Only the spouses have a reciprocal right upon each other's body to generate a new life: an exclusive, inalienable right, which cannot be ceded. And so it must be, even out of consideration for the child. On whoever gives life to a small being, nature imposes, by the very strength of that tie, the duty to keep and educate it. But no ties of origin, no moral or legal bonds of conjugal procreation, exist between the legitimate husband and the child who is the fruit of the active element of a third party (even if the husband has given his consent).

As far as the legitimacy of artificial insemination in marriage is concerned, it suffices, for the moment, to recall these principles of natural law: the simple fact that the result desired is obtained by this means does not justify the use of the means itself; nor does the desire of the husband and wife, in itself perfectly legitimate, to have a child, suffice to establish the legitimacy of resorting to the artificial insemination which would satisfy this desire.

It would be erroneous, therefore, to think that the possibility of resorting to this means might render valid a marriage between persons unable to contract it because of the impedimentum impotentiae.

On the other hand, it is superfluous to mention that the active element can never be obtained legitimately by means of acts against nature.

Although new methods cannot be ruled out a priori for the sole reason of their novelty, nonetheless, as far as artificial impregnation is concerned, extreme caution is not enough; it must be absolutely excluded. Saying this does not necessarily proscribe the use of certain artificial means destined only to facilitate the natural act, or to assure the accomplishment of the end of the natural act regularly performed.

Let it never be forgotten that only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the designs of the Creator brings with it, to a marvelous degree of perfection, the accomplishment of the proposed ends. It is at the same time in conformity with corporeal and spiritual nature and the dignity of the married couple, as well as with the healthy, normal development of the child (Address to Physicians, Sept. 29, 1949, Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. xi, pp. 221 ff).

2) We also believe that it is of capital importance for you, gentlemen, not to neglect this perspective when you consider the methods of artificial fecundation. The means by which one tends toward the production of a new life take on an essential human significance inseparable from the desired end and susceptible of causing grave harm to this very end if these means are not conformable to reality and to the laws inscribed in the nature of beings.

We have been asked to give some directives on this point also. On the subject of the experiments in artificial human fecundation "in vitro," let it suffice for Us to observe that they must be rejected as immoral and absolutely illicit. With regard to the various moral problems which are posed by artificial fecundation, in the ordinary meaning of the expression, or "artificial insemination," We have already expressed Our thought in a discourse addressed to physicians on September 29, 1949 (Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. xi. pp. 221 ff.). For the details We refer you to what We said then and We confine Ourself here to repeating the concluding judgment given there: "With regard to artificial fecundation, not only is there reason to be extremely reserved, but it must be absolutely rejected. In speaking thus, one is not necessarily forbidding the use of certain artificial means destined solely to facilitate the natural act or to achieve the attainment of the natural act normally performed." But since artificial fecundation is being more and more widely used, and in order to correct some erroneous opinions which are being spread concerning what We have taught, We have the following to add:

Artificial fecundation exceeds the limits of the right which spouses have acquired by the matrimonial contract, namely, that of fully exercising their natural sexual capacity in the natural accomplishment of the marital act. The contract in question does not confer on them a right to artificial fecundation, for such a right is not in any way expressed in the right to the natural conjugal act and cannot be deduced from it. Still less can one derive it from the right to the "child," the primary "end" of marriage. The matrimonial contract does not give this right, because it has for its object not the "child," but the "natural acts" which are capable of engendering a new life and are destined to this end. It must likewise be said that artificial fecundation violates the natural law and is contrary to justice and morality. [1] (Marriage and Parenthood, May 19, 1956). See The Pope Speaks, Vol, III, No. 2, Autumn of 1956, pp. 194 ff.

And there you have it. From the mouth of the Vicar of Christ, IVF is “immoral and absolutely illicit.” Can’t get more clear than that.

In conclusion, when even the Vatican II sect opposes IVF as intrinsically evil (though for how much longer, I can only guess), its inherent illicitness should be clear enough. This post merely covered the moral principles and authoritative teaching as to why IVF is immoral; it does not provide an in-depth overview of the heinous effects that such technology allows (though a mere taste can be seen in the articles originally linked at the beginning of this post), in league with abortion and contraception: the further commodification of children and human sexuality, the increased tolerance for unnatural and sinful family arrangements, and a growth in pride at being able to play God.

As Dr. Robert Edwards (the English physiologist who helped produce the world’s first test tube baby previously mentioned, having won the Nobel Prize in 2010 for the development of IVF) put it after the fact: “I wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God Himself or whether it was scientists in the laboratory. It was us.”

Having passed away in 2013, Edwards now knows precisely who’s in charge.

May God have mercy on us all.

Mass Destruction

 

My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, lived an extraordinary life. The religious, political, and other personages he knew, combined with his myriad unusual experiences in a unique era of the world, would make for an unapparelled priest of intrigue. In his early years, Father was taken prisoner at the Battle of Dunkirk, and was wounded while escaping (successfully) from a Nazi concentration camp. After Belgium was liberated from Nazi tyranny on February 4, 1945, young Fr. DePauw, less than three years a priest, became good friends with many of the American soldiers stationed there. 

The Nazi command (including Hitler himself) knew the days of their "Thousand Year Reich" were numbered. Nazi Germany would unconditionally surrender to the Allies just over three months later, on May 8, 1945 (one week after Hitler committed suicide). During those months before Germany's surrender, several high-ranking members of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, would try to escape to South America. More than a few of them had planned for this when the tide of the war turned against them. As was the case with certain spies meant to wreak havoc in the United States (Operation Pastorius), they knew they would need to pretend to be Americans to get past certain U.S. check-points.  

These Nazis had learned to speak perfect, fluent English without a trace of a German accent. They made sure to know American idioms, pop culture, important figures, and even minutiae about where they allegedly lived in the United States. They would present themselves as American soldiers with fake papers (identification), and once past the check-point, they could use various means to escape to South America. Father was friends with a certain American sergeant, whose job it was to check the papers of any soldier seeking to leave and verify they were legitimate. 

One day, a Catholic chaplain with the U.S. Army arrived at the sergeant's check-point. Something about this chaplain just "didn't seem right" as he later told Fr. DePauw. He couldn't put his finger on what was wrong, so he detained him for over two hours asking question after question. All his answers checked out. At this point, the sergeant's Commanding Officer intervened. Pulling Father's friend aside, he asked him if he was out of his mind. "You're detaining a Catholic chaplain and an officer [all Chaplains start off with the rank of second-class lieutenant]. And you're basing this on..what? Some strange hunch? We're not the Nazis; this priest has rights. You release him now, and ask his forgiveness. Hopefully, he won't file a complaint against you leading to your court martial." (Dialogue from my memory and notes---Introibo). 

He went back and apologized to the priest. "That's OK young man, you're just doing your job! No hard feelings; I'm a priest and I forgive you." The sergeant--a devout Catholic from childhood-- boldly asked, "Father, may I ask just one last question, and I promise you may leave immediately?" The priest sighed. "Well, I've been here over two hours now, but go ahead--ask me your final question." The young sergeant looked straight into his eyes and asked, "Please tell me Father: What's the correct response to Introibo ad altare Dei?"  The "priest's" mouth dropped open; he was speechless. He was arrested and detained. Two days later it was revealed that the sergeant had successfully captured a high-ranking Nazi trying to escape. Fr. DePauw then said to me, "This should serve as a reminder that the test of a true priest--indeed--any true Catholic, is how well they know and love the True Mass." 

Many times in the more than ten years since I started this blog, readers have commented asking, "How could so many priests, theologians, bishops, etc., have gone along with the Vatican II sect?" Fr. DePauw gave the answer that day. By the 1950s, "country club Catholicism" had taken hold. People no longer took the study of the Integral Catholic Faith seriously--and the Mass was the most beautifully clear and concise exposition of that same Faith. You had priests offering Mass in a hurried and slovenly manner, without devotion and never giving sermons on the truths of Faith. Their vocations became little more than jobs they performed begrudgingly. The laity attended Mass out of habit, and would choose the aforementioned priests who offered Mass quickly and slovenly just to "get it over with" and do more important things--like watching sports or going shopping. The theologians who weren't Modernists, had rationalized what was happening post-1958 because they didn't want to accept the truth about what was going on. As for most of the rest, they never even realized what they lost--the greatest gift in the universe; the One True Faith. 

The lack of knowledge of the Faith continues to be exemplified today, in those holding themselves out to be "teachers" and even "saviors" of the Church.  Two such examples will suffice to make my point:

• $teve $kojec, of the site "One Peter Five," is the owner of a "theology-free" zone. His basic contention is that the Church can (and has) defected, and the "pope" can be a heretic. He makes six-figures from donations so people can listen to him explain why they should follow his teachings over that of the man he acknowledges as "pope." He offers very little more than his own ipse dixit for his assertions. What can this man possibly know of the True Faith? 

• David L. Gray of davidlgray.info, has a Masters degree in theology, and no discernable credentials in history, yet promotes himself as both a "theologian" and a "historian." His articles and videos are little more than his (badly informed) opinions on various topics such as sedevacantism and the Novus Bogus "mass." 

A few weeks ago, an acquaintance gave me a self-published book by one Adam S. Miller, and wanted my opinion on it. Miller is a "Vatican II sect Feeneyite"--- he accepts the Vatican II sect which teaches universal salvation, while simultaneously holding the Feeneyite heresy which denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. Don't try to make sense of it, because you really can't. His book is entitled Is the New Mass (sic) of Pope (sic) Paul VI Invalid?, (second edition, 2010). At 114 pages, it is a short (and very painful) read. One of the stated purposes of his book is to be "A refutation of the arguments denying the validity of the N.O.M." ["Novus Ordo Missae" or "New Order of Mass (sic)"]. This post will show just how badly he fails in this endeavor, with a virtually citationless rambling devoid of even a basic understanding of Catholic theology. 

Miller: Wrong in Even His Basic Contentions

From the back cover: Whether traditional or progressive, conservative or liberal in orientation, all Catholics will benefit from this work, for the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass is the center piece (sic) of Catholic life.

While the Sacrifice of the Mass is indeed the "centerpiece of Catholic life," you are either Catholic or not. In the Vatican II sect, there are divisions just like in Anglicanism. You can be "High Church," "Low Church," or "Broad Church," although they are all pretty much Marxists these days. Is Miller implying there are four divisions in the Church? Is traditional the same as conservative and progressive the same as liberal? What is an "orientation"? What is the "conservative" orientation on transubstantiation versus the "liberal" orientation? This is an outgrowth of the heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II. You are either (a) Catholic and accept all Church teachings or (b) you are not Catholic by way of heresy, schism, or apostasy (assuming a valid baptism). 

Miller barely mentions the "elephant in the room." 

Most of his tome is dedicated to showing that the Novus Bogus "mass" is valid despite the corrupted Consecration Form over the Wine. He spends most of his pages "refuting" Fr. James Wathen (ordained 1958, d. 2006), Patrick Henry Omlor (d. 2013), and Dr./Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy (d.2006). Fr. Wathen was a "recognize and resist" (R&R) Feeneyite. Both Omlor and Coomaraswamy were sedevacantists from the early days (1960s). Only briefly does Miller address sedevacantism. This is analogous to writing a critique of Dwight David Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur and only briefly mentioning they were army generals. Sedevacantism also explains much which his book doesn't even try to defend:

• If Montini wasn't pope (Paul VI), then his service must be rejected outright since Canon 1257 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that "Only the Apostolic See has the right to regulate the liturgy [i.e., the ritual of public worship] and to approve liturgical books." (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1952], 2:512).  

• Miller devotes seven pages to an addendum "Was the New Mass Legally-Canonically Promulgated?" (pgs. 103-109). He correctly proves that Montini went through all the procedures necessary to promulgate the Novus Bogus. He also correctly states that the Church cannot give that which is evil, citing to Canon VII on the Mass from the Council of Trent. Finally, he gets it right that the only way to claim the so-called "New Mass" is evil is to be a sedevacantist because to hold Paul VI to Benedict XVI as real popes, and claim the new Rite evil, would involve a contradiction. 

• Where Miller goes seriously wrong is when he states on page 104, One reason that we know that the sedevacantist position cannot be sustained is that Pope Paul VI did  properly and legally approve and promulgate the N.O.M., despite what some say about its legality. Huh? I don't know of any sedevacantist who holds that Montini wasn't pope because he didn't properly promulgate the Novus Bogus and thereby ceased to be pope. It is morally certain that Montini was not pope from at least November 21, 1964, when he signed the heretical document Lumen Gentium. If he were truly pope, the Holy Ghost would have prevented him from signing it. (I am of the opinion Montini never attained to the papacy). A pope falls from office by Divine Law if--as a private theologian--he professes heresy. That Miller could write such drivel in 2010, with so much information about sedevacantism on the Internet alone, is deplorable. 

It's All That Matters

For a Sacrament to be valid, five things are necessary: proper minister, correct matter, correct form, proper intention on the part of the minister, and no invalidating obex ("obstacle") on the part of the recipient. (See theologian Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, [1959], pgs. 183-213). In the Eucharist, which can only come about through the Mass, the proper minister would be a valid priest or bishop. Correct matter is unleavened bread (in the Latin Rite) and wine; correct form is the Words of Consecration over both bread and wine. Proper intention means the offering priest or bishop must intend to do what the Church does, and in the Eucharist there can be no invalidating obex on the part of the one who receives. (An example of an invalidating obex would be Holy Orders performed on a woman). 

In the form of a sacrament, the form will be held as invalid where there is a substantial change in meaning. Hence, if the priest said, "THIS IS A SYMBOL OF MY BODY" instead of "THIS IS MY BODY," the Mass is invalid. Likewise, were he to say "THIS IS A BODY," it would also be invalid. Matter and form must be certainly valid, and doubtful matter must never be used. A doubtful sacrament is treated as invalid in the practical order. (See theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1961], pgs. 308-309).  The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) charged with translating the Novus Bogus into English changed the Words of Consecration over the Wine from: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD OF THE NEW AND EVERLASTING TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS--to---FOR THIS IS THE CUP OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; IT SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND FOR ALL MEN UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. 

Several changes were made: the chalice is now a "cup," the phrase "the mystery of faith" was removed, and "many" was rendered as "all men"--and later to be politically correct---as "all." The problem with this "translation" (even a first year Latin student knows pro multis means "for many"), is that it substantially changes the meaning of Our Lord's own words. (The "correct translation" was produced by Joachim Jeremias, a Protestant theologian--See The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, [1977], pgs. 178-182; 225-231; his translation was later definitively proven wrong by myriad Biblical scholars). 

The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us Christ said many not all and explained why:

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: ‘Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many’; and also of the words of our Lord in John: ‘I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given Me, because they are Thine. (Emphasis mine). Christ was speaking of the efficacy of His Sacrifice, the many who would cooperate with His grace and actually achieve salvation. It is true that Christ died for all--that His Sacrifice was sufficient for all to be saved--but all do not believe and live good lives so only many will be saved. Hence, by changing "many" to "all" the Vatican II sect introduced the heresy of Universalism (that all go to Heaven) into the very Words of Christ, falsely making Our Lord speak a lie. This alone made the service dubious, and hence to be avoided. (The Vatican II sect actually changed "all" back to "many" in 2008--after most valid priests had passed away). 

Miller attempts to tell us that either word (many or all) is valid. The reasons he gives are incredibly flawed. Before going through his attempted defense of the Consecration, there are two independent reasons the Novus Bogus is invalid, yet since he dismisses sedevacantism, Miller doesn't even address them. 

1. Invalid Minister of the Sacrament. Montini's new Rites of priestly ordination and episcopal consecration are invalid. Without a valid priesthood, it doesn't matter what the so-called priest says, it will be null and void. Therefore, after 40 years of invalid Holy Orders starting in 1968, the sect changed the words back. Secondly, the idea of Universalism had sufficiently permeated all aspects of the Vatican II sect, so they could throw a bone to "conservative" members to show they are "interested in preserving Catholic truth." 

2. Invalid Intention. The Words of Consecration are now called the Words of Institution, and recited within an "Institution Narrative" in the "Eucharistic Prayer." In the Canon of the Mass, the priest must stop, bend over the host or chalice to be Consecrated, and speaking in a secret (low) voice, he must say the words attentively and devoutly without interruption. This is to show that the priest is not simply repeating the Words of Our Lord spoken almost 2000 years ago in some narration of a historical event, but he intends to perform the action of Consecration effectuating transubstantiation here and now. In reciting the Words of Institution in an Institution Narrative, the "priest" does the exact opposite. He reads it as one big historical story, thereby vitiating his intention to consecrate, according to some theologians like rubrician O'Connell. It is analogous to baptizing a baby within the context of reading the Gospel of St. Matthew Chapter 28--is the intent to baptize here and now, or are you simply reciting what took place in the time of Our Lord's life on Earth? 

Many Defenses--All Fail

Miller offers the following arguments to prove that the Words of Consecration over the wine are valid with the word all replacing many:

1. The word "all" does not necessitate the heresy of Universalism, because it can be interpreted as meaning "many."

Scripture. Despite the clear teaching of the Council of Trent that the word "all" was specifically not used, Miller claims that "all" can be used in place of "many" without substantial change. He cites verses of Scripture to (allegedly) prove his point:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Emphasis mine). Yet Christ and His Mother never sinned, so all is not entirely inclusive. 

Philippians 2:21 For all seek the things that are their own; not the things that are Jesus Christ's. (Emphasis mine).  Obviously, some do seek the things of Christ, only many do not.

Two problems. (i) It is the Magisterium that decides the meaning of Scripture, not Adam Miller. The Catechism of the Council of Trent decided Christ said (and meant) "many," not "all" when He consecrated the wine--and explained why; case closed. (ii) There are times many means many in Scripture. How would Miller render these passages:

St. Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. (Emphasis mine). Many cannot mean all, unless everyone goes to Hell.

St. Matthew 24: 4-5  And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: For many will come in My name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many. (Emphasis mine). Are we to read this as "For ALL will come in My name saying, I am the Christ; and they will seduce ALL"? 

2. Three Eastern Rite Liturgies Have Included the Word "All"

Miller describes the Anaphora of St. John the Evangelist (without citation) as saying:

This is the Chalice of My Blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye of it: this is shed forth for the life of the world, for the expiation of transgressions, for the remission of sins to ALL that believe in Him forever and ever. (Emphasis in original; pg. 15). I have no idea where Miller got this as no citation is provided. Yet assuming, ad arguendo, it's legitimate, the phrase "That believe in Him [Christ] forever and ever" after the word ALL modifies the phrase so as to read, "ALL those who believe in Christ forever and ever" an expression signifying all the elect for which Christ's Blood was shed; the efficacy of Christ's Sacrifice about which the Council of Trent spoke. No such qualifying phrase exists in the Novus Bogus.

Miller then describes the Anaphora of St. Mark (again without citation) as saying:

This is the Blood of the New Testament: Take, drink ye all of it, for the remission of sins of you and of ALL the true faithful, and for eternal life. (Emphasis in original; pg. 15) Once more, assuming ad arguendo, that this is legitimate, the phrase "the true faithful" modifies all so as to read, "ALL the true faithful" i.e., the elect. 

Interestingly, I was unable to find these Anaphoras in my pre-Vatican II books on the Eastern Rite Liturgies. I did , however, find them online as part of Eastern Schismatic Liturgies. 

(See syriacorthodoxresources.org/Liturgy/Anaphora/John.html; See also syriacorthodoxresources.org/Liturgy/Anaphora/Mark.html). 

Lastly, Miller claims the Maronite rite used to have the word "ALL" in the Consecration of the Wine. However, for his sources he lists an "Eparchial Liturgist" from Brooklyn (without citation to where he got this information) and even the "Liturgist" admits, "The original Syriac texts from our Liturgy [was] translated 'For Many.'" (See Miller's book pg. 16). He also cites an Eastern Rite priest of the Vatican II sect "from a private correspondence with an associate of the author." Basically, "a friend of a friend told me..." That's not exactly, "the sources of scholars." As this source is unverifiable, of dubious expertise, and not unbiased, I will simply dismiss it. 

3. The "Principle of Supplied Catholic Understanding." 

 

You've never heard of the Principle of Supplied Catholic Understanding (PSCU)? Don't feel bad; neither has anyone else. Adam Miller made it up. On pg. 19 of his book, Miller writes:

At Vatican Council I, the Church infallibly declared that what She puts forth is "to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church" (Pastor Aeternus, Denz:1821 [DS:3052]; italics added).

He then tells his readers The Church, then, requires the faithful to understand the approved new form, as she does for all the others, according to Catholic teaching, according to what she means by the terms. No, Adam, She does not. The term in magic tricks "hocus pocus" is an anti-Catholic slur. The Words of Consecration over the bread (in the true Mass) are HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM (FOR THIS IS MY BODY). Protestants said it was "pope-ish magic" changing bread into God by "Hoc-est Poc-est." That became corrupted to "hocus pocus" and was to be associated with magic. According to Miller's PSCU, if  "hocus pocus" replaced the traditional form, Catholics would be required to understand it as the valid Form. Maybe he should call his invented principle "The Principle of Orwellian Newspeak" where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and many is all. 

Miller's only citation for his made up PSCU is part of a sentence twisted out of context from the 1870 Vatican Council's infallible decree on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. Here's what Pastor Aeternus says in context:

We, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the Sacred Council, judge it to be necessary to propose, to be believed and held by all the faithful according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church, the doctrine of the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy, by which the strength and solidity of the entire Church is established, and at the same time to proscribe and condemn the contrary errors, which are so harmful to the flock of Christ. (Emphasis mine). The Vatican Council of 1870 was teaching that the doctrine of the Apostolic Primacy was "to be believed and held by all the faithful" because it was always held "according to the ancient and continual faith of the Universal Church." It has absolutely nothing to do with the interpretations concerning the forms of sacraments. That's why there isn't a single approved theologian or canonist who teaches the "PSCU." It doesn't exist.

Finally, why does Miller even care what words are used in the Consecration at Mass? In October of 2001, the Modernist Vatican published a document entitled Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. It declared as valid a liturgy that contains no Words of Consecration at all. The Anaphora makes reference to the Body and Blood of Christ, and even says that we offer to God the Body and Blood of Christ, but there is nowhere to be found anything that even comes close to what the Modernists call an "Institution Narrative" and what Catholics call the Words of Consecration. Why does the Vatican II sect consider it valid? "...the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological (!) way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise, and intercession." This overthrows all Catholic teaching on the matter and form of the Sacrament since the founding of the Church. Miller should have used this made up "euchological way" to argue for validity, which sounds more impressive (but makes no more sense), than the PSCU.

4. The Words "This is My Body" and "This is the Chalice of My Blood" are sufficient for Consecrating the Eucharist.

The Church has never defined whether those words alone suffice. Some theologians agree, some teach more than those words are necessary. Since there can be no doubt in confecting the sacraments, the "Long Form" using all the words is necessary to ensure against invalidity.

What the Church Teaches

Theologian Halligan teaches:

The form of consecration of the bread is: “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” of the wine: “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.” The word “enim” does not pertain to validity and its omission is a venial sin. The words which precede these formulas, viz., “Qui pridie… Simili modo…” in no way pertain to the form. It is commonly taught today that the essential words of the form of the Eucharist—and their omission would invalidate the form—are: “Hoc est corpus meum,” “Hic est calix sanguinis mei” (or “Hic ast sanguis meus”). Some hold that the remaining words “novi et…” are essential. In practice it is gravely prescribed to pronounce the entire form; if any of the words from “novi et…” on are omitted, the whole form is to be repeated conditionally. (See The Administration of the Sacraments, [1962], pg. 103). 

The words must be repeated conditionally because since the Church has not settled the matter, the whole form (not just "This is the Chalice of My Blood") must be used to remove doubt because they may be necessary to validity. The old axiom, "A doubtful sacrament is no sacrament at all," holds true.

Why would those other words be necessary? According to theologian Wengier:

That is why His consecration or transubstantiation had to be and was sacrificial or propitiatory. And He clearly expressed that propitiatory character of His consecration by the words: “quod pro vobis tradetur” —“which shall be delivered for you” and “qui pro vobis, et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum” —”which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” Consequently, we, too, must use the same words or their equivalent. We must clearly express the propitiatory or sacrificial character of our consecration, because our Mass is the same Sacrifice as that of Christ renewed by us, as the Council of Trent teaches and as it is clear from the institution itself. A simple formula demonstrating the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood under the species does not tell us whether that which Christ did or what we do is a sacrifice or not. Therefore, besides the demonstrative words, our consecration form needs other words determining the purpose of the Blood’s effusion, which is the destruction of sin. This doctrine of St. Thomas and his followers, Henricus Henriquez, Amicus, and others, is in perfect harmony with the nature of our Mass.

It is not necessary to express that teleology in both consecrations. Our Latin formula omits the ‘quod pro vobis tradetur’ in the consecration of the bread. It prefers to give to the teleology its formal place, namely, in the consecration of the wine, which being changed into Blood apparently separated (in the species only!) from the Body, formally signifies its death — death which subsequently our formula determines, adding the purpose of this death: ‘pro vobis… pro multis … in remissionem peccatorum.’

The transubstantiation, then, is not sufficient by itself for a Mass. It must be a sacrificial transubstantiation, expressing an oblation made to God for sins. This peculiar expression must be verbal (not only mental), because it is an integral part of the form of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and every sacrifice (in the strict sense) is an external act of worship, signifying the internal dedication. (See The Eucharistic Sacrifice, [1955], pg. 157). 

Conclusion

When people don't understand the Mass and the Integral Catholic Faith, you get a 114 page tome that uses a made up principle, and a false understanding of Sacramental Theology, to convince you a Modernist bread and wine service performed around a table is a valid "mass." It's no wonder Adam Miller is in the Vatican II sect and a Feeneyite. Had people only understood and loved the Faith and Mass, the Great Apostasy may not have happened as it did back in 1964. 

To this day, I have yet to meet a priest who offered the Mass with more love and devotion than Father DePauw. In the sacristy, he had a plaque from a Church destroyed in Belgium during World War II. It read, "Priest of Christ: Offer this Mass as if it were your First Mass; as if it were your Last Mass; as if it were your Only Mass." Father read it every day, and lived by those words. For those of us lucky enough to still have access to a Traditionalist Church or Chapel, let's never take what we have for granted. Rather, as Lent winds down, let's resolve as follows--"Member of Christ's One True Church: Attend this Mass as if it were your First Mass, as if it were your Last Mass, as if it were your Only Mass." 

ADDENDUM--3/24/21

A member of the Vatican II sect has been commenting below in an attempt to prove the Novus Bogus to be valid. I'm adding this addendum since it is more appropriate and beneficial to my readership to see the objections he raises and my replies together as an addendum.---Introibo 

Preliminary remark: As a member of the Vatican II sect, my interlocutor accepts the Pauline Ordination and Consecration Rites of 1968 as valid, so he does not address the lack of proper minister. He has not touched upon defect of intention arising from an "Institution Narrative." He believes Montini (Paul VI) had the right to change the Mass as he was allegedly "pope." Hence, I will only defend my assertion of defect in form. I will paraphrase his objections which can be read in the original comments below. 

Objection #1:  The Novus Bogus signifies the passion in the consecratory prayer of the bread, "which is given for you." Likewise, it is indicated by the short phrase "which is shed for you." The sacrificial nature is also indicated in the phrase "shed for you." The fruits are being applied to those receiving the sacrament. The translation issue between "for many" and "for all" doesn't negate that.  If the bread can be transubstantiated without sacrificial terminology, then so can the blood.

Indeed the sacrificial character and the fruits of the mass are indicated by "shed for you" just as much as "given for you." Both of which are contained in the Novus Bogus. The "short form" is therefore sufficient for a valid Mass. 

Reply: From theologian  de la Taille, Mysterium Fidei (1931):

It is quite certain, as all admit, that the words: This is My Body, This is the chalice of My Blood (or other equivalent words), by which is demonstrated the presence of the Body and the Blood of Christ under the appearance of the bread and the wine, are essential to the form of consecration. But a further question arises: whether, in addition to this indication of the Body and the Blood of Christ, there is necessary, as a part of the form, and as an essential part of it, a determination of the propitiatory end in view, as, for example, by words which indicate that what is enacted in symbol is done for us, unto the remission of sins.

“St. Thomas, after Innocent III (whose words are quoted below), in 3 S. 78,3, and more positively still in I Cor., II, lect 6, together with all his early disciples, whom the Salmanticenses quote with approval, maintains that such words are essential (De Euchar. Sacram., disp. 9, dub. E, para. 2, n. 22). Modern theologians for the most part, following St. Bonaventure (4 D. 8,2,1,2), deny that such words are essential.

“Two main arguments are given for this denial: one resting on intrinsic principles; the other drawn from positive dogmatic sources.

“The first line of reasoning is as follows: the conversion of the bread into the Body and the wine into the Blood is quite sufficiently signified without any further determination of the kind mentioned: therefore it is effected without this further determination; because in the Sacraments the words effect what they signify.

“The second reason is this: neither the Scripture narratives nor the liturgies agree as to the precise tenor of these determinative words. Therefore they are outside the ambit of the form.

“However, neither of these reasons seems convincing.

“Taking the second argument first, we find a sufficient refutation of it in the following fact: in every one of the liturgies, with the exception of a few very corrupt Ethiopian ones (some of which are known aliunde to be invalid), as well as some very degraded productions of the Syrian schismatics, we find invariably conveyed, besides the separate demonstration of the Body and Blood, an indication of the propitiatory intention for which the symbolic separation of Body and Blood, or the blood-shedding designated by it is made. So we have, in every case, an equivalent sense in the formulae; and this, we maintain, is all that is necessary to secure the necessary uniformity of the form, as will be sufficiently proved by what we have to say immediately in refutation of the first objection proposed above, by the development of our own intrinsic argument, derived from the nature of things.

“Coming, then, to the first argument of our adversaries, we think that it is sufficiently refuted by the development of our own argument. But first we must presuppose that there is no question here of what Christ could have done, if He willed, but only of what He did will to do. And it is quite plain that He willed to offer sacrifice. Again the question is not, here, whether the indication of the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine would of itself sufficiently signify (and accordingly would avail, if our Lord so instituted, to accomplish effectively) some real presence or not; but the question is: would such an indication signify a real presence in the condition of immolation whereby the sacrifice would be enacted? And this, it seems, we must deny. For the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ could undoubtedly be realized by the actual effective words without any sacrifice whatever; just as Christ could, without sacrifice, change into His Body and Blood any other kind of material (corporeas) substances, such as stones, water and so on. Certainly just as Christ could have died without His death having the proper character of a sacrifice (as is the case with the martyrs); so, too, He could have left us some symbol of His death in His Body and Blood, even to be partaken of by us at a common banquet by way of food, for instance for the sole purpose of fostering charity amongst us, and all this without dedicating a victim to God, or without any propitiatory action. But Christ did in fact will that this conversion of the bread and wine into His Body and Blood should be a sacrifice; by transubstantiation He willed to offer sacrifice, He willed to offer the transubstantiation, but to make a transubstantiation whence He Himself would issue as God’s Victim or Theothyte.

“This being His will, the mere indication of His Body and Blood would not suffice for His purpose in the line of sacramental form: for it would not express this purpose, as we have said above; it was necessary that a further determination should be added to this demonstration of the Body and Blood, by which it would be plain that what was done was sacrificial, immolative. And for this it would be sufficient if the work done were plainly designated as propitiatory.

“That is to say, it would suffice if it were plainly indicated that for us the Blood was asked from the Body, and that the death so brought about availed for us before God unto the remission of sins, whether this be expressed as in the formula of our Missal (qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum), or by any other equivalent formula, as already explained by us in III (Vol. I)…

“Amicus, S.J., is even more clear and explicit (De Sacram., disp. 24, n. 46): You will urge: at least the words for you, for many are not necessary, seeing that the sacrificial character is sufficiently declared by the words shall be shed. But we deny the consequence. For unless the end to which the blood-shedding is directed be expressed, THE SACRIFICIAL CHARACTER IS NOT EXPRESSED, SINCE THE BLOOD COULD BE SHED, AND STILL NOT BE SHED BY WAY OF SACRIFICE: IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WERE SHED NOT AS AN ACT OF WORSHIP ON THE PART OF ANYONE NOR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY ONE” (Emphasis in the original).

As was pointed out by one of my readers, Aquinas believes "This is My Body" alone expresses a sacrificial character:

Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 78, Article 3, Reply to Objection 2:

As was said above (ad 1; 76, 2, ad 1), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our Lord's saying, "which shall be delivered up for you," as if to say, "which shall undergo the Passion for you."

Hence, the sacrificial nature was expressed twice. Yet the Church demands that the ENTIRE form be recited, because the Church did not settle the question. Theologian de la Taille, approvingly quoting another eminent theologian (Amicus), does not agree that "shall be shed" suffices--as seen above. 

Objection #2: But if it is morally certain that the "short form" suffices, isn't that proof the "long form" is not needed, just "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood...which shall be shed"?

Reply: No. It was the teaching of many theologians that the short form would suffice, but IN PRACTICE the long form must be used BECAUSE THE CHURCH HERSELF HAS NOT DECLARED IT SUFFICIENT AND DEMANDS RECITATION OF THE ENTIRE FORM. When something is declared morally certain by the Church you may do so. The controversy over the handing over the instruments of Sacrifice for Holy Orders is a good example. Most theologians declared it morally certain that it was not necessary, citing to the Eastern Rites that did not do it, but had valid orders. Nevertheless, the Church had not decided, and if there was a defect in the traditio instrumentorum, it had to be conditionally repeated, and the priest could not function until it was corrected. 

It wasn't until 1947 when Pope Pius XII settled the issue in Sacramentum Ordinis. Although the pontiff agreed that the Eastern Rites were valid without the traditio instrumentorum, it may have been necessary to validity by ecclesiastical precept in the Latin Rite. "If it was at one time necessary even for validity by the will and command of the Church, every one knows that the Church has the power to change and abrogate what she herself has established...It follows as a consequence that We should declare, and in order to remove all controversy and to preclude doubts of conscience, We do by Our Apostolic Authority declare, and if there was ever a lawful disposition to the contrary We now decree that at least in the future the traditio instrumentorum is not necessary for the validity of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy." (para. # 3 & 4). 

Until the Church authoritatively settles what exact words are necessary, we must keep Her command to repeat the ENTIRE FORM, for She has declared it so by Pope St Pius V and Pope Benedict XIV. 

Objection #3: If a sacrament needs to be repeated even one has moral certainty regarding its validity that would put sedevacantists in a precarious position regarding the sacrament of confession. Overlooking the fact that supplied jurisdiction only applies when common error prevails, and since the majority of sedevacantists explicitly deny there are bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (or have doubtful jurisdiction), then supplied jurisdiction doesn’t apply.

Reply: I addressed jurisdiction here: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-church-can-supply-jurisdiction-but.html. His objection fails because the Church has not decided the issue and the Church requires the long form. We have moral certainty for Penance. The analogy is therefore inapposite and fails.  The problem with this Vatican II sect apologist is that he wants to decide the issue with his (non-existent) Magisterial authority.

(I asked the V2 apologist if he accepted Wojtyla's Mass without the Words of Consecration. The following Objection summarizes what he claims). 

Objection #4:  "Do you not accept the decision ratified by John Paul the Great Apostate that NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION ARE NECESSARY?" Have you ever examined the anaphora of St. Sixtus II? What is required is that a substantial change occurs. This may be indicated in various ways. Likewise, the sacrificial nature of the mass may be indicated in various ways also.

Reply: Yes I have. The anaphora of "St. Xystus" is from the Schismatic EO and has never been declared  valid. Uniates (Eastern Rites in union with Rome) were required to ADD THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION to many of their anaphoras before Vatican II. Proof: On May 23, 1957, The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office declared invalid the concelebration of the Mass by priests who, whatever their intention may be and even wearing all the Sacred Vestments fail to pronounce the Words of Consecration. (See Acta Apostolicae Sedis 49, [1957], pg. 370).

In this post I have demonstrated that the Church cannot change the substance of the Sacraments. Yet we have a service which they approved --an Eastern Schismatic/heretical  Nestorian service that contains NO WORDS OF CONSECRATION. 

Ad arguendo,  let's assume Wojtyla was a true pope (John Paul II). The fact that he has dispensed with the Words of Consecration, the Form of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, we would have to conclude one of two things:

• Christ's words at the Last Supper pertain to the substance of the sacrament AND the Church can change the substance of the Sacraments--OR---
• Christ's words at the Last Supper do NOT pertain to the substance of the sacrament

Either conclusion is: (a) against ALL Catholic teaching and practice on the subject, and (b) goes against the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians, canonists, and Doctors of the Church. 

Like so many other members of the Vatican II sect, my interlocutor makes bold statements that can't be backed up. He states: "What is required is that a substantial change occurs. This may be indicated in various ways. Likewise, the sacrificial nature of the mass may be indicated in various ways also."

Says who? By who, I mean what pope has declared that a service devoid of the words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" (let alone the Long Form!) can confect the Sacrament? Certainly no valid pope pre-Vatican II. Not the Holy Office or any other Roman Congregation. No Doctor of the Church, approved theologian or canonist HAD EVER TAUGHT THOSE WORDS COULD BE ABSENT AND NOT SPOKEN "IN THE PERSON OF CHRIST" (in persona Christi).

The fact my interlocutor does not want to face is that Vatican II started a new sect with a false pope.

Wojtyla was one of them. I pray to God he may wake up and convert to the One True Church of Christ.