Look Who's Talking

 "Dialogue" has become the code word in the Vatican II sect for capitulating to every heretic, schismatic, infidel and pagan on Earth. It's not about converting those in error because "proselytism is solemn nonsense." The word dialogue sounds like some "open-minded" and unobjectionable discussion about faith, when it's really something sinister driven by the false ecumenical ecclesiology of Vatican II. I hear members of the Vatican II sect tell me that there's going to be some "interfaith meeting" at their parish, where they will have a dialogue with the local Protestant minister, rabbi, imam, etc. It turns out to be little more than an attempt to further the agenda of a One World Religion where everything is accepted but the truth. This post will explore the teaching of the True Church on "dialogue," and how the newly spawned sect of the Robber Council introduced the idea in furtherance of their nefarious goal.

Montini and Ecclesiam Suam

 The first impetus towards dialogue with false sects came when Montini ("St." "Pope" Paul VI) issued his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam on August 6, 1964, a mere three and a half months before he would sign the first heretical document of the Council, Lumen Gentium.  The encyclical is a striking departure from those of the true popes:

• It is certainly not Our wish to disrupt the work of the council in this simple, conversational letter of Ours, but rather to commend it and to stimulate it. (para. #6) Since when do real popes promulgate "conversational letters"?

• The purpose of this exhortation of Ours is not to lend substance to the belief that perfection consists in rigidly adhering to the methods adopted by the Church in the past and refusing to countenance the practical measures commonly thought to be in accord with the character of our time. These measures can be put to the test. We cannot forget Pope John XXIII's word aggiornamento which We have adopted as expressing the aim and object of Our own pontificate. Besides ratifying it and confirming it as the guiding principle of the Ecumenical Council, We want to bring it to the notice of the whole Church (para. #50; Emphasis mine) The methods of prayer and worship, and even the rule of Faith, which has produced countless saints is now considered "outdated." They must be replaced. 

• The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make.(para. #65) What communication would that be? Hint: It's not "repent, convert, and be saved." 

• We see the concrete situation very clearly, and might sum it up in general terms by describing it in a series of concentric circles around the central point at which God has placed us.(para. # 96) More Modernist claptrap. The next section describes what he really means

• It comprises first of all those men who worship the one supreme God, whom we also worship. We would mention first the Jewish people, who still retain the religion of the Old Testament, and who are indeed worthy of our respect and love.Then we have those worshipers who adhere to other monotheistic systems of religion, especially the Moslem religion. We do well to admire these people for all that is good and true in their worship of God. And finally we have the followers of the great Afro-Asiatic religions. (para. #107; Emphasis mine) Jews cannot "retain" what no longer exists; the Old Covenant is over since the death of Christ. What is there to "admire" in Islam? There is nothing "good and true" in worshiping their false moon "god," Allah. Finally, we have the pagans of Africa and Asia (Hindus, Animists, Buddhists, etc.) What is good or even "great" about them? Nothing. "St." Montini adds this sop at the end of para. #107 to maintain a veneer of orthodoxy: Obviously we cannot agree with these various forms of religion, nor can we adopt an indifferent or uncritical attitude toward them on the assumption that they are all to be regarded as on an equal footing, and that there is no need for those who profess them to enquire whether or not God has Himself revealed definitively and infallibly how He wishes to be known, loved, and served. Indeed, honesty compels us to declare openly our conviction that the Christian religion is the one and only true religion, and it is our hope that it will be acknowledged as such by all who look for God and worship Him. Got that? He makes several heretical statements and hopes to cover them up. The proof that this is the case is borne out by the heretical documents of Vatican II he signed, and which lay waste to any pretense of orthodox teaching.

Vatican II and their "Dogma" of Ecumenism and Dialogue

 Here's what Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #9 has to say: 

Catholics who already have a proper grounding need to acquire a more adequate understanding of the respective doctrines of our separated brethren, their history, their spiritual and liturgical life, their religious psychology and cultural background. Most valuable for this purpose are meetings of the two sides - especially for discussion of theological problems - where each can treat with the other on an equal footing, providing that those who take part in them under the guidance of the authorities are truly competent. (Emphasis mine)

Consider: By entering into a discussion with anyone else on an equal footing, one renounces any claim to authority superior to the authority of the other party. Otherwise the footing simply would not be equal. The True Church cannot recommend Catholics, even the most learned, to engage in theological discussion with Protestants unless they are ready to concede their religion to be false. For a Catholic to enter into dialogue with Protestants on an equal footing, it would be necessary for the Catholic to openly and willfully call into doubt the Truths of Faith which are Divinely guaranteed. This is simply wicked. Vatican II requires those in dialogue to deny the Divine obligation to profess the One True Faith and the necessity for all heretics to submit to the Church.

Pope Pius XI teaches: "...although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ...This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ." (Mortalium Animos, para. #7 and 8; Emphasis mine)

Again, we read more heresy in the Vatican II document Gaudiam et Spes: 

Through loyalty to conscience, Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems which arise both in the life of individuals and from social relationships.(para. #16) 

Any Catholic who needs to go "search for truth" with heretics, apostates, pagans, etc, has either lost their Faith or their marbles (probably both). I'm also being generous, because the appellation of "Christian" rightfully only belongs to members of the One True Church.  Vatican II elsewhere (erroneously) attributed to baptized heretics and schismatics a strict right to the name of Christian without qualification. 

In para. #21 of Gaudiam et Spes, we are told that Catholics must dialogue with atheists to bring about a "right order" in the world. (No wonder Bergoglio tells us, "Atheists can go to Heaven.")

Although the Church altogether rejects atheism, she nevertheless sincerely proclaims that all men, those who believe as well as those who do not, should help to establish right order in this world, where all live together. This certainly cannot be done without a dialogue that is sincere and prudent.

A few points: World order can only be archived when the world converts to the Church. Those who deny God's existence can in no way contribute to this endeavor. The world (along with the devil and the flesh) is the the enemy of the Church. Christ did not pray for the world, "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine.."(St. John 17:9)

St. Paul tells us, "And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution." (2 Timothy 3:12). Who will persecute them? The world, because there can be no right order in the world, until the world accepts Christ as King. As Pope Pius XI teaches, "The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God." (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, para. #42). 

The True Church Teaches

The 1917 Code of Canon Law teaches in Canon 1325, section 3 that Catholics must guard against participating in debates and conferences with non-Catholics, especially public ones, without the permission of the Holy See or, in an urgent case, of the local Ordinary. (See Canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1951] 2:563). Note this regards even debates on important topics in order to win converts. Still, care must be taken to ensure the Faith is not endangered, or made to look bad in any way. 

On December 20, 1949, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued an Instruction on the so-called "ecumenical movement" of its day. Pope Pius XII promulgated it and the seven important contentions that taught "dialogue"--- as later described by Vatican II--- was evil and heretical. 

The Instruction begins by describing: 

However, some of the initiatives that have hitherto been taken by various individuals or groups, with the aim of reconciling dissident Christians to the Catholic Church, although inspired by the best of intentions, are not always based on right principles, or if they are, yet they are not free from special dangers, as experience too has already shown. Hence this Supreme Sacred Congregation, which has the responsibility of conserving in its entirety and protecting the deposit of the faith, has seen fit to recall to mind and to prescribe the following:

This was to make converts, but there were still dangers to the Faith. The Instruction has seven parts, but I will only cite the most pertinent points. Part 1 of the Instruction:

They [bishops] shall also diligently provide whatever may be of service to non-Catholics who desire to know the Catholic faith; they shall designate persons and Offices to which these non-Catholics may go for consultation; and a fortiori they shall see to it that those who are already converted to the faith shall easily find means of more exact and deeper instruction in the Catholic faith, and of leading a more positively religious life, especially through appropriate meetings and group assemblies, through Spiritual Exercises and other works of piety.

Section 2: 

They [bishops] shall also be on guard lest, on the false pretext that more attention should be paid to the points on which we agree than to those on which we differ, a dangerous indifferentism be encouraged, especially among persons whose training in theology is not deep and whose practice of their faith is not very strong. For care must be taken lest, in the so-called "irenic" spirit of today, through comparative study and the vain desire for a progressively closer mutual approach among the various professions of faith, Catholic doctrine---either in its dogmas or in the truths which are connected with them---be so conformed or in a way adapted to the doctrines of dissident sects, that the purity of Catholic doctrine be impaired, or its genuine and certain meaning be obscured.

Also they must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example, to the effect that the teachings of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance seeing that they are not all matters of faith, or, what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected from outside...Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ...However, one should not speak of this [the return/conversion to the One True Church] in such a way that they will imagine that in returning to the Church they are bringing to it something substantial which it has hitherto lacked. It will be necessary to say these things clearly and openly, first because it is the truth that they themselves are seeking, and moreover because outside the truth no true union can ever be attained.

(Emphasis mine)

Conclusion

"Dialogue" is the Modernist term for having discussions with those Outside the Church, not for the purpose of conversion, but of "mutual enrichment." It thereby denies the Church is a Perfect Society and unified, whether or not those outside are converted. The Modernists dialogue for "understanding"---as if the Church did not know all Truths of Faith and the heresies which go against them. They dialogue for "making the world a better place" and forget the truth that real peace can only be brought about by universal recognition of Christ as King and  joining His One True Church. However, what they really want to get from dialogue is the acceptance of a dogma-free One World Religion, as everyone begins to compromise their tenets of belief and accept a Masonic-inspired indifferentism. As long as everyone is "good" (according to what standard?) and believes in some vague concept of a "god" (the "Great Architect of the Universe"), all is right with the world. Vatican II dialogue is all (heretical) talk, and no (orthodox) action. 

The Doctor Of The Vatican II Sect

 My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, used to tell me, "The Jesuits are always good for a laugh or a heresy. Usually both." I couldn't help but think of his truthful quip when it was brought to my attention that there is an online petition to "Pope" Francis, asking him to declare the vile heretic Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ as a "Doctor of the Church." (See https://action.groundswell-mvmt.org/petitions/declare-pierre-teilhard-de-chardin-s-j-a-doctor-of-the-roman-catholic-church). Who is Teilhard de Chardin? This post will expose his life and works which his admirers are trying to obscure and thereby paint the (demonstrably false) picture of a man hailed as "priest, geologist, paleontologist, philosopher, theologian, and mystic, [who] was both a distinguished scientist and one of the most influential and visionary thinkers that the Catholic Church produced in the twentieth century." (Ibid).  Most people have probably never heard of Teilhard (1881-1955) or the destruction which he brought to the Church and the world at large.

His Early Life

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was born in south central France on May 1, 1881, and was educated at the Jesuit College at Mongre; he joined the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1899. Teilhard continued philosophy and seminary education from 1901-05. This was followed by a three-year sojourn to Cairo, Egypt, where he taught physics and chemistry at a Jesuit school and developed his interest in paleontology. He went to England in 1908, studied theology, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1911 at the age of 30. He returned to Paris and studied paleontology thereby earning a doctorate in 1922.

Two men influenced Teilhard in his priestly formation:

• Fr. George Tyrell, one of the most vociferous Modernists of the era. He denied the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. He was excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X in 1908, and died unrepentant
• Henri Bergson, a French Jew and philosopher whose theories on science and evolution fascinated young Teilhard

Teilhard de Chardin had fully bought into Modernism, and he set about to create a "new, improved Christianity." In his own words:

"As you already know, what dominates my interest and my preoccupations is the effort to establish in myself and to spread around a new religion (you may call it a better Christianity) in which the personal God ceases to be the great Neolithic proprietor of former times, in order to become the soul of the world; our religious and cultural stage calls for this." (Trojan Horse in the City of God, 1967, p. 239; Emphasis mine). 

Teilhard: Forger and Pantheist

 Teilhard's fervor to prove radical evolution knew no bounds. He was involved in the Piltdown Man hoax. In 1912, Charles Dawson (an amateur "archaeologist") claimed he had found a "human-like" skull that he proclaimed the "missing link" in evolution. He was assisted at the dig by none other than Teilhard (among others). De Chardin boldly proclaimed his "missing link" as proof of his ideas. In November 1953, Time magazine published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet. (See http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,823171,00.html).

Teilhard's philosophy transformed the universe from a place in which we exist to a place that, through evolution, exists with us. Evolution, for Teilhard, is the hermeneutic key for understanding the place of Christ within the vast cosmos. Teilhard saw everything moving towards perfection—which he called the Omega Point—as a movement toward God that was simultaneously physical and spiritual. He called the transformation divinization, and saw humanity as currently passing through an evolutionary-spiritual dimension he termed the Noosphere, so that we can enter the final stages of the Pneumatosphere and become one with God.

It's not difficult to see how his ideas are akin to pagan Hindu pantheism with evolution thrown in the mix. Moreover, what do these fancy sounding words and phrases (Omega point, Noosphere, etc.) mean? They were simply made up by Teilhard (like Piltdown Man) to justify his heterodox ideas and make them sound "profound." In Teilhard's own blasphemous words, "Christ saves. But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by evolution?" (See Le Christique, [1955])

For a priest, he spent a most of his time going on excavations and writing his theology/philosophy books. When he was a missionary in China, he never made a single convert, and he almost never offered the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Teilhard: Eugenicist and Heretic

Some of  Teilhard's  writings suggest he was a racist, who believed the Chinese were "sub-human."

Here's a sample from his writing:

Do the yellows—[the Chinese]—have the same human value as the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I’m afraid that this is only a ‘declaration of pastors.’ Instead, the cause seems to be the natural racial foundation…Christian love overcomes all inequalities, but it does not deny them.

No humane hopes for an organized society must cause us to forget that the human stratum may not be homogeneous. If it were not, it would be necessary to find for the Chinese, as for the Negroes, their special function, which may not (by biological impossibility) be that of the whites. (April 6, 1927 letter--pure racism)

The philosophical or ‘supernatural’ unity of human nature has nothing to do with the equality of races in what concerns their physical capacities to contribute to the building of the world.…As not all ethnic groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean they must be despised—quite the reverse…In other words, at one and the same time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races. Now the second point is currently reviled by Communism…and the Church, and the first point is similarly reviled by the Fascist systems (and, of course, by less gifted peoples!). (See Philosophy and Theology Volume 29, Issue 1, [2017], pgs. 69-82). 

Teilhard believed in polygenism, which posits the idea that the human race had different origins, as opposed to a single couple; Adam and Eve. His heretical theory was roundly condemned in the brilliant encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII, which was drafted by the eminent Dominican theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. As the result of his evolutionism and polygenism, he denied not only the First Parents of the human race, but as a necessary consequence, he denied the dogma of Original Sin. The outcome of this rejection will be detailed later in this post. Let's first see how the True Church reacted to Teilhard de Chardin:

• 1926, his Superior forbade him to teach
• 1933, the Holy See ordered him to give up his subsequent post in Paris
• 1939, the Holy See banned some of his writings
• 1947, Rome also forbade him to write or teach on philosophical subjects
• 1955, his Superiors forbade de Chardin to attend the International Congress on Paleontology. That same year, de Chardin died in New York on Easter Sunday

Even under Roncalli (John XXIII), he was censured posthumously. On June 30, 1962, a Monitum ("warning") was given at Rome by the Holy Office: "It is sufficiently clear that the above mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine. For this reason, the most eminent and most reverend Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as Superiors of Religious Institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Teilhard de Chardin and his followers." Of course the Monitum of 1962 was a dead letter, which was never enforced, as Teilhard's works spread like wildfire in seminaries and Catholic Universities during the early 1960s. 

The True Church, always vigilant, was wise to try and stop Teilhard by Her numerous censures thereby making him a condemned theologian. Here are some of the results of his ideas:

1. If there is no Original Sin, there is no need of a Redeemer. If there was no Adam, Christ could not be the Second Adam Who died to ransom us from sin. (Sin, in all forms, is downplayed or outright denied). 

2. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the unbloody re-presentation throughout time of the Sacrificial death of Christ, since there was no need of it. (Mass becomes a "celebration of the people" who are "evolving towards God" and will become One). 

3. Since everything is evolving, there is no fixed and immutable dogmas or morality (One religion or set of morals is as good as another).

4. Eventually, everyone gets to enjoy happiness--there is no Hell for the wicked (Hell is considered "negative" and outdated theology).

5. In his pantheistic idea, not only humanity, but all of nature is evolving. Hence, there should be reverence for the Earth; Teilhard will sometimes describe Earth as an "altar" upon which humanity and nature are "transubstantiated."

You can see these ideas at work in the Vatican II sect. He helped shape the Robber Council and the sect it created. How, you might ask, can someone who was censured and had his ideas condemned, be so quickly rehabilitated to the point of adopting his heresies? It started way before the unenforced Monitum of 1962. The Modernists were driven underground but were never extirpated. Teilhard himself, when condemned under Pope Pius XII, said: "I have got so many friends in good strategic positions, that I feel quite safe about the future" (Letter, Sept. 24, 1947, wherein de Chardin remarks on his numerous disciples in positions of great influence in the Church, which would certainly appear to have been borne out by the accolades given de Chardin during the Second Vatican Council--Emphasis mine).

The "Doctor" is IN

The Vatican II sect praises the very man and ideas that were condemned by the True Church. Here is what the post-concilliar "popes" had to say:

Wojtyla (John Paul II): When I think of the Eucharist, and look at my life as a priest, as a Bishop and as the Successor of Peter, I naturally recall the many times and places in which I was able to celebrate it. I remember the parish church of Niegowić, where I had my first pastoral assignment, the collegiate church of Saint Florian in Krakow, Wawel Cathedral, Saint Peter's Basilica and so many basilicas and churches in Rome and throughout the world. I have been able to celebrate Holy Mass in chapels built along mountain paths, on lakeshores and seacoasts; I have celebrated it on altars built in stadiums and in city squares... This varied scenario of celebrations of the Eucharist has given me a powerful experience of its universal and, so to speak, cosmic character. Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world. It unites heaven and earth. It embraces and permeates all creation. (See Ecclesia Eucharistica, 2003, para. #8; Emphasis mine).

Ratzinger (Benedict XVI): The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves. That our lives may speak of God, that our lives may be a true liturgy, an announcement of God, a door through which the distant God may become the present God, and a true giving of ourselves to God. (See http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090724_vespri-aosta.html; Emphasis mine).

Bergoglio (Francis): In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living center of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life. Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. Indeed the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love [as John Paul II wrote]: "Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world". (See Laudato Si 2015, para. #236; Emphasis mine). 

Conclusion

 Bergoglio is considering removing the Monitum of 1962 against Teilhard, thus making de jure what has been de facto all these years. His false ideas of evolution, pantheism, and polygenism have helped to create and shape the Vatican II sect. The sect must continually "evolve" to remain "relevant to the times." Now, we have a documentary set to air in 2020 on PBS praising Teilhard de Chardin's life and work. Worse still, there is an online petition to declare the liar, heretic, and eugenicist a "Doctor of the Church." What we're witnessing is the opposite of what Teilhard taught: The devolution  of whatever is left of Faith and Morals in the Vatican II sect into error, impiety, and outright evil. 

Does "Universal Acceptance" Guarantee A True Pope?

 When the Argentinian apostate, Jorge Bergoglio, became "Pope" Francis just over six years ago, all Hell broke loose (both figuratively and literally). The heresies and blasphemies that came forth from his mouth (Proselytism is solemn nonsense, there is no Catholic God, who am I to judge, etc.) even had some Vatican II sect "conservatives" (e.g., Society of St Peter) starting to wonder if sedevacantism might not be true after all. Bergoglio's actions, even before his "election," lead some prominent sedevacantists (e.g., Fr. Anthony Cekada) to change the direction of Traditionalist arguments. It is not only Catholic teaching that if a pope falls into heresy as a private teacher he loses his authority, it is equally true that a heretic cannot attain the papal office in the first place. The unanimous consent of pre-Vatican II canonists teach that the invalidating prohibition against electing a heretic is a matter of Divine Law, which admits of no exceptions or dispensation.

According to canonist Badius, "c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points… Barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…" That pretty much does away with having to argue about "trials to depose a pope" because the heretic never became pope. In order to prevent the "recognize and resist" (R&R) camp from seeing the light, along came former (?) Freemason John Salza and his buddy Robert Siscoe with a duplicitous argument to keep things nice and dark. They assured the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) and all other R&R adherents that "peaceful and universal acceptance" of someone elected pope is a dogmatic fact which assures us the person so elected must be pope. The full article can be read here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-of.html. In this post I will expose some of the purposeful misrepresentations, and omissions of fact, that were necessary to make their phony case for a "true pope."  

A Half-Truth is a Bigger Lie

Those who tell half-truths are twice as deceitful, because they employ a truth to make a falsehood easier to accept. This will become apparent with Salza and Siscoe soon enough. They begin their article thus:

The legitimacy of a Pope, who has been elected peacefully and accepted by at least a moral unanimity of Catholics, is infallibly certain.  His legitimacy falls into the category of a dogmatic fact, which is a secondary object of the Church’s infallibility. This is the unanimous teaching of the Church’s theologians.

In support of this contention, they cite to theologians Berry and Van Noort. I will turn to their citation of Van Noort first. 

In the following quotation, Msgr. Van Noort further explains the infallibility of dogmatic facts. He also explains that the infallibility of dogmatic facts is qualified as "theologically certain."  Those who depart from tradition by rejecting a doctrine that is qualified as theologically certain are guilty of a mortal sin

"Assertion 2: The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts. This proposition is theologically certain. A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, [but] on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth. The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: ‘Was the [First] Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council? Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible? Was [past tense] Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of Rome? One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are infallible, whether the Vulgate is truly Sacred Scripture, whether Pius XII is to be [present tense] recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church." (Christ’s Church, p. 112)

What they omit two pages later is telling. From Van Noort, "Of course whatever the Church declares directly must be maintained by everyone, e.g., that the Vulgate contains the Word of God; that Pius XII is the head of the Church;that the doctrine of this or that book is heretical. It arrived at these decisions in the following manner: every faithful translation of the inspired books contains the words of God; but the Vulgate is a faithful translation; therefore...Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church; but Pius XII was legitimately elected; therefore...Any book containing this doctrine is heretical; but such and such a book contains this doctrine; therefore..." (See Christ's Church, pg. 114; Ellipses in original).  The dogmatic fact is deduced through a true reasoning process.

There is a true revealed major premise: "Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church." The minor premise is conditional. Hence, "but Francis was NOT legitimately elected; therefore..."
That is why theologian Szal tells us, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg. 3; Emphasis mine).   How could someone suspect the validity of a putative pope's election and not incur the sin of schism if all it takes to assure his validity is a group of heretical "cardinals" to declare one of their own "elected pope"? Note also that Szal is talking about all members of the Church having the excuse of suspecting the validity of a pope's election, not only Cardinals or other clerics.

It's also ironic that Van Noort states on pages 114-115, "The Church's infallibility also extends to the general discipline of the Church. This proposition is theologically certain. By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living...[the Church] can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls. (Emphasis in original) Let's get this straight. Salza and Siscoe want us to accept the heretical pretenders since Roncalli up to Bergoglio as "pope." Yet, they then proceed to reject their pope's ecclesiastical laws for the direction of Christian worship. Do they not reject the Novus Bogus "mass" because it is conducive to the injury of souls? However, the very theologian they cite (as well as the unanimous consent of all other theologians) teaches this is an impossibility. Nor can they escape the charge of a schismatic mentality, in choosing what laws to obey and which to toss aside. Consistency, wherefore art thou? It's not to be found among the R&R.

Now, I turn to their citation of theologian Berry:
The following, taken from Fr. Sylvester Berry’s Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise, The Church of Christ, further explains these principles:

..."DOGMATIC FACTS. A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine. For example, was the [First] Vatican Council truly ecumenical? Was Pius IX a legitimate pope? Was the election of Pius XI valid? Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church. It is evident, then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact." (The Church of Christ, pp. 288, 289, 290)

       Notice the term "practically unanimous," which is distinct from "mathematically unanimous." A practically unanimous acceptance does not require acceptance by 100 percent of professing Catholics; it is rather a morally unanimous acceptance, which represents the "one mind" of the Church. As we will see later, the fact that individual Catholics reject the legitimacy of a Pope does not mean he has not been accepted by a morally unanimous consent.

Seems like a pretty air-tight argument they've got going, right? Here's what theologian Berry tells us on page 229 of the exact same theology manual (and conveniently omitted by Salza and Siscoe):

"A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is a prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also a similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case, no one is bound to believe him, for it is an axiom that a doubtful law begets no obligation---lex dubia non obligat. But a superior whom no one is bound to obey is in reality no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope at all. 'Therefore,' continues the Cardinal, 'if a papal election is really doubtful for any reason, the one elected should resign, so that a new election may be held. But if he refuses to resign, it becomes the duty of the bishops to adjust the matter, for although the bishops without the pope cannot define dogmas nor make laws for the universal Church, they can and ought to decide, when occasion demands, who is the legitimate pope; and if the matter be doubtful, they should provide for the Church by having a legitimate and undoubted pastor elected. That is what the Council of Constance rightly did." (Emphasis mine)

How can there be a doubtful pope if he is peacefully and universally accepted? Didn't theologian Berry know what he was writing in his own manual? I can hear the objection of Salza already, "Berry was talking about a case where there was not practically unanimous consent." Objection overruled.

1. At no point does theologian Berry explain exactly, or in what manner, "practically unanimous consent" is achieved. The majority of Cardinals and members of the Church accepted Antipope Anacletus II, and a minority of cardinals and members of the Church accepted Pope Innocent II until St. Bernard of Clairvaux convinced the majority to change position (which he did on his own initiative). Again, what constitutes the "practical unanimous consent"? Salza counters that the election was "contested" and therefore did not acquire "peaceful and universal acceptance." He defines the concept as:  The ‘peaceful’ aspect refers to the election not at once being contested; the ‘universal’ aspect refers to the entire Church learning of the election and not at once contesting it. Says who? Salza and Siscoe!  Citing to theologian Billot, they extrapolate the principle that: The universal acceptance is considered to exist when the election becomes known and is not contested by the Church, and is accepted by the prelates. It continues: In John of St. Thomas’ day, such acceptance would happen gradually as the news spread throughout the Church and the word.  But in our day, when news spreads throughout the world almost immediately, the universal acceptance would be manifest very quickly. This means (it is alleged) that if the legitimacy of someone declared as elected to the papacy is not contested almost immediately, his legitimacy is infallibly certain. So if you're not quick to protest the "papacy" of one who celebrates Chanukah and participates in Protestant false worship by immediately posting something on Instagram and Twitter, he's the "pope"--to whom you must submit (but only when you feel like it).

Theologian Doyle explains: "The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all…." (See The Defense of the Catholic Church, [1927], pg. 124) It is therefore possible that the entire membership of the Church could have accepted one of those men who was not pope, as the Vicar of Christ.

Ad arguendo, if this manufactured definition regarding "peaceful and universal acceptance"of Salza and Siscoe were accepted, there is also the problem of who must contest this election, and how quickly. Salza and Siscoe would have us believe that the moment a group of heretical "Cardinals" elects one of their own, he immediately achieves "peaceful and universal acceptance." This is their own made up definition, as there is no unanimous consent of the theologians, nor official Church decree declaring such to be the case. If Siscoe and Salza's version of the "facts" is accepted: Who needs to contest the election? Cardinals? Bishops? How many Cardinals or bishops would have to "contest" the election? If one sufficient? At what numerical point does the "contesting" become enough? How is this contesting to be done? In writing? Publicly? Privately to the one elected in the prescience of witnesses?

Another big problem for them: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. This is the decree of Pope Paul IV of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy," his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be "null, legally invalid and void." Salza and Siscoe respond with four points:

• The decree is "manifestly unjust and problematic." No. It's simply restating the Divine Law which Canon Law states and all canonists teach; "For the validity of the election as regards the person elected, it suffices only that he not be barred from the office by divine law — that is, any male Christian, even a layman. The following are therefore excluded: women, those who lack the use of reason, infidels, and those who are at least public non-Catholics." ( See theologian Cocchi, Commentarium in C.J.C, 2:151)

• Cum ex Apostolatus has been derogated and hence is no longer in force. No need to rebut that contention as the decree simply reiterates DIVINE LAW, which admits no exceptions

• It can be merely hypothetical that the situation of a heretic being universally accepted could happen. Yeah. Right. Sure. Popes don't make decrees for hypothetical situations incapable of being fulfilled. It's analogous to a papal decree declaring what to do should the pope fall into error when speaking ex cathedra.  It can't happen, so no pope would waste his time writing such nonsense

• Lastly, the legitimacy of a Pope who has been universally accepted is qualified as "theologically certain."  This would not be the case if the Church interpreted the aforementioned teaching of the problematic, and now obrogated, papal bull, Cum ex Apostolatus, as meaning an illegitimate Pope can be universally accepted as Pope by the Church. It is also theologically certain that Divine Law prevents heretics from obtaining the papacy, so it's Sicoe and Salza who get "universal acceptance" wrong. Re-read theologian Van Noort in context; it's theologically certain if and only if the election comports with Divine Law. We have moral certainty that the sacraments we receive are valid if they are performed with the requirements of Divine Law, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, making it dubious because, e.g., the priest was heard leaving out essential words of the form. So too, we can have moral certainty that the pope is legitimately elected unless we have proof to the contrary, which we do

2. There is strong evidence that theologian Berry was discussing the Church in normal times, not during the Great Apostasy, of which he writes in the same manual cited:  "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], pgs.65-66; Emphasis in original). A Church of Satan with false sacraments and the false prophet playing the part of the pope, with "more universality" than the True Church? How could there be such a false pope if he had "practically unanimous consent"? Its obvious that the term is not concretely applied by theologian Berry, and in any case, would not apply in the time of Great Apostasy. Are we to expect apostates from the Vatican II sect to try and sort things out for us?

3. Finally, theologian Berry does not give a different definition to dogmatic facts than theologian Van Noort.
Hence, we argue, "Anyone legitimately elected bishop of Rome is the head of the Church." The minor premise is conditional. Hence, "but Francis was NOT legitimately elected; therefore..."

Disposing of Some Other Falsehoods

To go through all the other points of Salza's article in detail would require several posts. Nevertheless, I will briefly point out their inherent flaws. Should anyone want to challenge me on any point they think I did not address, I will be happy to debate them in a neutral forum. 

• Appeals to authorities before 1870. Salza and Siscoe are fond of citing theologians prior to the Vatican Council (1869-1870). That's when there was a lot of Catholic doctrine settled regarding the papacy  and made it untenable to hold a number of theories that had still been permissible to hold up until that time. Citations to theologians Cajetan, Suarez, and John of St. Thomas are therefore plentiful. citations to post-1870 theologians and canonists are conspicuously absent or twisted out of context as demonstrated above with Van Noort and Berry

• False definition of a public heretic. They claim that a "public heretic" was not, and could not be elected by the Church, since a public heretic is "a public member of a heretical sect (e.g. a member of the Baptist Church), not a Catholic...who is guilty of the sin of heresy." Wrong.  According to theologian McDevitt, "A cleric, then, if he is to occasion the tacit renunciation of his office, must have defected from the faith by heresy or apostasy in a public manner..." Further, "It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon [188] demands." Finally, "..even if only a few loquacious persons witnessed the defection from the Faith...the delict would be public in the sense of canon 2197, n. 1" (The Renunciation of An Ecclesiastical Office: An Historical Synopsis and Commentary, [1946], pgs. 136-140; Emphasis mine).

• An incredible implication. Do members of the R&R celebrate Chanukah with Jews? Do they participate in false worship with Protestants and kneel before a so-called "bishop" to receive a "blessing"? To do so would be the mortal sin of communicatio in sacris and a denial of the One True Church. Consider also, " As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the "curas villeros," the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those 'penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop' projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out." (See http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350910bdc4.html?eng=y) Participating in these ecumenical services with Protestants and Jews is, in the words of Pope Pius XI, "altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." (See Mortalium Animos para. #2) Yet, somehow if such a "cardinal" is pronounced "pope" without public abjuration of heresy, how does he attain the papacy? Does the "universal acceptance" somehow "undo" his heresy? Or does it mean his actions, contrary to all Church teaching pre-Vatican II, was not heretical? No attempt at an explanation of this is made.

Conclusion

The disingenuous duo, Salza and Siscoe, would have us believe that an impediment of Divine Law which prevents a man from attaining the papacy is somehow "cured" by a fanciful definition of "peaceful and universal acceptance." They twist and misrepresent theologians Van Noort and Berry. They give a false definition of "public heretic." Finally, they show themselves as the ultimate hypocrites, for we must accept Francis as pope because it is a "dogmatic fact," yet they do not accept the dogmatic fact that the Church is infallible in matters pertaining to the general discipline of the Church, such as the Novus Bogus "mass." They pick and choose what decrees of their "pope" and dogmatic facts they will obey. Isn't that the very etymology of heretic--"able to choose"? What they refuse to accept is the proposition, "What's wrong is wrong, even if everyone is wrong, and what's right is right, even if no one is right."  

Singing For Satan---Part 21

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.

Pink Floyd

An English rock group formed in 1965, Pink Floyd became one of the most influential groups in contemporary music. Their "concept albums" with long songs, and psychedelic light shows in concert, made them superstars.  The band members consisted of Syd Barrett (d. 2006) on guitar and lead vocals, Nick Mason (b. 1944) on drums, Roger Waters (b. 1943) on bass and vocals, and Richard Wright (d. 2008) on keyboards and vocals. In 1967, guitarist and songwriter David Gilmour (b. 1946) joined. The group was founded when Mason and Waters met as architecture students at London Polytechnic. They shared a love of music and brought the others into the band, where they played in London's "underground music" venues. 

They were discovered and signed to EMI Records in 1967. The band derives its moniker from combining the names of two blues musicians,  Pink Anderson and Floyd Council, who were the favorite musicians of Barrett. Their first album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, was deemed psychedelic rock, a term used to represent music that centered around perception-altering hallucinogenic drugs, especially LSD. Pink Floyd were pioneers of this depraved music, the purpose of which is to replicate and enhance the mind-altering experiences from being high on hallucinogenics. Their "concept albums"(i.e., an album in which its songs hold a larger purpose or meaning collectively than they do individually) The Dark Side of the Moon (1973), and The Wall (1979), remain two of the best selling albums of all time. Pink Floyd has sold over 250 million albums to date. In 1996, they were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. 

Pink Floyd: A Hatred of God

The two members who were the driving force behind Pink Floyd were Roger Waters and David Gilmour, both of whom are militant atheists. Gilmour, who has a successful solo career apart from Pink Floyd, put out an album featuring a song entitled This Heaven, which shows Gilmour's atheism. He told The Telegraph, "There is an element of contended resignation in that song. It extols the virtues of living in the moment and accepting your mortality. Perhaps the closest I will get to immortality will be through The Dark Side of the Moon. I think that record will go on being played for a while yet." (See https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/3652743/Still-on-the-dark-side.html)

The lyrics tell us:

I've felt the power in a holy place

And wished for comfort when in need

Now I'm here in a state of grace

This earthly heaven is enough for me (Emphasis mine)

Roger Waters (b. George Roger Waters) was raised in a practicing Anglican household. His father was a Anglican pacifist turned Communist. He renounced pacifism to join the British army in their fight against the Nazis. He died in World War II when Waters was an infant. Roger Waters was raised by his mother, and he soon turned against his Protestant upbringing, describing himself as a "radical atheist." Waters also enjoyed a successful solo career, and his blasphemous song What God Wants--Part 1" teems with his abhorrence of God, blaming the Creator for "wanting" various evils:

What God wants God gets God help us all

What God wants God gets

The kid in the corner looked at the priest

And fingered his pale blue Japanese guitar

The priest said

God wants goodness

God wants light

God wants mayhem

God wants a clean fight

What God wants God gets

Don't look so surprised

It's only dogma

The alien prophet cried

The beetle and the springbok

Took the Bible from its hook

The monkey in the corner

Wrote the lesson in his book

What God wants God gets God help us all

God wants peace

God wants war

God wants famine

God wants chain stores

What God wants God gets

God wants sedition

God wants sex

God wants freedom

God wants Semtex

What God wants God gets

Don't look so afraid

I'm only joking

The alien comic lied

The jackass and hyena

Took the feather from its hook

The monkey in the corner

Wrote the joke down in his book

What God wants God gets

God wants boarders

God wants crack

God wants rainfall

God wants wetbacks

What God wants God gets

God wants voodoo

God wants shrines

God wants law

God wants organised crime

God wants crusade

God wants jihad

God wants good

God wants bad

What God wants God gets

With Pink Floyd, Gilmour and Waters collaborated on the song Sheep, from the 1977 album Animals. The song is a sacrilegious twisting of the 23rd Psalm:

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;

Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.

You better watch out,

There may be dogs about

I've looked over Jordan, and I have seen

Things are not what they seem.

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real.

Meek and obedient you follow the leader

Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.

What a surprise!

A look of terminal shock in your eyes.

Now things are really what they seem.

No, this is no bad dream.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want

He makes me down to lie

Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by.

With bright knives He releaseth my soul.

He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.

He converteth me to lamb cutlets,

For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger.

When cometh the day we lowly ones,

Through quiet reflection, and great dedication

Master the art of karate,

Lo, we shall rise up,

And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.

Bleating and babbling I fell on his neck with a scream.

Wave upon wave of demented avengers 

March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Have you heard the news?

The dogs are dead!

You better stay home

And do as you're told.

Get out of the road if you want to grow old.(Emphasis mine).

In this song God is portrayed as a ruthless killer who butchers his sheep (members of His Church) into "lamb cutlets." Pink Floyd dares to call God a "bugger"--street slang in the 1970s for a sodomite! They counsel people to "rise up" against God, just as Satan did. The song Stop contains backward masking. Played forward it says one thing, and played backwards it says something else. When the song is played backwards, you can clearly hear them sing; "Worship Him no more." There is actually a short audio on YouTube where you can hear it for itself, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-mLku7amWA. 

Crazy Concepts and Demonic Doorways through Drugs

Pink Floyd's 1973 concept album The Dark Side of the Moon is about insanity. You'd need to be insane to listen to this garbage. However, it packs a dark message as well. Despite the heavy drug references, Gilmour claims he only had a "brief" cocaine addiction, while Waters told the despicable Howard Stern in an interview that he smoked marijuana every day for five years, but only used LSD twice. If anyone actually believes that I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn real cheap. Many atheists, in their vain attempt to fill the spiritual void, turn to drugs, which can open doorways to the demonic. That's why pagan witch-doctors get high on hallucinogens when praying to their false gods (demons). 

Could there have been evil at work in producing that album in addition to it being anti-God and pro-drug use? Yes. The Dark Side of the Rainbow is a term used to show how the album can be paired with the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz. According to several sources (and my personal experience of seeing it in part), the prism of the album's cover reflects the movie's transition from black-and-white Kansas to Technicolor Oz; further examples of pairing include music changes at dramatic moments, such as the tornado near the start of the movie aligning with the screaming section of  the song The Great Gig in the Sky, and thematic alignments, such as the scarecrow dance during  the tune Brain Damage. (See https://web.archive.org/web/20060709203835/http://www.pinkfloydfan.net/t1489-the-dark-side-of-rainbow.html).

The members of Pink Floyd have constantly denied the idea the album was made to sync with The Wizard of Oz. Then again, they deny having "a real drug problem," so how much credence do you really want to give them? Of interest, is that The Wizard of Oz was the first time witches were portrayed as both evil and "good." It is now commonplace to see witches (Wiccans) as "good" even as the Bible and the teaching of the Church clearly and unambiguously condemn it. TV shows and movies such as Bewitched, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, The Craft, Practical Magic, and Charmed all seek to show witchcraft ("Wicca") as benevolent, or at least having a benevolent side. Disney' film The Little Mermaid also portrays a witch. Although that witch is not good, it shows someone making a pact with a witch and getting out of it on her own wits. You cannot bargain with the devil.

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

Here are the lyrics to Lucifer Sam, an interesting appellation for atheist musicians to use:

Lucifer Sam, siam cat
Always sitting by your side
Always by your side
That cat's something I can't explain
Ginger, ginger, Jennifer Gentle you're a witch
You're the left side
He's the right side
Oh, no
That cat's something I can't explain
Lucifer go to sea
Be a hip cat, be a ship's cat
Somewhere, anywhere
That cat's something I can't explain
At night prowling sifting sand
Hiding around on the ground
He'll be found when you're around
That cat's something I can't explain (Emphasis mine)

The song Comfortably Numb tells the tale of a man going insane, and the drugs that are pumped into him to keep him feeling good:

Hello?
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me
Is there anyone at home?
Come on, now
I hear you're feeling down
Well I can ease your pain
Get you on your feet again
Relax
I'll need some information first
Just the basic facts
Can you show me where it hurts?
There is no pain you are receding
A distant ship's smoke on the horizon
You are the only coming through in waves
Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying
When I was a child I had a fever
My hands felt just like two balloons
Now I've got that feeling once again
I can't explain you would not understand
This is not how I am
I have become comfortably numb
I have become comfortably numb
Okay
Just a little pinprick
There'll be no more
But you may feel a little sick (Emphasis mine)

Conclusion

Pink Floyd is decidedly atheistic, and the music is made especially for drug use. Their concept albums extol the dark themes of insanity and surreal escape from reality. There is evidence of an occult connection, even as they claim disbelief in the supernatural, and "not really" being drug users themselves. Roger Waters and David Gilmour have done all they can to spread their anti-Gospel of hatred for God and disdain of morality.

Throw out the nihilistic albums of Pink Floyd. Break down The Wall of their drugged out music, and escape from The Dark Side of the Moon, into the Light of Christ, Who alone can bring you everlasting peace. 

A Wealth Of Problems

 Last November. New York City elected arguably the most radical member of Congress, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (also known by her initials "AOC"). At 29, she defeated ten-term incumbent Congressman Joseph Crowley in the Democratic primary. In New York City, having the Democratic nomination is tantamount to election. She easily won in the general election becoming the youngest Congresswoman ever elected. She represents all that is wrong with the world. A self-identified Socialist, AOC wants to tax the wealthiest Americans at 70%--- up from the current 37%. She hates the wealthy, and blames capitalism for "racism, sexism, homophobia (sic), and environmental degradation." (See the Democratic Socialists' website, an ideology AOC endorses, at https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/).

She supports murdering unborn babies, "sodomite rights," and the redistribution of wealth. No Traditionalist worth the name could ever support abortion or sexual perverts. However, what about taxing the rich? Not to support Socialism, but don't the wealthy get everything and exploit the middle-class and poor? Don't rich corporations cause tremendous evils being motivated by greed? Even Christ told us, "and again I say unto thee, It is easier for a camel to enter a needle's eye than a rich man into the kingdom of God." (St. Matthew 19:23). In Christ's parable of the rich man and the beggar named Lazarus, the rich man dies and goes to Hell, but Lazarus was saved. (See St. Luke 16:19-31). What is the teaching of the Church on wealth? Are the rich doomed? This post will set forth Church doctrine on the topic.

The Teaching of Christ on Wealth

The Divine Redeemer does not condemn riches, rather He proclaims the dangers of them and teaches the advantages of their proper use. St. Paul tells us, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (1 Timothy 6:10; Emphasis mine). It is not the wealth per se which destroys people, but the love of wealth and the material things of this world. While many rich people do oppress the poor (one of the Four Sins That Scream to Heaven For Vengeance), it does not follow that all rich people are evil, or that accumulating wealth is bad. 

• Riches are not condemned. We read in the account of the rich young ruler: 

And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?
Who said to him: Why asketh thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me? Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. (St. Matthew 19:16-23).
Therefore, whoever wishes to be perfect must not only keep the Ten Commandments, but also strip himself of all of his goods. This, however, is a counsel and not a universal precept. Religious Order Priests (like the Franciscans pre-Vatican II), as well as all brothers, monks, and nuns seek perfection in following the Master and keeping His counsel.

Jesus wanted His Apostles (the first pope and bishops of His Church) to abandon everything: home, belongings, wife and children, in order to follow Him. Nevertheless, among the disciples of Jesus during His Apostolic travels, we also find some pious women, "who used to provide for them out of their means." (St. Luke 8:1-3). To those women, He did not enjoin absolute poverty. Lazarus of Bethany was rich, yet Jesus calls him friend. (St. John 11:11). The Beatitudes extol those who are "poor in spirit" not merely materially poor. The Church distinguishes between effective and affective poverty. Effective poverty is the actual lack of material goods, whether voluntary or involuntary. Affective poverty is the detachment of  the heart from whatever wealth one may possess, be it small or great. All members of Christ's One True Church are called to practice affective poverty because it is necessary to perfection; effective poverty is not necessary. One who practices affective poverty is "poor in spirit," even with great wealth.

• The Danger of Riches

Riches make it difficult to enter Heaven because: 

1. it affords us many comforts on Earth so that we are apt to forget God and the things of Heaven
2. it affords us the means to satisfy our most exigent and dangerous passions
3. they tend to render people proud and covetous by making us neglect the grave duties riches impose

Rich people can attain heaven, and the Bible records several wealthy people who found favor with God. These include Abraham, Job, and even Joseph of Arimathea, who was wealthy enough to afford a tomb and used it for Jesus’ burial.

However, wealth can lead to the temptation to idolize money, and so it is a spiritual danger for people. Jesus said a person could not serve both God and money lest he end up loving one and despising the other. "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (St. Matthew 6:24; the word "mammon" is also used which means money). St. Paul included in his list of vices that can prevent someone from entering the kingdom of God "thieves," "greedy," and "swindlers."  "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Humanity's fallen nature is such that having money is a great temptation to evil, and it takes great Faith and graces from God not to give in.[If you doubt me, take a brief look at the immoral, narcissistic pagans on The Real Housewives of (Whatever location)] Hence, it is very difficult, but certainly not impossible, for wealthy people to be virtuous and go to Heaven.

• The Proper Use of Wealth

In order to be saved, one must make proper use of riches. It is therefore necessary to do the following:

1. To keep one's heart detached from earthly goods, thereby remaining poor in spirit, even if not poor in fact. Christ never said you cannot possess wealth; as long as the wealth does not possess you as its master. There are many people who make an idol of money, sacrificing everything to it, including their conscience--which results in the eternal death of the soul in Hell

2. Before God we are to consider ourselves not as owners, but but only as tenants of our goods. St. Paul asks, "What do you have that you did not receive?" (1 Corinthians 4:7) The absolute Master of All is God, Who grants us the use of some of His goods. Of this we must render Him a strict account, "Give an account of your stewardship, because thou cannot be steward any longer." (St. Luke 16:2). Our Heavenly Father wants us to use His goods for legitimate needs, not to gratify our passions

3. We must give alms to the poor. St. John the Baptist said, "Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same." (St. Luke 3:11) The Divine Redeemer tells us, "But yet that which remaineth, give alms; and behold, all things are clean unto thee."(St. Luke 11:41) In other words, that which is not necessary for the support of oneself and one's family, according to each one's social condition should be given as alms to the poor

4. Pope Leo XIII explains in his encyclical Rerum Novarum, Therefore, those whom fortune favors are warned that riches do not bring freedom from sorrow and are of no avail for eternal happiness, but rather are obstacles; that the rich should tremble at the threatenings of Jesus Christ - threatenings so unwonted in the mouth of our Lord - and that a most strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for all we possess. The chief and most excellent rule for the right use of money is one the heathen philosophers hinted at, but which the Church has traced out clearly, and has not only made known to men's minds, but has impressed upon their lives. It rests on the principle that it is one thing to have a right to the possession of money and another to have a right to use money as one wills. Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. "It is lawful," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence."" But if the question be asked: How must one's possessions be used? - the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: "Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, ‘Command the rich of this world... to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’" True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, "for no one ought to live other than becomingly." But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms." It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity - a duty not enforced by human law. But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of alms-giving - ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive"; and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself - "As long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me." To sum up, then, what has been said: Whoever has received from the divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God's providence, for the benefit of others. "He that hath a talent," said St. Gregory the Great, "let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor." (para. #22)

• The Advantages Derived from the Proper Use of Riches

1. The right use of riches opens the Kingdom of Heaven to us. "Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in.."(St. Matthew 25: 34-35) Jesus identifies Himself with the poor, and blessed are those of means who help them.

2. The right use of riches merits for us the grace and blessings of God. Jesus said, "Give, and it shall be given to thee..." (St. Luke 6:38). Here, it means you shall receive good things not in Heaven only, but also here on Earth, for God does not allow the charitable person to lack the necessities in life. The Holy Ghost says, "He that hath mercy on the poor, lendeth to the Lord." (Proverbs 19:17). Those who lend to the Lord put their money in a bank that never fails to yield high interest. 

3. However, the State has no right to take money, morally earned, away from those who have bettered their position in life. contrary to the evil doctrine of the Socialists. Pope Leo XIII taught: "Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life." (See Rerum Novarum, para. #5; Emphasis mine)

(The above was adopted and condensed in large part from theologian Civardi, How Christ Changed The World, [1961], and to whom I give full credit.)

Conclusion

Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) is an enabler of the wickedness embodied by the likes of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. Francis also harps on "the needs of the poor." And why not? This perfectly appeals to the millennials' sensibilities, who have grown up in a world devoid of the influence of the One True Church. They like the idea of making sandwiches for the needy without getting bogged down by "small minded rules" that require you to deny unnatural lust and protect unborn human life.

Francis makes giving to the poor the end all and be all of his version of "Christianity." He exalts the Corporal Works of Mercy over the Spiritual Works of Mercy, even though the latter are greater than the former. Corporal Works of Mercy only affect our neighbor's well being in this life, while the Spiritual Works of Mercy promote eternal interests. To those like the mindless bartender turned Congresswoman, Ocasio-Cortez, and the equally clueless "pope" of the Vatican II sect, who think all wealth is evil and must be redistributed, an aphorism attributed to the great G.K. Chesterton is in order: "Socialism can only work in two places; Heaven, where they don't need it, and Hell where they already have it."