Know Thy Enemy

 The Vatican II sect is a man-made religion created in the wake of the death of Pope Pius XII. It is founded on the heresy of Modernism, which is so evil, Pope St. Pius X called it the "synthesis of all heresies." While many people rightly "know it when they see it," there is no shortage of those who don't fully understand what it is, how it developed, and the remedies against it. Pope St. Pius X wrote two very strong Magisterial documents against Modernism: The encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), and a syllabus of Modernist errors, Lamentabili Sane (1907). These decrees are a perfect dissection of the problem, however, they are written for those well-versed in both philosophy and theology. Luckily, in 1907, a very holy and learned priest, Father J.B. Lemius, wrote a 155 page booklet entitled A Catechism of Modernism. His goal was to make the teaching of Pascendi accessible to all people in a "question and answer" catechism-type of format.

 The booklet was endorsed by no less than Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val, the staunch Anti-Modernist theologian and saintly adviser to Pope St. Pius X. Fr. Lemius' work was reprinted by TAN Books in 1981. In this week's post, I will seek to condense the Anti-Modernist catechism so that all may better understand the greatest enemy of humanity, the Modernist Vatican II sect, which apes the One True Church and leads millions to their eternal damnation. I take no credit for what is written. It was all put together by Pope St. Pius X, and masterfully broken down into a more reader-friendly format by Fr. Lemius. I merely try to make an even more truncated version, with the hope of not sacrificing too much material for the sake of brevity. The section on "Modernism and the Vatican II sect," contains but a few of countless examples, culled by me from various sources, which demonstrate the Modernist doctrine that fuels the sect.

What is Modernism?

•  It is an amalgamation of errors. It begins with agnosticism.  According to this teaching, human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, which means things that appear to the senses, and it has no power to overstep these limits. Since we cannot know (or even infer) to the existence of things outside the scope of phenomena, the human intellect is incapable of knowing the existence of God.

• As a result, Modernism denies the supernatural as an object of certain knowledge. The Modernists who challenge all rational proof of the existence of God as the First Cause of everything in existence, both material and spiritual, fall victims to a "scientific agnosticism." For these, God is something which comes forth from man's subconscious. Religion is therefore essentially about feelings, specifically what makes you feel good; if Christianity, or any other religion, is what makes you feel good and more in touch with the Divine, then it is true for you. Religion has never consisted of creeds or objective truth but of feelings. This doctrine is known as vital immanence. Religion is a feeling or sentiment that comes from a subconscious need for the Divine.

• Modernists regard Divine Revelation as a purely natural emergence of religious knowledge from a natural sense known as the "religious sense." There is no "One True Church" and no Deposit of Revelation that needs to be guarded.  

•  The Modernist God is not transcendent; He is not "out there" but "totally within." As St. Pius X explained in Pascendi, the Modernist God was no more than a symbol and that "the personality of God will become a matter of doubt and the gate will be opened to pantheism." Do you notice how much of the Vatican II sect is infested with Eastern religion and philosophy, such as yoga and reiki? Have you seen in Nostra Aetate, how the Second Vatican (Robber) Council acknowledged "the good" that is in Hinduism and Buddhism? It comes from this erroneous idea of a "God within us all."

• Since God is unknowable (as are miracles), the Bible cannot be held as historically accurate. We cannot consider Christ as God, or give credence to miracles. 

• Dogmas are taught to be subject to evolution from one meaning to another. As man's religious feelings evolve, so must dogma.  Dogma evolves into whatever accommodates the needs of the current culture. 

• "Same name, different meaning." When Modernists talk about Traditional doctrine, they affirm it with a different meaning so they sound orthodox while remaining heretics. When they profess, for example, "Our faith is based upon the Resurrection of Jesus Christ;" it could mean His physical and historical Resurrection as the Church teaches, or simply a symbolic story which was invented by the first Christians to promote faith in Christ who rose only in the mind of His believers.

• Catholic dogma is but a common consciousness of the believers. Thus, prompted by this "common consciousness," the believers came together in a society [Church] to formulate and systematize its beliefs. This (according to the Modernists) is how the Magisterium of the Church began.

How Did Modernism Originate?

•  It has its roots in the Protestant Revolt ("Reformation"). It made people the sole arbiter of Truth through private interpretation of Scripture. Protestants jettisoned the need for a Magisterium. 

• It continued through the exaltation of the individual during the so-called "Enlightenment." It exalted the individual and skepticism. 

• Infected with these false notions, through curiosity and pride (curious to know what is condemned and prideful that they are not like others--they know better than the Church), some theologians began trying to undermine the Church from within. "I hate arrogance and pride, and every wicked way, and a mouth with a double tongue." - Proverbs 8:13.

• These theologians (e.g. Loisy and Tyrrell) had their teachings condemned and were excommunicated. Many others were censured over the years (e.g., Kung, Rahner, Roncalli, etc.). As hard as he tried, Pope St. Pius X drove the Modernists underground, but never extirpated them. 

Remedies Against Modernism

• Study Scholastic philosophy, especially the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas. All seminarians must be given a sound formation in philosophy, and the approved theologians. Prayer and mortification are necessary. 

• Exclude from positions of power anyone who does not demonstrate a love of Aquinas and a hatred of novelty. Those sympathetic to Modernism, even if not Modernists themselves, must be purged. 

• Books and writings that are sympathetic or supportive of Modernism must be banned and refuted.

• Those suspect of Modernism must be investigated, and if guilty, removed from all authority. 

Modernism and the Vatican II sect

• Worship. "Mass" is a four letter word not to be used. The "liturgy" or "celebration of the Eucharist (sic)" is not about the worship of God, but the entertainment of the people. The "assembly" must do everything, because there is no supernatural priestly order. Hold hands around a table, sing profane, banal songs, and have a touchy-feely "homily" about how "God loves us no matter what we do." Transubstantiation is a myth. The people stand (usually dressed like slobs or immodestly), while a layman or laywoman ("laytransgenders" can't be far behind) holds up the cracker and says "The Body of Christ." The recipient says "Amen" because it only becomes a symbol of Christ for us by consent of the assembly who memorialize Jesus. The more or less blessed cracker is then placed in unconsecrated hands to be chewed like cud and the tabernacle has been replaced by a hole in the wall.

• The Sacraments. The sacraments are not visible signs of invisible graces instituted by the historical God-Man, Jesus Christ, but mere "expressions of faith" instituted by the "Christian community." In almost all cases, the primary and secondary effects of the sacraments have been inverted. Baptism is not about the remission of Original Sin and infusion of sanctifying grace. It is about "welcoming someone into the community of the People of God." The Eucharist is a memorial meal, not part of an Unbloody Sacrifice, and not the actual Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Penance or Confession is now "Reconciliation,"where you get counseled by a glorified social worker ("priest") about being more "giving to the community" since offences against God are non-existent. Holy Matrimony is about the happiness of the couple first above all, and procreation is merely secondary (if considered at all). Holy Orders makes a man a "President of the Assembly." He is not in any way special or endowed with supernatural authority and power. Confirmation is having a "mature faith," not being a soldier for Christ. Extreme Unction is no longer to prepare the soul for Judgement (or restore bodily health, should God Will it), it's "Anointing of the Sick" for those who gather in the church with colds, headaches, and other maladies both mental and physical (the spiritual doesn't exist). 

• Morality. All morality is subjective. If God cannot be proven, and if Revelation is not possible, all moral actions are relative to the community in general, and can be overridden in almost all cases by the "conscience of the individual." Your personal happiness comes first, and whatever you "feel" is permissible is moral. In matters of sexuality, as long as "all parties consent," and "no one gets hurt," everything is allowed. Evils such as (but not limited to) birth control, euthanasia, divorce and remarriage, abortion, and homosexuality can all be condoned by a false notion of  "conscience." Dostoevsky said, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted." The same holds true if you hold to agnosticism and eschew the supernatural order. Morality "evolves." Soon, they will adopt Satanist Aleister Crowley's maxim, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." 

• The Church. All paths lead to God. There is no One True Church, since all religions are the subconscious need for the Divine manifested in various ways. No religion is more true or better than any other.Vatican II teaches, "Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him [Christ], has been raised in us to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man." (See Gaudium et Spes, para. #22; Emphasis mine). Wojtyla (John Paul II) builds on this heresy, "What we have just said must also be applied-although in another way and with the due differences-to activity for coming closer together with the representatives of the non-Christian religions, an activity expressed through dialogue, contacts, prayer in common, investigation of the treasures of human spirituality, in which, as we know well, the members of these religions also are not lacking." (See Redemptor Hominis, para. #6; Emphasis mine). This means that Christ is somehow truly "within" all people regardless of whether or not they belong to the Catholic Church. How can anyone be damned if they are "in a certain way" united to Christ? Answer: They can't because Hell and Purgatory do not exist.  Dogmas can and must change with the times. God is within, so we are all connected to Him in some pantheistic way, building even more on the heretical teaching of Vatican II. Eastern philosophy and religions are embraced and extolled. Do yoga, transcendental meditation, and reiki. One can be "absorbed by the Divine," and perhaps even be reincarnated.  

 Conclusion

Without exaggeration, Modernism is the cause of all the major problems in our sick world today. With the Church driven underground, morality and truth have been obscured to a degree not seen since the days of Noah. Atheism is the logical and final outcome of Modernism. Atheism is on the rise like never before; and the "New Atheists" are denigrating religion and making disciples. Even the Vatican II sect rag, The National Catholic Register, admits: "Surveys show that atheism is growing at an alarming rate across the globe. In a very short time, countries such as France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Australia will lose their Christian majorities to those who consider themselves atheists or 'religiously unaffiliated." (See http://www.ncregister.com/blog/guest-blogger/dawkins-is-wrong-the-fastest-growing-religion-is-atheism). 

The total rebellion against God is nearly complete. As Fr. Lemius states on page 119 of his Catechism:

"Q: Describe the gradual descent of the human mind to the denial of all religion?

A. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism." 

Who Do You Think You're Talking To?

 I think everyone in my generation had their mother or father ask, "Who do you think you're talking to?" when you answered them in a tone of voice they didn't like. That quote came to mind, of all places, during a Continuing Legal Education ("CLE") course I had to take.

The Bar Association offered a class on dealing with frustration when interacting with difficult clients. Rather than the usual classes on legal issues, I decided I'd get the credit while obtaining tips for keeping my anger in check (I've always had anger management issues; thankfully, with prayer and trying hard, I've mellowed considerably). I never snapped at a client, but many times I walked away with elevated blood pressure.

The presenter was not a lawyer. He never said what he did for a living other than giving these talks he called "life changing, dynamic experiences." What qualified him for doing such was never stated, and he never answered questions as to his training in dealing with frustration. He was exactly my age, married with two teenagers (one of whom is developmentally disabled), helped many charitable causes, and was a "lector" at his Vatican II sect parish since 1988. I had a bad feeling about this man, and my hunch was quickly proven correct. The first thing he told us was that we needed to become vulnerable, and not to be afraid to cry. He said he cried frequently and uncontrollably and was proud of his "openness." (During two hours, he needed to stop six times to cry openly in front of us and took several minutes to compose himself each time).

What made him cry? It would be easier if you asked me what didn't make him cry. Every story he told us about his life caused him to cry (both happy and sad events), and the (alleged) secret to conquering your frustration was in following some sappy platitudes that sounded like rejected sayings meant to be printed in a Hallmark Greeting Card. "The mind protects, but the heart connects." "Glorify who you are today, do not condemn who you were yesterday, and dream of who you can be tomorrow." At this point, I felt I was in the wrong profession. Cry, spout mawkish claptrap, and get paid over two grand for two hours of nonsense; God Bless America.

Then, he made a statement that made me bolt upright from my slouching, "half-asleep in the chair" position. "Use God to help you. Not the 'small god' of Christians. Catholics think only they can get to Heaven, and evangelical Christians think only they have the truth. In fact, all of us can be saved, if we are open. I take my teachings from Neale Donald Walsch." I'm quite familiar with the teachings of Walsch. It's no wonder I felt I had heard all this before somehow. Neale Donald Walsch is a New Ager, an anti-Catholic bigot, and an occultist. His garbage is apparently still being peddled by members of the Vatican II sect. Lest you be caught unaware, I'm exposing this man and his evil teachings in this post.

Conversations with "God"

Neale Donald Walsch (b. 1943) was baptized and raised in the One True Church. He claims to have studied comparative religions for years, but was never a devout Catholic. In 1992, Walsch, then 49, was angry and despondent over the course his life had taken. His marriage ended in divorce, a fire then destroyed all his belongings, after which he was in a car accident wherein he suffered a broken neck. After he left the hospital, he was alone, broke, and living in a tent. He picked up aluminum cans for the deposit money in order to eat.
It was then he decided to write an angry letter to God asking why He allowed all this to happen to him. As he finished writing the last question, Walsch claims the pen moved on its own and he found himself writing words as though taking dictation (known as "automatic writing"). Walsch states he knew this was "God" dictating the responses, although he does not explain how he knew God was responsible. Later, he would deny automatic writing, and assert he was writing down what "God" told him.

In an interview with Larry King, Walsch claims he heard a voice saying, "Do you really want an answer to all these questions or are you just venting?" (See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zechner/cwg/lkl-ndw.html). He turned around he saw no one there, yet Walsch felt answers to his questions filling his mind and decided to write them down as his pen moved. The resulting "dialogue" became the best selling book Conversations With God in 1995. It spent an incredible 135 weeks on the New York Times Bestsellers List. There were eight other books in the series to follow, and Walsch is worth approximately $81 million dollars today.

Walsch's books suffer from several problems which demonstrate conclusively they do not come from God but from the "father of lies." Endemic among those purporting "new revelations" from God, or declaring themselves "spiritual teachers" (e.g., Marianne Williamson, Eckhart Tolle, etc) these days, are the following tenets: (1) sin is non-existent and morality is subjective; (2) God loves you as you are, there is no need to amend your life; (3) experience and feelings are superior to the intellect; (4) there is no True Religion, salvation comes to all; (5) Christ is not God; (6) Eastern pagan ideas such as pantheism and reincarnation are true. You can see the appeal. They tell people what they want to hear, and not the truth. Don't worry about sin, Hell, amending your life, etc. Just feel good and accept yourself. It is very much like modern psychology with religious verbiage thrown in. That's also the reason for the enthusiasts among the Vatican II sect with Bergoglio proclaiming, "There is no Catholic God," and "Who am I to judge?" The elements set forth above will be examined in Walsch's books. As there are a total of nine (9) books in the series, quotes will be culled from more than just the first book, and citations will be given accordingly (For example 3:27, means book 3 page 27 in the series). I obtained copies of originals years ago and the pages might be different from other editions, or pdf versions.

Demonic Dialogue

1. Sin is non-existent and morality is subjective. In his first book, pg. 152, we are treated to this gem: 

There’s nothing "wrong" with anything. "Wrong'" is a relative term, indicating the opposite of that which you call "right." Yet, what is "right"? Can you be truly objective in these matters? Or are "right" and "wrong" simply descriptions overlaid on events and circumstances by you, out of your decision about them?

I'm sure if Mr. Walsch's publisher refused to pay him the royalties on his book, I'm willing to bet he would see something very wrong with that and sue. The danger of this nonsense should be self-evident. We can't be truly objective about murder, lying, stealing, etc being immoral? It gives the green light to sin.

2. God loves you as you are; there is no need to amend your life. 
You must first see your Self as worthy before you can see another as worthy. You must first see your Self as blessed before you can see another as blessed. You must first know your Self to be holy before you can acknowledge holiness in another (1:26)

 Walsch claims "God" taught him Original Sin is a "myth," and we are all holy. Pure heresy.

3. Feelings are superior to the intellect.  
Feeling is the language of the soul. If you want to know what's true for you about something, look to how you're feeling about it. (1:13)

Notice the phrase "what's true for you"--as if each person can have a "different truth" because there is no objective, unchanging truth. If that's the case, why is Walsch (or "God") asking us to accept what is said in the book as true? Wouldn't that eliminate anything that contradicts it as objectively false? At the beginning of the book we are told by "God" that "Words are really the least effective communicator . . . merely utterances..." If true, why is "God" communicating words to Walsch and why should we believe these "mere utterances"? It's a self-refuting statement.

4. There is no One True Religion. 
No path to God is more direct than any other path. No religion is the "one true religion," no people are "the chosen people," and no prophet is the "greatest prophet." (7:98)

In one sentence, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam are denied. All organized religions are false according to Walsch's "conversations with 'God.'"  Furthermore, there is no Hell, and everyone is assured of eternal happiness. Your happy destiny is unavoidable. You cannot be "saved." There is no hell except not knowing this.-- (1:93).

5. Christ is not God. 
In book 2 of his series, on page 244, we are told The Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus were spacemen. Yes, aliens from another planet! Walsch denigrates Catholicism by claiming "God" said: Wait a minute! This God of yours sent you to Purgatory if you ate meat on Friday? (2:44). In the first book we are told by "God" that drinking is not OK. But Jesus took alcohol! says Walsch. To which "God" replies, So who said Jesus was perfect? (1:192)

6. Promoting Eastern paganism. 
In book 3 of the series, Walsch asks "God" if reincarnation is a false doctrine, "God" replies that it is not. Walsch then asks why some religions do not know the truth about something so basic. In response, "God" says that we must understand that humans have many fear-based religions whose teachings surround the doctrine of a God who is to be worshiped and feared. This teaching means reincarnation is true, and other doctrines are false. Doesn't that contradict what God said earlier about there being only what's true for you? Reincarnation exonerates Hitler of wrongdoing (morality is subjective anyway). From book 2: The mistakes Hitler made did no harm or damage to those whose deaths he caused. Those souls were released from their earthly bondage. (2:42).

In addition to the above, the following are also worthy of mention in these books:
Disturbing features about God. 
"God" is an idiot who doesn't know about religions and needs to be taught by Neal Donald Walsch. "God" rejects Catholicism. Here is a sample of dialogue ("G" is "God" and "W" is Walsch, as supplied by me):

G: What's a "wrong church"?

W: Any church that is not Roman Catholic. You can’t be baptized in the wrong church, you can’t get married in the wrong church— you can’t even attend a wrong church. I know this for a fact because as a young man I wanted to go with my parents to the wedding of a friend—I was actually asked to be in the wedding as an usher—but the nuns told me I should not accept the invitation because it was in the wrong church.

G: Did you obey them?
The nuns? No. I figured God—You—would show up at the other church just as willingly as You showed up at mine, so I went. I stood in the sanctuary in my tuxedo and I felt fine.

G: Good. Well, let’s see now, we have heaven, we have hell, we have purgatory, we have limbo, we have mortal sin, we have venial sin—is there anything else?

Feelings, nothing more than feelings...
From his books:

• Open your mind, allow your feelings to be expressed, to be pushed out, and your heart will neither break nor burst, but be a free-flowing channel of the life energy in your soul.

• I do not communicate by words alone. In fact, rarely do I do so. My most common form of communication is through feeling. Feeling is the language of the soul. If you want to know what's true for you about something, look to how you're feeling about it... Hidden in your deepest feelings is your highest truth.

• Stop giving your power away and begin to trust that your feelings are in fact expressions of the deepest truths.

Does anyone even know what this gobbledygook means?

Conclusion

Stay away from anything written by Neale Donald Walsch. His conversations are not with God, but demonic forces. What he promotes is New Age pantheism (God and the universe are one) with relativism and an over emphasis on "feelings." This is necessary so the reader won't think critically about how Walsch's god contradicts himself and speaks nonsense. The series reads like a bad episode of the old Kung Fu TV series in the 1970s--unintelligible pagan sentiments that are supposed to be profound. It tells people what they want to hear, and you have Vatican II "lectors" promoting it. Since all Catholic doctrine has been eliminated from their temples, anything except the truth is permitted. I have no problem with men having, and expressing, their feelings. However, to cry at the drop of a hat isn't being "open," but just teaching men to be little more than emasculated dolts placing feelings above reason. Women as well should not think being overly emotional is some kind of "virtue." 

Neale Donald Walsch wants you to believe he's having conversations with God. Anyone who trusts him, has no idea of who he's really talking to, and had better wake up before (God forbid) it's too late. 

Singing For Satan---Part 15

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

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

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.

The Rolling Stones

One of the most overtly satanic bands, ironically not recognized as such, is The Rolling Stones. A total of nine men played in the band over the years, but the two most famous and successful are Keith Richards (b. 1943) and Mick Jagger (b.1943). Jagger and Richards were classmates and childhood friends from Dartford, Kent, England with a keen interest in music. They formed a garage band dedicated to playing mostly the blues. In 1962, the band took its name from a Muddy Waters song entitled "Rollin' Stone." They started playing rock music and a following quickly grew. In 1963 they were signed to a record label and became part of the so-called "British Invasion" of music to the United States along with The Beatles, The Dave Clark Five and The Kinks.

The band became enormously successful and continue to tour today. They have released 30 studio albums in 56 years, and were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989.  Rolling Stone magazine ranked them fourth on the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time" list and their estimated record sales are above 250 million. Jagger (b. Michael Philip Jagger) as a solo artist produced 32 Top Ten singles and 70 Top Forty singles.He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as an individual, along with his group in 1989. In 2003, he was knighted for his "services to popular music" by the Queen of England.

Pushing Promiscuity and Opposing Sexual Morality

During the 1970s, Mick Jagger would appear on stage singing his perverted songs in front of a giant inflatable penis

 The Rolling Stones (aka "The Stones" or "Stones") wanted an image opposite of the early Beatles, who wanted to portray an "innocent group of clean-cut boys" image. Jagger and Richards relished a "bad boy" appearance which they easily obtained through sexually charged lyrics. Let's Spend the Night Together is a typical Stones' song from 1967, and was one of the earliest to get banned. When appearing on the Ed Sullivan Show, The Stones were asked not to play Let's Spend the Night Together unless they changed the chorus to "let's spend some time together." Jagger and Richards were furious, but Sullivan said he wouldn't let them perform unless they agreed.  Realizing what a big deal appearing on Ed Sullivan meant in the 1960s, they reluctantly agreed to make the change. According to Dick Clark’s 25 Years of Rock and Roll, shortly after the performance the Stones went backstage, and came back on stage dressed in Nazi uniforms with swastikas, which caused an angry Sullivan to tell them to go into their dressing rooms and change back into their performing outfits.

Keith Richards is quoted as saying, "We receive our songs by inspiration, like at a seance." (See Rolling Stone magazine, May 5, 1977, p. 55). A brief survey of their music will show the songs are indeed inspired by evil sent from Hell. The tunes immediately below are a sampling of the promotion of sexual immorality.  

The song Honky Tonk Woman is about a drunken encounter with a prostitute:

I met a gin-soaked, bar-room queen in Memphis
She tried to take me upstairs for a ride
She had to heave me right across shoulder
Cause I just can't seem to drink you off my mind
It's the honky tonk women
Gimme, gimme, gimme the honky tonk blues
I laid a divorcée in New York City
I had to put up some kind of a fight
The lady then she covered me with roses
She blew my nose and then she blew my mind

Little T & A refers to a woman's breasts and buttocks:

She's my little rock 'n' roll
My t**s and a** with soul, baby
She's my little rock 'n' roll
Oh, she's my little rock 'n' roll, yeah
You got to shock them, show them
She's my little rock 'n' roll, yeah
Shock, shock, shock, oh my, my, my (Vulgarity censored by me)

The song Sparks Will Fly describes a man who can't wait to get beck to his old lover and sodomize her:

When I finally get myself back on you, baby
Sparks will fly
When I finally get myself back on you, baby
I'm gonna step on the gas
I want to get there really fast
I want to f**k your sweet a**
Sparks will fly
Sharks will cry
Sparks will fly
I had a good sniff around
Along old hunting grounds
But I have never found
A woman so hot
Sparks will fly (Vulgarity censored by me)

The song Under My Thumb is about a misogynist who dominates women. He is in control, as she is under his thumb and is a "squirming dog," "A Siamese cat of a girl" who is "the sweetest pet in the world," because "The way she talks when she's spoken to, down to me, the change has come, she's under my thumb - take it easy babe."

Under my thumb
The girl who once had me down
Under my thumb
The girl who once pushed me around
It's down to me
The difference in the clothes she wears
Down to me, the change has come
She's under my thumb
And ain't it the truth babe?
Under my thumb
It's a squirmin' dog who's just had her day
Under my thumb
A girl who has just changed her ways
It's down to me
Yes it is
The way she does just what she's told down to me
The change has come
She's under my thumb
Ah, ah, say it's alright
Under my thumb
It's a Siamese cat of a girl
Under my thumb
She's the sweetest, hmmm, pet in the world
It's down to me
The way she talks when she's spoken to
Down to me, the change has come
She's under my thumb
Ah, take it easy babe
Yeah

In Their "Satanic Majesty's" Service

On the album cover of Their Satanic Majesties Request (1967), it features the group as Wiccans (witches). Jagger originally wanted to appear naked on a cross to mock Christ, but the record company refused to publish it, calling it "in bad taste."

Whereas the glorification of sex by the band was well known, their glorification of Satan was not. Unlike bands such as AC/DC, or artists like Marilyn Manson, they somehow flew under the radar for promotion of Satanism. The 1968 album Beggars Banquet, produced one of the most horrid songs in history; Sympathy for the Devil. The song is listed by Rolling Stone magazine at #32 in its list of the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time." (The magazine, founded in 1967, attributes its name to the group as well as the Muddy Water's song, and the aphorism "a rolling stone gathers no moss"). Originally, the song was to be titled Fallen Angels, and then changed to The Devil is My Name, before settling on the final nomenclature. It tells the story of history, including the Crucifixion of Our Lord, from Satan's point of view while he boasts of his role in history. 

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man (sic) of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul to waste
And I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt (sic) and pain
Made da*n sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his (sic) fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made...

The song has been used (without objection) by Satan worshipers associated with Anton LaVey's  Church of Satan. In 1973, the band released the album Goats Head Soup. The goat head has long been associated with Satan worship. Goats were also the symbol of reprobates, while sheep represented the faithful. "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left." (See St. Matthew 25:31-33). The album's first cut is the song Dancing With Mr. D, "Mr. D" being the Devil.

Down in the graveyard where we have our tryst
The air smells sweet, the air smells sick
He never smiles, his mouth merely twists
The breath in my lungs feels clinging and thick
But I know his name, he's called Mr.. D.
And one of these days he's gonna set you free
Human skulls is hangin' right 'round his neck
The palms of my hands is clammy and wet

Lord, I was dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
Dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
Dancin', Lord, keep your hand off me
Dancin' with Mr. D., with Mr. D., with Mr. D.

Will it be poison put in my glass
Will it be slow or will it be fast?
The bite of a snake, the sting of a spider
A drink of belladonna on a Toussaint night
Hiding in a corner in New York City
Lookin' down a forty-four in West Virginia

I was dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
Dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
Dancin', Lord, keep your hand off me
Dancin' with Mr. D., with Mr. D., with Mr. D.

One night I was dancin' with a lady in black
Wearin' black silk gloves and a black silk hat
She looked at me longin' with black velvet eyes
She gazed at me strange all cunning and wise
Then I saw the flesh just fall off her bones
The eyes in her skull was burning like coals
Lord, have mercy, fire and brimstone
I was dancin' with Mr. D.

Lord, I was dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
I was dancin', dancin', dancin' so free
Dancin', dancin', dancin' so free

Dancin', dancin'

In 1994, the Stones released another occult-themed album, Voodoo Lounge, which contains the song I Go Wild. The song is pure vulgar filth:

 And the doctor says you'll be okay, And if you'd only stay away; 
From femme fatales and dirty b*tches, And daylight drabs and nighttime witches, 
And working girls and blue stockings, And dance hall babes and body poppers,
And waitresses with broken noses, Checkout girls striking poses, 
And politicians' garish wives, With alcoholic c*nts like knives (Emphasis and censorship of vulgarity mine)

Conclusion

 The Rolling Stones are yet another despicable group of evil people who demean women, glorify promiscuity/perversion, and pay homage to Satan himself. Mick Jagger has fathered eight children with five women, but has only been married (and divorced) once. His oldest child is 48, and his youngest is 2, having sired Deveraux Jagger with his current concubine, American ballet dancer Melanie Hamrick (46 years Jagger's junior). Jagger has been jailed for vandalism and is a raging drug addict/alcoholic. He is also bisexual, having had a homosexual encounter with rocker David Bowie (d. 2016). In spite of all this, The Rolling Stones are billed as "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World." The band would want you to believe, as Jagger sings in one their songs, "It's only rock and roll, but I like it." For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, the music they produce is not merely rock and roll, but messages from Hell made by those on their way there. 

Sodomy Street

 If anyone doesn't think there is an agenda being pushed by the media, the Vatican II sect, and the elitists in power to normalize deviant behavior, think again. An online magazine for sodomites, Queerty, published an interview with one Mark Saltzman, who was a scriptwriter and songwriter for the children's educational TV show Sesame Street beginning from 1981 to 1990. During the interview, Saltzman declared that two puppets (often referred to as "muppets"), Bert and Ernie, were homosexual lovers. Saltzman said he was writing them as a couple and basing their interactions on his own experiences with his sodomite lover, Andrew Glassman, who died in 2003.

The producers of Sesame Street put out the following statement in response: "As we have always said, Bert and Ernie are best friends. They were created to teach preschoolers that people can be good friends with those who are very different from themselves. Even though they are identified as male characters and possess many human traits and characteristics (as most Sesame Street Muppets do), they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation." (See https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/bert-ernie-are-gay-couple-sesame-street-writer-claims-n910701).  Immediately, there was a backlash against the producers, accusing them of being "homophobic." Check out the following:

• "Yes, aspects of this conversation are ridiculous. ‘Are Muppets sexual?’ is just one unhelpful question doing the rounds this week that conflates gayness with hypersexuality. This isn’t about the representation of sex (gay or otherwise) in a children’s TV show, but loving relationships. That’s a conversation worth having...Of course, Bert and Ernie’s fellow Muppets Miss Piggy and Kermit are allowed to be a couple. Nobody addresses the weirdness of a frog and a pig going at it, because the male-female arrangement enforces heterosexist (sic) ideals." (See https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/yes-sesame-streets-denial-that-bert-and-ernie-are-gay-is-homophobic/#gs.bP3CFuw)
• "Gay loneliness is an epidemic and leaving queer kids to work out their lives with no authentic frame of reference is a disservice, and one we have to change" (See https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/bert-ernie-might-not-be-gay-but-they-should-be_uk_5ba3944de4b0fc9c379c0fd7)
• The New Yorker magazine of July 2013, shows Bert and Ernie as snuggling while they watch the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); a clear implication they were "gay" that started a few years ago. This was used by some as "proof" that the producers were lying and the puppets were intended to be "a gay couple."
• One of the puppets creators, Frank Oz, declared his creation was not "gay" and was blasted on Twitter for "homophobia" and hatred. The producers had to redact their original statement for a more politically correct one 

 Who really cares about the alleged sexuality of puppets, and why am I writing about something that seems so ridiculous? This isn't about puppets but about something far more sinister: The push by the forces of evil to have homosexuality and the entire "LGBT" perversion accepted, and they are targeting your children. A quick background is in order. Sesame Street debuted in 1969, showing colorful characters and puppets designed to teach basics, such as the ABC's, and also emphasize character education on topics including such things as the importance of being nice to your friends and sharing. I watched the show myself as a small child in the early 1970s. Two of the most famous of the puppets were "Bert and Ernie" meant to be best friends. Saltzman did not write for the show until the 1980s, which gives the lie to his contention that the puppets were modeled after his sodomite lifestyle. A 1996 survey found that 95% of all American preschoolers had watched the show by the time they were three years old. In 2008, it was estimated that 77 million Americans had watched the series as children.

This post will focus on what the empirical evidence reveals about homosexuality, and how this evidence is in perfect accord with Church teaching. You will see why homosexuality is one of the Four Sins That Scream to Heaven for Vengeance, and what the demonic forces are trying (very successfully) to get you and your children to accept. Lastly, I will give some suggestions on how to turn the tide. WARNING!! This post contains material that is extremely graphic, and may be found very disturbing. Reader discretion is advised.  

Homosexuality and Violence

The top six American male serial killers were all homosexual:

• Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky
• John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard
• Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways
• Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois
• A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he had sex with their corpses--"necrophilia").

The pathology of eating one’s sexual victims also characterized Milwaukee’s Jeffrey Dahmer in 1992. He not only killed 17 young men and boys, but cooked and ate their body parts. The association between serial murder and homosexuality isn’t recent. Two gays compete for the spot of “world’s worst murderer.” During the Nazi reign of terror, Auschwitz executioner Ludwig Tiene strangled, crushed, and gnawed boys and young men to death while he raped them. Though his grand total is uncertain, he often murdered as many as 100 a day. Gilles de Rais (Bluebeard) brutally destroyed the lives of 800 boys. Each lad was lured to his home, bathed and fed. Just as the poor boy thought "this is my lucky day," he was raped, then killed by being ripped or cut apart and either burned or eaten. Even if the "10% of the population" is homosexual/bisexual were true, murder is disproportionately high among sodomites. 

A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals (See Cameron, Dr. Paul,  [1983] "Is homosexuality disproportionately associated with murder?" Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Assn Chicago.) Lesbian Aileen Wuornos laid claim in 1992 to "worst female killer" with at least 7 middle-aged male victims. She single-handedly topped the lesbian nurse team of Catherine Wood and Gwen Graham, who had killed 6 convalescent patients in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Jim Warren, who worked as a counselor at the Washington State Corrections Center, did the intake interview for almost all the younger murderers (i.e., under age 36) in the state of Washington from 1971-82 (during the growth of the so-called "gay rights movement"). He was "probably the only one who examined the entirety of each of their case files." Warren testified that he was struck with how frequently homosexuality turned up in the cases (See Warren, J,  [1989] Testimony before the Law and Justice Committee of the Washington State Senate December 15).

The data supports that most violence comes from within the sodomite lifestyle and gets exported. It does not come mostly from the outside against them. Homosexuals are a danger to society, not the other way around. The FBI reported 431 hate crimes against homosexuals for the U.S. in all of 1991. Only one was "confirmed" for Washington, D.C. — yet D.C. gay activists claimed 397 incidents! When pressed, they admitted that at least 366 of these "crimes" consisted of "verbal harassment." (See Washington Blade (1993) "FBI releases stats on hate crimes." January 1, pg.1). 

Homosexuality and Child Molestation

• Over 90% of child molesters are male
• 25-40% of molestations are same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals
• 43% of sex between teachers and pupils is homosexual
• 50% of sex between foster parents and foster children is homosexual
• In a study of 21 "group home" sex scandals — 71% were homosexual
• Of those who commit incest: Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6%

(See Freund K, Watson RJ (1992) "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study." Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 18:34-43). 

Homosexuality and Promiscuity

• 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners:  "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." 

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

• 79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309."  

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

• Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354."  

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Homosexuality and Mortality Rate

A study was conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 26, 657-61: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657).

 Pro-sodomite researchers actually tried to debunk the assertion that homosexuality is infested with disease and shortens the life expectancy of both male sodomites and lesbians. Despite their attempts to downplay the practical consequences of their research, it is difficult to ignore that the study concluded with the statement that "under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre [Vancouver, BC] are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871." Much to their chagrin, the study revealed "life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men." 

Homosexuality and the Vatican II sect

According to the book The Changing Face of the Priesthood by Vatican II sect "priest" Donald  Cozzens (published by The Liturgical Press in the year 2000), sociologist James G. Wolf's research concludes 48.5% of priests and 55.1% of seminarians were homosexuals. The percentage is highest among "priests" under age 40, which in Wolf's research (published in 1989), would mean those born in and after 1950, with "ordinations" taking place in/after 1974 after the Modernists opened the floodgates to admit sodomites. Cozzens reports the number of sexually active homosexuals in the Vatican II "priesthood" was a full-fledged "network" of perverts. This is all the more alarming, as Cozzens is sympathetic to the sodomites.

Homosexual Practices

Warning!! The following is EXTREMELY GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING. READER DISCRETION ADVISED. 

• Anal sex (sodomy properly so-called) is practiced by 80% of homosexuals. Tearing or bruising of the anal wall is common, and opens the body to reception of germs through the rectum.  According to J.R. Daling, et. al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14 (April 9, 1982) the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000% among those who engage in anal intercourse. Anal sex also raises the risk of rectal prolapse, perforation that can go septic, chlamydia, cryptosporidiosis, genital herpes, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B and C, as well as syphilis
• Rimming is the practice of licking and stimulating the anus of another. The amount of fecal matter consumed, and exposure to disease is significant over time 
• Golden showers is the practice of urinating on the other person. About 20% of sodomites regularly drink and bathe in their partner's urine
• Fisting is the practice of inserting the hand (and sometimes the arm up to the elbow, or further) into the partner's rectum. Many sodomites have the sphincter muscles so weakened they soil themselves. (See Darling cited above).
• Scat Sports involves ingesting your partner's feces and/or rubbing it all over the face and body
• Toys is the term used for inserting objects into the rectum. Most commonly used are gerbils, placed in plastic and inserted in the rectum until the animal suffocates and dies. The thrashing of the poor creature gives the sodomite his perverse pleasure. 

Homosexual Recruitment of Children

All areas of society are advocating the normalization of homosexuality, and even encouraging it, among children.

In education: 

• Pro-sodomite books such as Daddy's Roommate, and Heather has Two Mommies are part of many curricula and attempt to portray unnatural relationships as "normal"
• The pro-sodomite curricula in  The Safe Space Kit advises that, during casual conversations and classroom time, one should “make sure the language you are using is inclusive of all people. When referring to people in general, try using words like ‘partner’ instead of ‘boyfriend/girlfriend’ or ‘husband/wife’, and avoid gendered pronouns, using ‘they’ instead of ‘he/she’. What’s wrong with referring to a man as “he” and to a woman as “she”? Well, the glossary helps us to understand the definition of gender as “a social construct based on a group of emotional, behavioral and cultural characteristics attached to a person’s assigned biological sex” (See https://catholicexchange.com/the-new-school-homosexual-propaganda-and-your-kids)

In the media and pop culture:

• TV programs that portray positive sodomite "role models" include, but are not limited to: Glee, Modern Family, and South Park

• Superheroes are portrayed in film as "gay" such as LEGO Batman, and Power Rangers (2017)

• Degenerate pop singer Katy Perry had a hit song in 2008 entitled I Kissed A Girl, about a lesbian encounter. It is sickening beyond description to see the parents of young girls (aged 10-15) at Perry's concerts singing along to that perverted garbage with their kids; I have to wonder about their fitness as parents

• The equally degenerate pop star Lady Gaga has two songs dedicated to sodomites; Alejandro (2010), and Born This Way (2011)

• Now, Bert and Ernie are alleged to be sodomite lovers

Conclusion: We Must Turn the Tide or Society Will Collapse

 Without reference to God's Law (or even Natural Law), the homosexual lifestyle has been shown by empirical evidence to be unhealthy physically and emotionally. Homosexuals are disproportionately violent, child molesters, disease-ridden with shortened life spans, and counterproductive to society. Furthermore, they want your children to join in their wicked ways. Those who oppose them are "homophobic" (implying a mental disorder for being moral and/or Christian) and are subjected to harassment, social ostracism, loss of job, and discrimination charges.

In my opinion, the United States (and all countries) should adopt the proposed anti-sodomy legislation introduced in Uganda four years ago. First, we need a Constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be a union of one man and one woman, and declaring homosexual conduct as criminal conduct that may be proscribed by law. (This would overturn all U. S. Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, beginning in 2003). 

Next, criminalize homosexual acts by statute as it used to be. Define and proscribe all homosexual activity. 

As in the Ugandan statute, there should be two classes of criminal acts, both felonies; "the offence of homosexuality" and "the offense of  aggravated homosexuality."  "Aggravated homosexuality" is defined to include a homosexual act committed (1) with a person under the age of 18 by a person over the age of 18; (2) committed by a person who is HIV-positive; (3) committed by a parent or guardian of the person with whom the act is committed; (4) committed by a person in authority over the person with whom the act is committed; (5) committed with a disabled person;(6) committed by a serial offender; or (7) committed by a person who administers any drug, matter, or thing with the intent to stupefy or overpower another person to enable a same-sex act to be committed. A person charged with "aggravated homosexuality" is forced to undergo an HIV test and if convicted will be imprisoned for life without possibility of parole, or executed, depending on the circumstances to be decided by the jury. 

All other homosexual acts constitute "the offense of homosexuality," and if convicted will bring a mandatory seven years in prison. The APA will once more recognize homosexuality as a personality disorder, and conversion therapy will not only be permitted, but mandated for those who profess same sex attraction. Lastly, all public promotion of homosexuality by a corporation or educational institution shall be subjected to large fines. Sound draconian? Not if you realize the very foundation of our civilization is at stake. The Vatican II sect aids and abets the sodomite agenda. Of course, the ultimate answer is the restoration of the Church and Catholic countries as existed prior to Vatican II. While we pray and try to convert others, we must use whatever secular means we have at our disposal to sway public opinion and elect anti-sodomite, pro-family politicians.  If we don't, you shouldn't be surprised when you see a child holding pink Bert and Ernie dolls, while singing, "Can you tell me how to get...how to get to Sodomy Street?" 

When Can We Say "Habemus Papam" Again?

 Every day we hear more and more clamoring for "Pope" Francis to resign from his alleged "papacy" over the homosexual abuse and cover-ups by his clergy, with evidence that even Bergoglio himself was involved in covering up for sodomites. Traditionalists know that even if Bergoglio "resigns," we merely wind up with another false "pope," because heretics (and at this point, apostates) cannot become pope. On October 9, 2018, it will be exactly sixty (60) years since the last true pope, His Holiness Pope Pius XII died, leaving us without a Vicar of Christ on Earth. We know the rest of the story. False pope and usurper Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) and his equally bogus Robber Council, Vatican II, set up a false religion using formerly Catholic buildings and pretending to be the Catholic Church. As theologian Berry wrote:

"The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church...there seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time." (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119, 155; Emphasis in original). With the Church "driven underground" so to speak, the world has become just as bad (and perhaps even worse) than Sodom and Gomorrah. 

The question naturally arises, "How will we ever get another pope again?" This post will explore the false popes of the so-called Conclavists, those who believe (wrongly) that they can hold a conclave to elect a pope after the apostasy and/or death of all legitimate cardinals. There are also those who believe that they were chosen by Divine Intervention. While not Conclavists, properly so called, I will consider those as well. (It is not my intention to cover all of these so-called "popes," but I will give an example of each. In so doing, I hope that the error of  "make-a-pope" [with total disregard for Catholic theology] may be exposed). Finally, I will give a run down of what the Church teaches regarding electing a true pope, and refute the most common objection of those who follow Conclavists, as well as those who wrongly assert that the Church does not possess the Mark of Visibility in a state of prolonged sedevacantism. 

False Conclave = False Pope

David Bawden, aka "Pope" Michael, living with his mother on his Kansas farmhouse.

 David Bawden aka "Pope" Michael (b. 1959). A former Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) seminarian, David Bawden was expelled after approximately two years of study in 1978. Theresa Benns, a Home Aloner and self-professed "theologian," decided to "call a conclave." Bawden allegedly contacted all Traditionalists to attend his conclave, which was held on July 16, 1990. How someone could claim to have attempted to contact all Traditionalists in an age before computers is baffling. As a result, six people attended near his parents' Kansas farmhouse; Bawden's mother and father, two nice neighbors who were husband and wife, Theresa Benns, and Bawden himself. In 2011, Bawden claims to have been ordained a priest and consecrated a bishop by "Bp." Bob Biarnesen. The validity of "Bp. Bob" is certainly questionable, and the reason he allegedly "ordained and consecrated" Bawden remains a mystery. Why didn't he stay with his "pope," and become a "cardinal"? 

According to various sources, Bawden is believed to have anywhere from 30 to 100 followers worldwide. He has never held a real job, and resides on the farm with his aged mother. Benns abandoned and denounced the very "pope" she helped to "elect," and is back Home Alone. You can watch a documentary on his life at https://popemichaelfilm.com. 

Earl (Lucien) Pulvermacher aka "Pope" Pius XIII (d. 2009). Born in Wisconsin in 1918, Pulvermacher came from a large and devout Catholic family. He was ordained a Capuchin priest in 1946. Three of his brothers also became priests, one of whom (Fr. Carl Pulvermacher) joined the SSPX and was editor of its magazine The Angelus. Pulvermacher chose the religious name of Fr. Lucien, and was a missionary in Japan. After Vatican II, he left to reside in Australia and was affiliated with the SSPX for a time, but he left, unlike his brother. He offered the True Mass and sacraments for small groups of Traditionalists in the United States.

In the mid-1990s, he became a sedevacantist. (His brother, Fr. Carl, remained with the SSPX and his other two priest-brothers were always in union with Modernist Rome after Vatican II). After talking with some lay and clerical sedevacantists, they decided to hold a "conclave." About 30 or so people "elected" Pulvermacher (some voting via telephone) on October 24, 1998, and he took the name "Pope" Pius XIII. He appointed one of his followers, the Australian-born Gordon Bateman, as a "cardinal" in his "True Catholic Church." Bateman was a layman, but Pulvermacher concocted a novel way to obtain a hierarchy. Using an obscure passage from theologian Ott, he decided that as "pope," he could give himself the special authority to ordain Bateman a priest and consecrate him a bishop, while he was only a simple priest.  Then as "bishop," Bateman consecrated Pulvermacher a "bishop." 

 He had a (now defunct) website, truecatholic.org. and an small number of followers. Things went south for Pulvermacher when "Cardinal" Bateman discovered that Pius XIII had engaged in the occult practice of divination when in seminary. Bateman declared his "election" invalid and was subsequently "excommunicated." Pulvermacher had almost no followers left when he died in 2009 at 91 years old. 

"Mystical Popes"

Clemente Dominguez, aka, "Pope" Gregory XVII, during an "ecstasy" having a "vision"--even though he (literally) had no eyes. He had lost them in a car accident. 

There are false popes who claim they were Divinely appointed. I will only name the most infamous, Clemente Dominguez (d. 2005) who called himself "Pope" Gregory XVI. On March 30, 1968, a group in Palmar de Troya, Spain began claiming supernatural revelations from apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The apparitions involved four pre-teen girls – Ana Aguilera, Ana García, Rafaela Gordo and Josefa Guzmán – who said they saw Mary while picking flowers one day. The locals went to the spot of the miracle where all kinds of strange phenomena were claimed to have taken place. These involved occurrences  such as a local woman seeming to glow from within, a man running around on his knees at an incredible speed, hosts materializing on people’s tongues, and miraculous healings.

The Blessed Virgin was supposedly giving messages regarding the Antichrist, and a man named Clemente Dominguez became the "official seer" of Palmar de Troya. He claimed to have received the "stigmata" (Wounds of Christ), but one only needs to look at the photos to see it looks like he squirted himself with ketchup. He attracted quite a following, including some rather wealthy people who contributed large sums of money. He contacted Archbishop Peter Thuc, who fell for the story, and in January 1976, Abp. Thuc ordained and then consecrated Dominguez and four of his friends as priests and bishops using the Traditional Rite of the Church. Abp. Thuc was "excommunicated" by Montini (Paul VI) and then reconciled, before breaking away to ordain some sane men as Traditionalist bishops in this time of near Universal Apostasy.

Dominguez didn't understand Latin and had no formal training, so "Mary" conveniently said that Spanish was God's favorite language after Latin, and Spanish could be used in the Mass and sacraments. Dominguez lost both his eyes in a car crash, and it was told to him that when Montini died, he would be the next pope as "Gregory XVII."  God would publicly restore his sight after he became "pope" on TV so all would know he was the true pontiff. He then said "Mary" revealed what some have called the "crooked ears theory." Montini was a good and holy pope, but had been drugged and locked up in a closet shortly after his election by Masons. They had one of their own replace him by using plastic surgery to look like him, and that's how Vatican II was promulgated. If you look at photos before and after 1964, you will supposedly notice that post January 1964 photos show him with crooked ears--an imperfection that the Masons overlooked and "proof" of this goofball story.

 After Montini died, Dominguez was "mystically crowned pope" by Christ Himself, and called the First Palmarian Ecumenical Council. Things got super-weird at this point. Every priest in his sect (now an actual cult) was also a bishop. Since Dominguez had no training and attempted to translate the rites into Spanish, his ordinations and consecrations are dubious at best. He declared that Palmar de Troya and not Rome, would now be the seat of the Church (the pope must always be bishop of Rome--this is heretical). His "Palmarian Creed" declared Mary the "Irredeemed," for She who is without sin had no need of redemption (Pure heresy. Pope Pius IX, in his infallible declaration on the Immaculate Conception Ineffabilis Deus, declared that Mary was redeemed "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ"--in a unique manner prior to His death, which God knew with certainty would happen). There have been three "popes" since his death, each picked by their predecessor before he died. The sect can truly be called a cult that isolates itself from the world. Despite admitted affairs with his "nuns" Dominguez was "canonized" as "Pope St. Gergory XVII the Very Great" by his chosen successor. The cult has an estimated following of 1,500 people worldwide. 

The Teaching of the Church

It should hopefully be obvious to all as to what is wrong with the "popes" mentioned above. A "conclave" is not made up of your mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors and a female "theologian." Nor is some wacky fraud with heretical teachings and fake "miracles" (replete with conspiracy theories galore), a "divinely appointed pope." Our Lord said, " By their fruits thou shalt know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" (St. Matthew 7:16). If Bawden were truly pope, after almost 30 years, God would restore His Church, and not have him feeding the chickens on his mother's farm with about 100 followers. Yet, lest someone say that's just my opinion, there is a better reason to reject him and the other papal pretenders: they don't comport with Church teaching. 

There are three possibilities to get back a pope; (1) an imperfect general council, (2) sedeprivationism, and (3) Divine Intervention. Each will be examined.

An Imperfect General Council. According to theologian Bellarmine,"If there were no pontifical constitution in force concerning the election of the sovereign pontiff, or if by some mishap all the legally designated electors, i.e. all the cardinals, perished together, the right of election would belong to the neighboring bishops and the Roman clergy, but with a certain dependence on a general council of bishops." (Bellarmine: De Clericis, Lib. X, cap. x) An imperfect general council is called "imperfect" because no council is fully ecumenical ("universal") in the absence of the pope, and they meet because the designated electors of the pope--as well as the pontiff himself--are all deceased or heretics/apostates who lost office. The basis of this solution is that, in the absence of the pope, the bishops are the highest authority in the Church.The Roman clergy are invoked because with no cardinals, the remaining clergy of Rome become competent to elect their bishop, who, in virtue of being bishop of Rome, will be pope.

Problems. We can see that in the absence of elector-cardinals, the Roman clergy and/or bishops have the right of election, not the laity. First, who are the bishops? With various lineages not recognizing each other (Lefebvre, Mendez, Thuc) is it sufficient to get a simple majority together? How do we determine exactly all the Traditionalist bishops? Do the rules for a regular conclave apply? To what extent? 

Sedeprivationism. This is the thesis advanced by the late theologian Bp. Guerard Des Lauriers that the "seat is deprived" of a valid pope. He reasons as follows:

• The Eastern Orthodox have valid sacraments, which includes valid bishops. However, they do not have formal apostolic succession, only material secession. That is, they occupy the place of bishops(material)but lack all jurisdiction and authority (formal). They have no legitimate right to the authority of the office of bishop, since they were designated by those who were legally excluded from the Church.

• Sedevacantists put the V2 "popes" in the same boat as the Greek Orthodox, they succeed materially and without formal, legitimate designation. Sedeprivationists say the Vatican II sect cardinals and "pope" also succeed materially, but they DO have legitimate designation. Both sides agree they lack all authority and jurisdiction and are, therefore, false popes.

•  Designation to power is different from the power to rule. The president-elect of the United States is recognized as having the potential to rule, but he is not the president and not to be obeyed.

• Someone can have a legal status (de jure) different from their actual status (de facto). A person can murder someone and be in fact a murderer, but if and until convicted, he does not have legal recognition as such. The converse is also true. Someone my be wrongly convicted of murder and have the legal status of a convicted killer, even though he remains innocent de facto

• Since the profession of heresy by the hierarchy during Vatican II, the clerics lost all power to rule, but they retain the right to designate the ruler, since the Church never took that right away from the cardinals before the Great Apostasy. By Divine Law, heresy removes all power to rule, but not the power to designate the ruler

• The chosen heretic is pope-elect, but not the pope, because his profession of heresy prevents the authority from vesting. He has material succession, not formal, and holds the office of pope de jure, not de facto. In like manner, the president-elect cannot receive the power to rule unless and until he takes the oath of office

• The false pope retains the ability to designate men who will, in turn, designate a material pope. In this way the succession of St. Peter continues materially until a material pope publicly abjures his heresy, rejects and condemns Vatican II, and publicly professes the Catholic Faith. He then becomes a true, formal pope and needs to be ordained and consecrated in the traditional rite by a Traditionalist Bishop

(I credit Bishop Donald Sanborn, who wrote a magnificent article on sedeprivationism with the above explanation which I put into condensed form). 

Problems.  There is no discussion of such a solution pre-Vatican II. The great theologian Fr. (later Bp.) Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers was one of the greatest pre-V2 approved theologians, so his theory certainly carries much weight as he lived through the Great Apostasy, and was one of the few who rejected Vatican II and its "popes" from the beginning. He was consecrated a bishop by Abp. Thuc in 1981, and died in 1988 at the age of 89. His illustrious career included being professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, and he was personal theological adviser to Pope Pius XII. Pope Pius asked him to draft the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, which infallibly declared the Assumption of Mary, body and soul, into the glory of Heaven. Fr. Guerard des Lauriers was the confessor of Pope Pius XII, until 1955 when he was replaced by the closet Modernist, Fr. Bea. He helped author the famous Ottaviani Intervention in 1969, which condemned the Novus Bogus "mass." In 1970, when Montini (Paul VI) began purging his newly founded sect of Anti-Modernists, Fr.Guerard des Laurier was one of the first to be removed from his teaching post. Unfortunately, he is the only theologian to come up with this solution to having no pope and elector-cardinals. It is plausible and logical, but the only way to know if it's true is to "wait and pray for a miracle of conversion." If it's not the solution, it will prevent some bishops from joining in an imperfect general council.

Divine Intervention. Could God, by a miracle, directly appoint a man as pope? Theoretically, yes, because Christ is the Invisible Head of the Church and He chose St. Peter as the first pope. However, mere logical possibility alone does not suffice. Clemente Domiguez and the "mystical" so-called popes fall into this category of claiming Christ directly appointed them pope. 

Problems. How do you authenticate such claims? If it were witnessed by thousands of people, such as the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, a possible case could be made. Dominguez was "crowned Pope by Christ" when Paul VI died, an event with no witnesses. A few saints discussed the possibility of such a miraculous, public appointment, but they were not theologians proposing solutions to an extended interregnum. With nothing to go on but the word of some person, or small group of people, with no obvious miraculous proof, such an "appointment" is dubious at best. According to theologian O'Reilley, "A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope - He is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church." (The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, [1882], p. 287).

Objections Answered

The following are common objections from those who accept Conclavist "popes," as well as "Recognize and Resistors" who claim that Sedevacantism destroys the visibility of the Church, so sedevacantism must be an error.

Objection: The Church teaches that if an imperfect general council, or the Roman clergy are all heretics/dead, etc, the right to elect falls upon the Church as a whole. This was the case, and that's why (Bawden, Pulvermacher, etc) was validly elected pope.

Answer: The church does indeed teach that principle. According to theologian Cajetan, "In case of doubt, however (e.g. when it is unknown if someone be a true cardinal or when the pope is dead or uncertain, as seems to have happened at the time of the Great Schism which began under Urban VI), it is to be affirmed that the power to apply the papacy to a person (the due requirements having been complied with) resides in the Church of God. And then by way of devolution it is seen that this power descends to the universal Church, since the electors determined by the pope do not exist." (Tract.1 de auctoritate Papae et Concilii, c.13). The Vatican Council infallibly declared:

"Therefore,if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." (Emphasis mine). The pope must be the bishop of Rome, and this by the Divine positive law.

Theologian Van Noort teaches: "...most probable opinion holds that not even the pope himself, nor an ecumenical council together with the pope, could effect such a separation, but that the connection of the primacy with the see of Rome is absolutely indissoluble…[the] more common opinion holds that the connection between the primacy and the see of Rome does not stem merely from the bare will of Peter… rather it holds that in some way or other this set-up is by divine decree." (See Dogmatic Theology, [1957], 2:274-275; Emphasis in original). All approved pre-Vatican II theologians admit the inseparability between Rome and the papacy. 

The case of Bawden is manifestly absurd on several counts:
1. He never even claimed to include Roman clergy or valid bishops.
2. The fact that such bishops will not hold an imperfect council does not allow the election to devolve to the Universal Church, it's when such is not possible--this is how something "devolves." If the College of Cardinals refused to elect a successor to Pope Pius XI, that does not give the bishops the right to an imperfect general council. There is no authority that supports such a contention. 
3. Does anyone think Bawden, his mommy, his daddy, two nice neighbors, and Theresa Benns represent the "Universal Church" ?
4. How is the "Universal Church" to be represented?
5. By what authority did Benns and Bawden "call a conclave"? They sent out invitations to the Kansas farmhouse, they (allegedly) reached everyone in an age before computers, they were free to disregard any bishops and/or Roman clergy who didn't attend, and those six people constitute the "electors" of the Universal Church?

The same is true of all Conclavists, to one degree or another. Dominguez ("mystically chosen 'pope'") actually "transferred the papacy" from Rome to Palmar de Troya, and taught manifest heresy.

Objection: If sedevacantism is true, the Church has been without a visible Head for 60 years, and lacks the Mark of Visibility required of the One True Church.

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

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

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

 Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

Moreover, there was a de facto interregnum for 51 years during the Great Western Schism from 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff. Prior to this, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or none) could be the true pope. Which one was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit? Was the Church a "three headed monster" during this time? If you chose wrongly (in an age of limited education with no Internet or daily papers) are you "schismatic" and damned to Hell? There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith. 

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

"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...
The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree." (pg. 287; Emphasis mine). 

Lastly, according to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "... [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that she possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned..." (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ. 

Conclusion

When can we say "Habemus Papam" (We have a pope)? Unfortunately, I have no answer. We may be in the last days, and Christ returns making Pope Pius XII the last pope of all time. "When the Son of Man returns will He find faith on Earth?" (St. Luke 18:8). Hopefully, R&R clergy will recognize the vacancy,and then Traditionalist bishops can put aside their differences and work together for a real imperfect general council to elect a successor of Pope Pius XII. Perhaps sedeprivationism may prove true at some point in time. Perhaps God will intervene for the first time since choosing St. Peter as His first pope. It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as a "heretical pope"--an oxymoron)

I'm going to conclude this post with a personal story of my time spent with my spiritual father, the great canonist Fr. Gommar DePauw. Back in the late 1980s, Father told me of a most interesting event that took place in his fascinating life as founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. The year was 1966, the Robber Council had just ended, and he was flying around the United States giving talks to large crowds of people urging them to stay away from "the reformed Conciliar establishment" and its Novus Bogus "mass." He was trying to convince people to give his literature to every priest they knew and hold on to the True Faith and Mass with priests who rejected the reforms.

He was in Chicago, and had just finished giving such a talk in a large hotel room. He always ended with a question and answer session, but refused to see people individually, as most just wanted to argue with him and call him "disobedient." He made one exception: he would never refuse to talk to a priest who wanted to speak with him in private hoping that the priest wanted to join him, or could be convinced to do so. The hotel manager informed Father that a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago wanted to see him in the lobby, and he told the manager he would go and talk to him. [I have redacted the names of those involved in this story, as I don't think Father wanted them made public---Introibo]

In the lobby, Father DePauw was greeted by "Fr. X," about 60 years old at the time. Standing with the priest was a very modestly dressed and attractive woman in her mid-forties, whom I'll call "Mrs. Y." The woman introduced herself to Fr. DePauw and told him that Fr. X was her confessor and spiritual advisor. "That's very nice," Fr. DePauw said. "But why are you here with Fr. X?" Fr. DePauw wasn't prepared for what she said next. "I have visions and get messages from the Blessed Virgin Mary." Stunned, as she didn't appear to be unstable, Father looked at Fr. X who was shaking his head in agreement. "Yes, she does Father DePauw."

Father then asked why they were in Chicago telling him instead of at the Vatican or explaining this to Archbishop Cody (Archbishop of Chicago at the time and to be made "cardinal" by Montini in 1967). Father really wan't prepared for what they said next. Fr. X said, "The message is for you personally." "What might that message be?" Father DePauw inquired. Mrs. Y told him, "Paul VI has been stripped of the papacy, and you have been 'mystically anointed' pope in his place, Your Holiness. What shall be your papal name?" Fr. DePauw immediately told them not to call him "Your Holiness" and that he definitely was not the pope.

"Our Lady will not take 'no' for an answer," they told him. Father said he wasn't saying no to the Blessed Virgin, only to their crazy and false story. Certainly, God and His Mother would inform HIM of such an event (which wouldn't happen anyway), and most importantly, he castigated the priest for believing something contrary to Catholic theology. As a priest, he should know better than to believe in "secretly, divinely chosen popes." He then politely asked them to leave him alone. "We will not leave you alone until you announce to the world you are pope," they called after him. "You'll be waiting forever," he answered. For the next ten months Fr. X and Mrs. Y showed up to every public talk Father gave around the U.S., waiting for his "announcement" which, of course, never came.

Father started getting worried about their stalking him. He was going to go and get a restraining order, but he didn't want to get a priest in trouble unnecessarily. He called the chancery in Chicago to tell them about Fr. X's behavior and asked them to order him to stop the stalking or he would take legal action. Eerily, the day before Father called, Fr. X packed his belongings and left his rectory without a trace, leaving only a short note saying he would never be back. Later, it was discovered Mrs. Y and her husband abandoned their house and also were never heard from again. "Can you imagine the damage to the Church I would have caused had I fallen for such a ridiculous story?" Father said to me. "We must know Catholic theology and never abandon it. That's the means by which God preserves us in the One True Faith."

 Let us hold onto the One True Faith of the One True Church. As Fr. DePauw prayed each night: "Lord, you know I've done my best today to keep and spread the faith. It is Thy Church. I'm going to sleep now and I trust in Thee, that Thou shalt ever take care of Her."