Monday, June 26, 2017

The Role Of The Laity

 Anyone unfortunate enough to attend the Novus Bogus "Mass" of the Vatican II sect will immediately notice the following:

  • people standing around and talking as if they were at a social function
  • men and women dressed as slobs and prostitutes (especially during the summer) because that's how they "feel comfortable"
  • when "the liturgy" or "celebration of the Eucharist (sic)" begins, everyone is expected to sing songs (usually profane nonsense) and sway back and forth to strumming guitars
  • there is no sanctuary, just a table for anyone to approach and "sacred vessels" (usually made of pottery) that anybody can touch
  • men and women "proclaiming the readings" while the so-called "priest" ("Fr" Bob or just plain old "Bob") sits in a chair and takes a nap
  • endless bantering back and forth between Bob and the people
  • laypeople taking several monetary collections in case they need to post bail for Bob
  • men and women distributing "communion" in the hand, and giving the wine to anyone who wants a gulp ("Fr" Bob still napping)
 One of the main reasons the "mass" was changed like this by Vatican II (so we are told) is to permit "full, active, and conscious participation" as ordered by the Council document Sacrosanctum Concillium. "Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Peter 2:9; cf. 2:4–5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism." (See para. # 14; Emphasis mine). 

 The laity does have a role in the life of the Church, but there is a correct understanding and a distinctly heretical one that has its origin principally in the Protestant so-called Reformation. This heretical understanding was adopted and implemented by the Modernists at Vatican II when the Counterfeit "Church" was created. I will set forth the heretical notion of the role of the laity, the true teaching of the Church, and give some further suggestions for this time of the Great Apostasy in which we live. 

Heretical Notion: The "Priesthood of All Believers"

 Heresiarch Martin Luther completely destroyed the true meaning of justification. According to Luther, Original Sin did not merely wound human nature, it corrupted it so that everything a person does is sinful. Justification is not intrinsic but an extrinsic covering of the sinful nature by the merits of Christ. This is accomplished by faith alone, a fiduciary faith that Christ will cover our sins ("like snow that covers dung."). Sacraments are only to increase and nourish faith. Furthermore,  a sacrament consists of two parts, a divine institution and promise of forgiveness. Only Baptism and the "Lord's Supper" qualify as sacraments, and neither is necessary for salvation. The Lord's Supper is in no way sacrificial. Luther himself admitted that he arranged things so that " is divorced from morals, grace from works, religion from government." (See Commentarium in Epistolam Sancti Pauli ad Galatas, pg. 19)

 The notion of a "common priesthood of all believers" arose from this heretical notion which reduces Christianity to something that is internal and personal rather than social and sacramental. The Protestants wanted a special and personal seal of salvation more certain than Church membership and use of Her sacraments. Their heretical view of the Church makes it a congregation of the saved rather than an instrument of salvation, and twists sacraments into manifestations of grace already possessed rather than channels of grace to be received. 

 Since they fancy themselves as "the Elect," because salvation is assured by faith alone, they have a common dignity which finds its expression in a universal egalitarian "priesthood." Each person is their own representative before God. There is no Magisterium necessary to interpret the Bible. The idea of sacrifice, completely eradicated, made the priesthood an empty metaphor devoid of any real significance. Anyone can really do anything at their services. Someone is designated a "minister" based on schooling for biblical knowledge and oratorical skill in preaching. Everyone is equal, and needs to manifest their belief in a "faith community." The Modernists have taken the basic principles to the furthest extension. 

 Now, it should be obvious why "full, active and conscious participation" means everyone at the Novus Bogus "mass" must do something. You must give responses, "bring up the gifts," read from the "Lectionary," hand out "communion," sing songs, sway back and forth, shake hands and kiss, etc. If you're following along in your hand Missal, meditating on the meaning of the Mass, involved in mental prayer, praying the Roasry, etc., you're are not being "active," or a "fully conscious participant." 

There is, however, a correct notion of how the laity does participate in the Church, which will be explored next. 

Authentic Church Teaching On The Laity

 The Catholic Church's teaching on the common priesthood is primarily sacramental and social. In Holy Scripture, the Fathers of the Church saw a common priesthood that belonged to all Christian society and made them superior to the priests of the Old Testament. 

 St. Thomas Aquinas discovered in the sacramental characters of Baptism and Confirmation the precise means by which people are configured to Christ in His priesthood and are admitted to the common priesthood of His Mystical Body. These characters (i.e., indelible marks on the soul) allow the person to worship God according to the Rite of the Church and are passive potencies for the reception of the other sacraments. The Catholic, who participates in the common priesthood by these sacramental characters, worships God in the capacity of an active recipient of sacramental grace.  Therefore, meditating on the Rosary during Mass is full, active and conscious participation, not singing Stairway to Heaven by Led Zepplin while doing a "liturgical dance."

In the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, each member offers himself in sacrifice to God through an interior offering of the will and given expression in the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ which all offer to God together subordinate to and in union with an ordained priest. The ordained priest offers both in the Person of Christ (in persona Christi) which makes it a valid Mass, and in the Person of the Church (in persona Ecclesia) which makes it licit and pleasing to God. The layman only offers in his own person as a recipient of grace and not a minister and intermediary of grace from God to humanity. 

(Some of the above in this post was taken and condensed from theologian Rea, The Common Priesthood of the Members of the Mystical Body , Catholic University Press, [1947]). 


 It's been said that, "Before an institution collapses the more ridiculous it becomes." One look at what passes for "mass" at the local Vatican II sect parish proves that aphoristic saying true. As their numbers dwindle, those who remain are interested in entertainment and fun in the guise of "full, active and conscious participation" of God. However, God has nothing to do with it. They are paving the way for a One -World Ecumenical religion where anything goes except the truth. I urge my readers to do all they can to convert others while there is still time. Invite people to come to Church with you, give them good Traditionalist literature to read, much of which can be downloaded for free. If you can, contribute to Novus Ordo and Daily You might not agree with every opinion, but they do not subscribe to any error or heresy and do more than anyone to make people aware of the Truth in this time of the Great Apostasy. Pray for them if you cannot donate.

Remember, the laity must do all it can to spread the faith. Our priests and religious cannot do it alone. Do not get discouraged if your labors to convert do not (apparently) bear fruit. God asks only that we try. As for Frankie and his false clergy, they may seem to have the upper hand as they sway and dance in corybantic fashion, showing their contempt of the True Mass and worship of God. Keep in mind the words of Sacred Scripture, "Be not deceived, God is not mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap." (Galatians 6: 7-8).  

Monday, June 19, 2017

Judging The Book By The Cover

 When Karol Wojtyla ("Pope" John Paul II), one of the most evil men who worked for the destruction of the Church, died, people were chanting "Santo subito," which roughly translates as "sainthood now." He is revered as "Saint" John Paul "the Great" in the Vatican II sect. When I call him "John Paul the Great Apostate" people look at me with horror: "How dare you say such a thing! Can't you see what a holy pope he was for so many years?"  How is it even possible that such diametrically opposed views can exist about this man? I believe the answer lies in two reasons; (1) the general ignorance prevalent about the Faith, and (2) concern with externals. It's a deadly combination that blinds one from seeing the truth.

 What Faith Is--and What It Is Not

According to theologian Tanquerey, Faith is "the supernatural assent by which the intellect, under the command of the will and the influence of grace, firmly accepts revealed truths because of the authority of God Who is revealing." (See Dogmatic Theology 1: 193). John Paul II sees Faith as "an experiential state." Speaking to a group of clerics, Wojtyla said, "To enter into dialogue with God means to allow oneself to be won over and conquered by the luminous figure of the Revealed Jesus, and by the love of the Father Who sent Him. It is in precisely this that the faith consists.In faith, man interiorly enlightened and attracted by God, goes beyond the limits of purely natural knowledge, and experiences God in a manner that would otherwise be impossible." As you can see, Wojtyla is a good Modernist who reduces "faith" from an act of the intellect to feelings and experiences. This is reflected in the Novus Bogus "mass" where human entertainment, feeling good about yourself, and the elimination of anything deemed "negative theology" (like sin and Hell) reign supreme. 

 Wojtyla was a close friend of arch-Modernist Fr. Karl Rahner, whose teaching on the "anonymous Christian" was tantamount to universal salvation. Rahner was censured by Pope Pius XII, rehabilitated by Montini (Paul VI), and had a friend in Wojtyla who was greatly influenced by him. The heretical Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (The Constitution of the Church in the Modern World) had Wojtyla, Cardinal Montini ( the future Paul VI), Cardinal Suenens, and Cardinal Lecaro as the chief architects. All were Modernists to the core. Gaudium et Spes along with Lumen Gentium (Constitution on the Church), set the foundation for the new religion--the Vatican II sect.

Lumen Gentium set up a false dichotomy between "the Church of Christ" and the Roman Catholic Church. In reality, they are identical, but this document of Vatican II falsely teaches that they are distinct. According to this Modernist document, the Church of Christ "subsists" in its fullness in the Catholic Church, but also subsists elsewhere in false sects according to how many "elements' they have. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is equally good and leads to salvation. Gaudium et Spes teaches one of the trademark heresies of the Vatican II sect; the idea that by His Incarnation, Christ united himself with each man.  Vatican II speaks of a union between Christ and each man that results from the incarnation itself.  Wojtyla has taken this heresy and run with it full speed ahead to its logical consequence - universal salvation in a "church" that subsists everywhere. 

Gaudium et Spes # 22:

"For by His incarnation the Son of God united Himself in some way with every human being.  He labored with human hands, thought with a human mind, acted with a human will, and loved with a human heart." (Emphasis mine).

John Paul II in his first "encyclical" Redemptor Hominis #13; "We are dealing with each man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united Himself forever through this mystery." (Emphasis mine).

This means that no one can ever be separated from God in hell. He bases this heresy on the teaching of Vatican II in Gaudium et Spes #22, that Christ has united himself with each man in the Incarnation. The whole point of the Catholic Church is to unite mankind to Jesus Christ through the Faith and Sacraments. If the union between all of mankind and Jesus Christ occurred at the Incarnation, then the Church has no value and is, in fact, pointless. This is the "faith" of Vatican II and Wojtyla; the heresy of Modernism.

Hiding Heresy Well

 Wojtyla was an actor, and what a great act he put on for those who didn't understand the Faith, yet desperately wanted to believe "the essentials" hadn't changed after Vatican II. Here's how he did it.

1. Make "the culture of death" your theme. JPII would constantly reiterate traditional Church teaching on abortion and euthanasia to the applause of "conservative" Vatican II sect members. Granted they are huge evils. Unfortunately, no one stopped to realize that they reached catastrophic proportions precisely because Wojtyla simultaneously helped push for the removal of Catholicism as the State religion. Countries that never had legal abortion or euthanasia (Belgium, Ireland, Spain, etc) fell as part of the "culture of death" once the influence of Catholicism was gone. After all, the "Church of Christ" subsists in all sects!

2. "Mass" is only important if you feel good going to it. The Novus Bogus must be "relevant," focus on the material needs of the poor in "homilies," and--most importantly--be fun, fun, fun! If you don't find it amusing, simply stop going. Hell is never mentioned, nor Christ's sacrifice. Retain some of the key words (He died for us, etc), but do something different (have a Happy Meal).

3. Invert the primary and secondary purposes of the sacraments. Baptism is about "initiation into the People of God." Gone is the primary effect; the remission of Original Sin (a negative concept). Also removed is that orthodox term "Mystical Body of Christ." Penance is "reconciliation" because doing penance for sin is negative, and we're all saved anyway. The Eucharist is about "breaking bread with your neighbor." Confirmation is not being a soldier for Christ, it is "the completion of Baptism." (As if Baptism is somehow "deficient.") Marriage is all about conjugal love, not procreation. "Anointing of the Sick" (formerly Extreme Unction) is about bodily and mental health, not preparing the soul to meet its Maker. Holy Orders is being the "president of the assembly" not an alter Christus to offer Sacrifice to God and forgive sins.

4.  McCanonizations. Make "saints" by the dozen everywhere you go to show "holiness" in everyone from everywhere, even if they died relatively recently and have suspicious backgrounds. Wojtyla made more "saints" from 1978-2005, than were made from 33-1978. (including the phony "canonizations" 1959-1978).

5. Travel everywhere. The more people see you, the more you seem "in touch with the people." You become a superstar, like the blasphemous hippy Jesus Christ Superstar.

6. Talk tough, but do nothing. Slap heretics like Hans Kung on the wrist, but don't excommunicate anyone. Actually, you can't since everyone is united to Christ by virtue of the Incarnation. 

7. Sound profound, even when you're not. Talk about the "Theology of the Body," and come up with bold new concepts like, "the body of a man and a woman were made to complement one another." (Wow! Who woulda thunk it?)

8. Retain "traditional doctrine and discipline" while systematically undermining them. Be against women "priests" while allowing both men and women to do sacerdotal functions; i.e., distribute "communion,"  recite the "readings," bring up the "gifts," etc. Be against married "priests" while giving most duties to married "deacons," and make more and more exceptions for married clerics from Protestant sects to keep their wives should they want to be Vatican II sect "priests."  


 The majority of Catholics never knew the Faith well in the decades just prior to Vatican II. They were robbed of the truth and had it replaced with a counterfeit sect; a pallid imitation. Those who see without the eyes of faith perceive Wojtyla as a "saint." For those of us with the True Faith, we don't judge by worldly standards and appearances. "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly." (St. John 7:24).  

Monday, June 12, 2017

If Your Eye Causes You To Sin

 Pornography is at an all-time high in consumption. The reason, which is fairly obvious, has been the advent of the Internet. No longer relegated to filthy magazines, which no decent person wants to get caught buying or reading, the Internet brings porn right to you with ease. I've read some estimates that say as much as 34% of all websites are pornographic. Many people try to turn this into a strictly religious issue, with some even claiming that porn has societal benefits (e.g., men will be less likely to commit rape, there will be less adultery, etc.).

As time goes on, more and more secular evidence is being brought forth which shows that there are benefits to obeying God's Laws, as well as even secular dangers to those who choose to disobey. Recently, a study by Simone Kuhn and Jurgen Gallinat, "Brain Structure and Functional Connectivity Associated with Pornography Consumption: The Brain on Porn," JAMA Psychiatry 71, no.7 (July 2014) came up with incredible findings concerning porn's effects on the brain. Other studies show porn's effects on emotional health, sexual violence, and marriage (there were other factors, but I will focus on these findings). For the full article on the brain, See The other studies may be found in Appendix 1 of The Porn Myth, by Matt Fradd, Ignatius Press, [2017], pgs. 191-212.

1. Porn and the Brain

  •  When researchers compared the brain scans of porn users to non-users, those who used porn had a dulled reward center.
  • When the reward center is dulled, the person doesn't feel dopamine's effects like they used to do. This means that in order to get the same excitement as before, porn users must resort to more hard-core material.
  • Since porn addiction goes hand in glove with Internet addiction, such people have less gray matter in several important areas of the brain, such as the frontal lobes, the striatum, and the insula. These areas help people with self-control, prioritizing, and feeling empathy; when gray matter lessens, so do these important functions.
2. Porn and Emotional Health

There is a correlation between the frequency of porn viewing and:
  •  depression, anxiety, stress and various social problems.
  •  the motivation to pursue goals.
  •  changed sexual preferences.
  • poor overall health.
  • hurting oneself.
  • problems with intimacy.

3. Porn and Sexual Violence
  • Porn use increases the risk of developing sexually deviant tendencies such as beastiality by 31%
  • The risk of committing a sexual offense increases 22% in those who use porn frequently. 
  • There is a correlation between frequent porn use in men and the likelihood of rape. Rather than lessen the likelihood of rape, porn actually increases it.
  • States that had higher sales of porn magazines had higher rates of rape.
  • In one study, in 193 cases of rape, 24% of the rapists mentioned the use of pornography without any solicitation for such information.
4. Porn and Marriage
  • Porn heightens belief that marriage is "sexually confining," that promiscuity is normal, and that raising a family is unappealing.
  • Women who discover a husband's porn use may experience depression, fatigue, and suicidal tendencies.
  • Porn use correlates to higher incidence of adultery.
  • Porn correlates with sadistic marital rape. 
 There is no doubt that God's Laws are in place for our good both here (wellness) and hereafter (to get to Heaven). Don't be fooled into thinking that pornography is "harmless," "normal," or "prevents greater evils." Secular studies prove this is not the case. More importantly, porn is a mortal sin, making one worthy of Hell. Of course, there will be those who will try to minimize the deadly effects of porn on the soul and on society. Men will object, "I watched porn and never raped anyone." In the words of one researcher, "Many people share Strossen's opinion that men who consume porn but who have never raped a woman disprove the theory that porn can cause rape. This is comparable to arguing that because some cigarette smokers don't die of lung disease, there cannot be a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer." (Russell,1995)

 Say no to porn, and parents, please check what sites your children and teens visit. As Our Lord said, "And if thy eye scandalize thee[causes you to sin], pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire." (St. Matthew 18: 9). 

Monday, June 5, 2017

The Chameleon

 It was February 2, 1983, and I did something I had never done before in my life; I skipped school. I was a model student, seventeen years old at the time, and just a few months away from both my high school graduation and turning eighteen. Unlike most kids, however, I was not out causing trouble that day, nor committing sin in the name of "fun." I had become a Traditionalist on November 1st of 1981, and the priest who converted me, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, was going to be live on the radio, WOR-AM, New York! That past Sunday, Father announced from the pulpit that he had been invited to appear on the Sherry Henry Show at 10AM on February 2nd. Ms. Henry would interview interesting people from all walks of life concerning topics of current interest.  She invited Fr. DePauw to be her guest to discuss the so-called "New Code of Canon Law" that would take effect in November of that year under Wojtyla (John Paul II).

 Fr. DePauw was the perfect man for the interview since he was a canon lawyer, a peritus (i.e., theological expert) at Vatican II, and in 1964 was the founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. Ms. Henry was no Traditionalist, but a flaming Modernist and Socialist. To her credit, she wanted to present a balanced view on the topic so she invited Fr. DePauw and told him that she had also invited someone who would strongly support the New Code and debate with him; Malachi Martin. Father DePauw replied that he knew of the former Jesuit and current best-selling author from Vatican II, but they had never met and he would have no problem defending the truth against him.

In days before computers and the Internet, I begged my parents to let me stay home and use my little rusted tape recorder to tape the show off the hand-held radio I had. To my great surprise and joy, they agreed to let me be "sick" that day! (I still have the tape of that show over 34 years later). I waited with baited breath in my room at 9:55, all set to record the show. At 10 AM, Ms. Henry introduced Fr. DePauw and was both cordial and professional towards him. She asked Father why he thought the New Code would be bad, and he wasted no time launching into the evil canons and the devastating effects they would carry. Next, she introduced Malachi Martin, and asked him about why he thought the New Code was good. To the shock of Ms. Henry, Fr. DePauw, and the listening audience (who heard Martin billed as a proponent of the New Code), Martin stated he was in complete agreement with Fr. DePauw!

 The rest of the show (which included taking calls from listeners) had Fr. DePauw and Malachi Martin bashing the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Ms. Henry was beside herself. "If only I had an opposing view from a great mind like Bishop Mugavero," she said. ("Bishop" Mugavero was the invalidly consecrated Vatican II sect "bishop" of the Diocese of Brooklyn, and a notorious Modernist. He was one of the very first priests to be invalidly consecrated in 1968, after the death of Abp. Bryan McEntegart.). Next Sunday, Fr. DePauw commented from the pulpit, "I was expecting an intelligent opponent, instead I had an even more intelligent guy who had the good sense to agree with me!" (Words paraphrased from my memory).

 Fr. DePauw was not fooled. Who is Malachi Martin? Why is he so controversial, and what did he really believe and do? These are the questions I will explore in this post.

Martin's Background

Malachi Brendan Martin was born July 23, 1921 in County Kerry, Ireland. He was one of ten children, five boys and five girls. Four of the five Martin boys became priests. In 1939 he became a novice of the Jesuit Order and was ordained to the priesthood on the Feast of Our Lady's Assumption in 1954. Fr. Martin was an academic, having gone to the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, where he took a doctorate in archaeology, oriental history and semitic languages.

Martin worked as personal secretary to the closet Modernist Cardinal Bea, and was close personal friends with arch-Modernist (and fellow Jesuit) Fr. John Courtney Murray, who was the guiding force behind the heretical Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae, on so-called "religious liberty," which had been many times condemned by the True Church. Some theologians at the Council claim that Martin helped to fashion the heretical document Nostra Aetate which discusses the "relationship" of the Church to non-Christian religions. It also "absolves" the Jews of being the Deicide race, and it has been alleged that Martin had Jewish relatives, although there is no substantial proof of the claim. 

In February of 1965, for reasons not altogether clear, Martin asked for what is known in canon law as qualified exclaustration, which authorizes a priest to live for a limited time as a layman without exercising priestly faculties and free from all clerical obligations other than celibacy. This favor is granted only when there is reasonable hope that the cleric will recover his priestly vocation, which makes it more of an enigma since Martin claims he never stopped being a priest. This dispensation was granted by Montini (Paul VI).

 He came to the United States, working odd jobs until finally making it big as an author. His first best-seller was the novel Hostage to the Devil, published in 1975 and tells the story of five alleged demonic possessions. He was able to build on the sensation generated by William Peter Blatty's book and blockbuster movie The Exorcist (1973).  According to Martin's book (which purports to relate facts), the former Jesuit participated in several exorcisms, yet in a 1996 radio interview he claimed to have assisted in several hundred exorcisms. He wrote four other best-sellers, and died in his NYC apartment four days after his 78th birthday in 1999, having suffered from a cerebral hemorrhage in the wake of falling in his apartment. 

Was Martin Really Celibate?

 The book Clerical Error? by Robert Blair Kaiser raises some serious questions about Martin. The author, Mr. Kaiser, was a former Jesuit who left the order to marry and claims that when he was a reporter at Vatican II, Malachi Martin had an affair with his wife Susan. Defenders of Martin will be quick to point out that Kaiser was a Modernist himself, and had a psychiatric disorder which made him paranoid. There are, however, two really damaging pieces of information that are not easily dismissed. Mr.John Grasmeier put together documentation of Martin's affair.

One piece of evidence is a letter to Robert B. Kaiser from heretic Fr. John Courtney Murray (a friend to both Martin and Kaiser) written July 10, 1964. According to Grasmeier, "The letter touches on a few items relevant to the Malachi Martin saga. One being that although Father John Murray stands fast in his (non-qualified) assessment of Kaiser’s pyscological state, he apologizes to Kaiser and admits that it has been made clear to him that Martin and Mrs. Kaiser were indeed having an affair. He talks about the now infamous love letters from Martin to Kaiser’s wife, 'Martin’s apostasy from the Society' and the fact that he doesn’t know where Martin and Kaiser’s wife are."

The second piece of evidence is a six-page letter from Fr. William Van Etten Casey dated November 1, 1965 to Archbishop H. E. Cardinale, the Vatican Apostolic Delegate to the United Kingdom. Its purpose was to advocate for an annulment of the Kaisers' marriage. To read both letters, See

Was Martin Really a Bishop?
Martin became friends with Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy (hereinafter "Dr. C") sometime in the late 1980s-early 1990s. Dr. C was a thoracic surgeon and psychiatrist who rejected the Vatican II sect from the beginning. He was a professor of Church History at the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) seminary located (at that time) in Connecticut which was where Dr. C and his wife lived. Sedevacantism was an idea advocated by Dr. C, and he influenced many of the seminarians. When the sedevacantist Society of St Pius V (SSPV), broke away from the SSPX in 1984, Dr. C joined them. In 1989, he left the SSPV over the issue of the validity of the Thuc consecrations (Dr. C believed --correctly--they were valid).

 Dr. C wrote several excellent Traditionalist books and articles. In the late 1990s he wanted to become a priest himself. There was one problem; he was married. The SSPV and SSPX would not even consider him a candidate on that basis alone. However, he found a Thuc bishop, Bp. Jose Gaston-Lopez, willing to ordain him if he and his wife took public vows of celibacy. Dr. C's ordination was attacked by Fr. Anthony Cekada. Dr (Fr) C responded with an online article entitled, "In Defense of My Ordination." Apparently there was a dispute over whether of not Bp. Lopez imposed his hands on Dr C's head at the essential part of the rite. There are two pictures posted in the article by Dr/Fr C that clearly show Bp. Gaston-Lopez being assisted by Malachi Martin. The article makes the following disturbing statement, "One problem arose. One of the people present thought Bishop Lopez-Gaston didn’t actually touch my head during the critical part of the rite. I of course cannot bear witness to this as I was too much too involved in the process of ordination to check on such a detail. I however recently looked at the photographs which were taken and offer two as evidence to the contrary.However, my close friend and mentor, Bishop Malachi Martin, stated that he wished there to be absolutely no doubt about my ordination. He therefore proceeded to conditionally re-ordain me. Hence it is that I received the graces of Ordination from a double source." (Emphasis mine). 

 It seems that Martin claimed (with no known proof) that Pope Pius XII had consecrated him a bishop in pectore (i.e., secretly) to do work behind the Iron Curtain. As Martin was ordained a priest in 1954 (the year when the pope's health took a serious turn for the worse) it is even more dubious that he would be chosen, let alone consecrated by the ailing Pontiff. Not impossible, but dubious, given the circumstances and lack of any substantial evidence apart from Martin's ipse dixit. (See

This brings us to the next important question:

Was Martin a Sedevacantist?

 As noted above, Martin was friends with one of the most famous Traditionalists, Dr/Fr C, and even participated in at least one sedevacantist conferral of a sacrament. There is no way Martin can claim ignorance as to the theological positions of either Dr/Fr C or Bp.Gaston-Lopez. However, there are other facts that show Martin clearly recognizing the so-called post-V2 "popes."

  • Martin clearly accepted Wojtyla (JPII) as pope on the radio show with Fr. DePauw.
  • Was a huge supporter of "Fr" Nicholas Gruner, the invalidly ordained publisher of the "Fatima Crusader." Martin also claimed to know the Third Secret of Fatima. In an article published in the US News and World Report, Martin claimed he agreed with "Fr" Gruner that the Consecration of Russia had not been performed correctly by the "pope" (JPII)
  • Just two years before his death (1997) said that the Thuc consecrations were valid but illicit. This would only hold true if he accepted  JPII as "pope" or was a "Home Aloner."
  • On more than one occasion, claimed Cardinal Siri had been elected pope in 1958 and resigned under pressure, yet did not denounce Roncalli and Montini (John XXIII and Paul VI) as false popes--the logical corollary.
Malachi Martin: Liar or Lunatic?

 Martin appeared more than once on the Art Bell radio show. Mr. Bell's show, Coast to Coast,is the on-air version of the National Enquirer. It focuses on the occult and the bizarre. In April of 1997, he appeared on the Art Bell Show and made a number of truly alarming statements--claims so strange you can (literally) doubt if he ever had the faith--or possibly even his sanity. No person with an ounce of integrity would want to go on Art Bell's show. It immediately destroys one's credibility. Fr. DePauw, or Abp. Lefebvre would never even have considered it. Here's just some of what Martin had to say from the transcript of the show:

On Separation of Church and State and Abortion (Bell is a libertarian):
"I also share this view[libertarianism]. I do not believe that human governments have anything to say to the inner decisions of a man or woman. Those decisions must be made in the light of their religious education and their religious tradition. But the last thing in the world that I want to interfere with, that is government. They should have nothing to do with it. For instance, one of the difficulties of the abortion discussion today in America is that its become politized (sic). Its become a political football."(Emphasis mine)

On Shamans (Pagan witch doctors): "I'll tell you Art what I think, now that you've asked a personal opinion of a very difficult subject, but my experience is the following and I'm not merely taking about Native Americans...I have seen such miracles of cure and restitution and de-possession worked by these people, including Native Americans--really shamans--you know, the old type. Because of my beliefs I must conclude that my Lord Jesus Christ in whom I believe and who is the source of all power, has used them in their innocence and their faith, to cure people outside the reach of a Catholic priest like me. I cannot deny that...There are people who have nothing to do with Catholicism or with some of them, Christianity. But it has worked and I've had that experience and I can't deny it." (Emphasis mine)

On his ability to see Satan and demons: "I was standing on a stool in my apartment, reaching for a book and I saw him. He was crouched on the floor looking at me. His body was like a muscular pit bull terrier, but the face was recognizably human. It was the Devil's face. I recognised the eyes. They were eyes of the coldest, deadliest hatred. When the Devil sprang at me, I fell from my stool and broke my shoulder, but I felt fortunate. I had seen Satan and I had lived." (This quote came from a another source--the next quote is directly from Art Bell's show) "Yes, I do that. I, I do that. I've got second vision. When the demon is there, when the demon is in possession, yes I do"

From the July 11, 1997 Art Bell show, he claims to believe in lycanthropy, i.e. werewolves (!):

Lance Foxx: "This is Lance, a fifth time caller from Park Hills, Missouri." 

Art Bell: "All right." Father Malachi Martin: "Um-hum." 

Lance Foxx: "I'd like to ask your quest- your guest a question." 

Father Malachi Martin: "Sure." 

Lance Foxx: "Is it possible for a person to be a lycanthrope and not be evil?" (long pause) 

Father Malachi Martin: "Um..." (an even longer pause) 

Father Malachi Martin: "Yes. It is possible. Within the framework of your question, I must say, yes. It is possible. It is possible." 

Lance Foxx: "In other words, can lycanthropy be kind of a gift?" 

Father Malachi Martin: "Yes. It can be. Like everything else, it can have a good purpose or an evil purpose." 


 Malachi Martin was the ultimate chameleon; a man who changes his beliefs to fit his audience and tell them what they want to hear. Does he even have any beliefs of his own? I can't believe the number of people who follow him and quote his novels like Scripture. Yes, he had many insights as to what went on in the Vatican, and I personally believe that a "Black Mass" took place before the start of Vatican II, led by some Cardinals. However, without other corroborating evidence, can you really believe anything he said? 

 At the time of his death, Martin was buried with Mrs  Kakia Livanos, a Greek Orthodox widow of a millionaire. Some claim she was merely his housekeeper and landlady, but one can't help but wonder why he would be buried with her, and why wouldn't she be buried with her late husband? Even if he were buried in Greece, she had the money for burial there. Martin claimed that his fall, which precipitated his death was caused by "an invisible hand" that pushed him. (See

 He called on Fr. Paul Wickens (whom I knew personally) to give him the Last Rites. Fr. Wickens was ordained in 1955 for the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. He left the Vatican II sect, and set up his own chapel. For awhile, Fr. Wickens was a Feeneyite, but thankfully, saw the error and abjured it. He worked closely with the SSPX and was not sedevacantist. Martin was buried out of Fr. Wickens' St Anthony of Padua Chapel in New Jersey. If he believed Wojtyla was pope why not ask a FSSP priest for the Last Rites? If he doubted the validity of the new "sacraments" why did he accept "priests" in the new rite as valid, such as "Fr" Gruner?  If he were sedevacantist, why not call a priest of the SSPV nearby? 

 There are more questions than answers to this man's life. I hope he made a sincere and humble confession to Fr. Wickens, and was saved. Nevertheless, I will never be quoting Martin as a reliable, stand-alone source on anything. 

Monday, May 29, 2017

Burning Heretics

 We have been so inundated with political correctness, many things which are immoral currently seem right to a majority of people. Just thirty years ago, had you proclaimed yourself in favor of same sex "marriage," you would have been a pariah, and it would be the death knell for a politician. The Great Apostasy has made society lose its moral compass. Conversely, a majority of people also see things which are moral as having become immoral. Case in point: the Vatican II sect has made opposition to capital punishment the equivalent of opposition to abortion and euthanasia. Enemies of Traditionalists and apologists for the Vatican II sect will both cite to the "evil practice" of burning heretics at the stake as alleged "proof" that (a) the Church can be wrong in matters of faith and morals not infallibly defined and/or (b) Church doctrine can "evolve" to the point where something thought to be right can now be wrong. I will set forth the True Church teaching on capital punishment and heresy.

The Morality of the Death Penalty

According to theologian Prummer, "Only the State has the right to put to death those who have committed most serious crimes. The State has this right since the penalty of death is sometimes necessary for safeguarding the common weal [good] and only the State has the duty of safeguarding society. Capital punishment must be reserved for the most serious of crimes and these must be fully proven...Since the State has the power to put the criminal to death, so it has the power for a sufficient reason to mutilate the criminal (e.g., by cutting off his hand) or to flog him." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, pg. 126).

Theologians McHugh and Callan teach, "Killing human beings is lawful in two cases. (a) It is lawful when when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment)" (See Moral Theology 2: 100).

Theologian Jone writes, "A criminal may be executed if juridical proof has established the moral certainty that he has committed a grave crime for which the State, in the interest of the common welfare, inflicts capital punishment, and if someone has been authorized by the State to execute the sentence." (See Moral Theology, pg. 140).

Proposition required by Pope Innocent III as a condition to be readmitted to the Church: "We declare that the secular power can without mortal sin impose a judgement of blood provided the punishment is carried out not in hatred but in good judgement, not inconsistently but after mature deliberation."

From the practice of the Church: "From 1815, when the pope regained political control of Rome from Napoleon, until 1870, the popes ordered the executions of hundreds of malefactors." (See Norko, M., "The Death Penalty in Catholic Teaching and Medicine: Intersections and Places for Dialogue," Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 36 (2008): 470-481).

From the Holy Bible: Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." St. John 19:10, "Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest Thou not to me? Knowest Thou not that I have power to crucify Thee, and I have power to release Thee?" Romans 13: 4, "For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. "

It is clear that the Church, in principle, allows for the execution of criminals who have committed "the most serious of crimes." This has always been the case.

Is Heresy A Crime Deserving The Death Penalty?

The propagation of heresy is worse than murder. Our Lord said, "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hell." (St. Matthew 10: 28). Murder destroys the body. Heresy can bring eternal death in Hell. There is but One True Church, outside of which no one can be saved. It is the duty of the State to uphold the Rights of the Church as the sole and exclusive State religion. Error has no rights. 

CONDEMNED Proposition # 77 from the Syllabus of Errors promulgated by Pope Pius IX (1864): "77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship." 

In the bull Exsurge Domine, excommunicating Martin Luther and condemning his heresies, CONDEMNED proposition # 33 states, "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

It should be noted that there is a difference between:

(a) condemning a proposition that heretics being burned is always against the will of the Holy Ghost.

(b) endorsing a proposition that heretics being burned is the will of the Holy Ghost in all cases and at all times.

The first is merely asserting that it is possible that at some time and place burning of heretics may not have been against the will of the Holy Ghost, whereas the second proposition claims that the burning of heretics is always the active will of the Holy Ghost. The second statement is not implied by the first. This is where people make the error, and think it "wrong" or "scandalous" that God should permit the burning of heretics.

Let's look at a similar pair of propositions that might shed light on the subject. It is Church teaching that God may permit the capital punishment of some offenders and so to assert that "capital punishment is not against the will of God" is quite a different assertion than claiming that God simply wills capital punishment under all conditions or compels it. As theologians McHugh and Callan teach, "Though lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means." (See Moral Theology, 2: 101).

Again, the first statement says nothing about when or where the Holy Ghost may permit the burning of heretics, the second implies that the Holy Ghost wills or is never against the burning of heretics. They are not the same claim.

It is the case that proposition (a) is true, that there may be times when burning of certain heretics may not be contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost, but still insist that not every specific case of burning heretics, as these have occurred in history, have always been contrary to the will of the Holy Ghost. It may be that only a certain severity of heresy could result in the Holy Ghost permitting the burning of that individual, and it is possible that such a severity has never occurred.

There is a difference between an "in principle" condemnation and a "de facto" one. In principle, burning heretics is a form of capital punishment, because their evil doctrines kill the soul, which is worse than killing the body (murder). But, just as you don't need to be in favor of capital punishment, as long as you don't condemn it in principle--the same applies here. Hence, there was no change in Church teaching and the burning of heretics is permitted in principle as a form of capital punishment! 

The Vatican II Sect and Capital Punishment

 The ecumenical/universalist sect spawned from the Second Vatican (Robber) Council, sees all religions as more or less equally good and leading to Heaven. Don't expect them to defend capital punishment for heretics, since they no longer believe in heresy (unless you believe the truth as a Traditionalist). However, the sect has basically adopted a de facto stance against capital punishment, in principle, even for premeditated murder. The sect advances four arguments against capital punishment: (1) it allows the killing of a person made in God's image; (2) it violates "the Gospel message;" (3) it is contrary to God's forgiveness; and (4) it shows a depraved desire for revenge. Each argument is seriously flawed.

As to argument #1:
  • God can take human life, as He is the Author of Life. The State has authority from God to "remove from the body politic" someone deemed a threat to the common good. Some object that mistakes are made in executing innocent people, and you can't give that person back their life. However, even if a mistake is made, we would need to do away with imprisonment. If an innocent person is incarcerated for life and either dies in prison, or loses years of his life, those goods can not be restored either.
As to argument # 2:
  • The account of the adulteress brought for stoning and stopped by Christ, is often used as "proof" that capital punishment is wrong because Christ said, "let him without sin cast the first stone." (St John 8: 1-11).
  • This is not a per se condemnation of capital punishment. If it were, then how could any punishment be inflicted, as we are all sinners?
  • The death penalty for adultery was applied to men as well as women under Mosaic Law, yet only the woman was brought to be executed.
  • Roman law prohibited the Jews from executing anyone. This is why Pontius Pilate needed to OK the Crucifixion of Christ. Our Lord could also be protecting Himself of the accusation that He was disobedient to the law.
  • Christ let the woman go free without any penalty. Does that mean adultery is not deserving of any punishment here--or hereafter? Christ was merely showing the Jews as hypocrites. 
  • Romans 13: 1-4, specifically allows for capital punishment: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil."
As to argument # 3:

  • Christ was executed by the State, yet he did not condemn the practice. Execution allows time for the convicted to repent and escape eternal punishment, thereby being very forgiving, as opposed to imprisonment which usually just hardens the heart of the killer being locked up for many years.
  • The Good Thief declared in St. Luke 23: 41, "We [i.e. the other thief and himself] are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this Man [Christ] has done nothing wrong." Christ was unjustly put to death, but not the other two. Our Lord did not rebuke the Good Thief, but promised him salvation, "This day thou shalt be with Me in Paradise." The Holy Ghost would not inspire St. Luke to record something regarded as just if such were not the case. 
As to argument # 4:
  • In Contra Faustum, St. Augustine writes, "Though there is no sin in wishing for revenge within the limits of justice, the man who wishes for no revenge at all is further from the sin of an unjust revenge." (Emphasis mine).  Notice there is nothing wrong with desiring an offender to be punished proportionately within the limits of the law.
The only argument really needed against ANY of them: It goes against the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, which clearly teaches capital punishment is not wrong in principle. 


  Heresy is the root cause of our decaying society. People act on their beliefs, and when those beliefs are wrong, wrong actions follow. Vatican II and Wojtyla (JPII) urged States to adopt "religious liberty." Now, every moral aberration can be found in these formerly Catholic countries. The Vatican II sect dares to put the taking of innocent life (abortion and euthanasia) on the same level as the taking of a life from a criminal who has forfeited his/her own right to life by the murder of another. The Church has always recognized capital punishment, self-defense, and just war as reasons permissible to take human life.

 In today's world, where everything is considered relative, beliefs are "subjective," and everyone is entitled to profess any religion, the idea of burning heretics seems unthinkable as well as cruel and unusual punishment. When put in perspective, it is an act of mercy. It is better to see the horror of a temporary punishment here, and escape a permanent burning in Hell. 

Monday, May 22, 2017

The "Work Of Mary"?

 Evil is rampant in the Vatican II sect. Now, more than ever, heresy, blasphemy, and immorality are promoted by Mr. Bergoglio, the sect's current "pope." Recently, Francis made a trip to Fatima for the 100th anniversary of the Blessed Mother's first appearance there on May 13, 1917. At Fatima, he "canonized" Jacinta and Francisco Marto (the two youngest seers) as "Saints." To be clear, I firmly believe that they are saints, but in the absence of a true pope, they (unfortunately) cannot be infallibly declared as such. For those desperate to cling to the delusion that Francis is "pope," they will cite this event as "proof " of his orthodoxy. John Paul II (Wojtyla) was most emphatic in his "Marian devotion." He made sure to mention the Blessed Mother several times before writing or speaking his latest heresy to ensure that gullible "conservative" members of the sect would think him "holy," and keep in union with him. These usurpers of the See of Peter use what Pope St. Pius X called a "false and lying devotion" to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and attempt to cloak the evil they do under the guise of Marian piety.

 If you really want to see what the false pontiffs of the Vatican II sect think of Mary, look no further than the so-called Focolare Movement. It is also known as Opera di Maria or Work of Mary. Operating with the full backing of the Modernist Vatican, many people don't know of its existence, let alone the heretical motives and teachings of this group. This post will expose the origin and aims of Focolare, and in so doing, the evil of the post-Vatican II "popes," done in the name of Mary, will also be laid bare.

Meet Chiara Lubich

The founder of the Focolare Movement is Chiara Lubich (1920-2008). Born Silvia Lubich in Trent, Italy, she was the daughter of a Socialist father, who was unable get work under Fascist rule. She worked hard to put herself through college and became an elementary school teacher.  When Trent was under siege during the bombings of World War II, Lubich and a couple of close friends were reading the Bible. Lubich experienced what she described as a "strong religious experience" and on December 7, 1943 changed her name to "Chiara" (i.e., "Clare") after St. Clare of Assisi. This date is considered the founding of the Focolare Movement (the name Focolare means "hearth" in Italian, but it is officially known by the Vatican II sect as "The Work of Mary"). 

The Work of Mary (hereinafter "WOM")was given this name because of its alleged link with the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of Christ. Lubich and her friends decided to give this lay movement the interesting motto, "Unity or Death." They wanted to contribute to peace and to achieve the evangelical unity of all people in every social environment. The goal became a world living in unity. It began with this benevolent sounding intention to attract followers. The Modernist theologian, Fr. Pasquale Foresi, became friends with Lubich and helped to shape the group, as did Igino Giordani, a left-wing Italian politician and ecumenist.  They were careful not to draw attention to themselves in the early days of their cause. By using benign sounding phrases and always speaking in general terms, the WOM seemed to be dedicated to uniting all people in the Church. Its true aims wouldn't become clear until 1961 under Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII). 

Apostasy Hiding Behind Mary's Name

The WOM began their ecumenical dialogue in 1961 and have forged ties with Jews, Buddhists, Mohammedans, Hindus, and others. 

From the WOM (or Focolare) website: Our goal: The Movement aims to make a real contribution to breaking down the walls that separate the Churches removing prejudices and providing the space where the different types of ecumenical dialogue  can bear fruit. This ‘dialogue of life’ enables Christians to give witness to the possibility of living together.

The foundation is the Gospel lived under the light of the spirituality of unity, the specific spirituality of the Focolare. Christians from the various Churches, living this spirituality, feel the need to recognize and deepen common patrimony and to also value the sources of spiritual life that are found within the different Churches. The novelty lies in that all feel they are part of a family and are linked by the commandment of Jesus: “I give you a new commandment: love one another; as I have loved you, so you are to love one another. If there is this love among you, then all will know that you are my disciples.” (Jn13,34)

Abject ecumenism: In 1977, in London, Chiara Lubich was awarded the Templeton Prize for progress in religion. She presented her experience before leaders of different religions and had the deep sensation that everyone present, although from different faiths, were like a single family. As she left, it was precisely the people from other religious traditions (Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindu, etc.) who were the first to step up and offer their warm congratulations. This appeared to be evidence that the spirituality of the Movement could be shared not only by Christians, but, to some measure, even with persons of other faiths. For Chiara, these events were a sign from God, showing that the Movement had to open itself to this dialogue with the people of all religious traditions.

On the Jews: Dialogue with the Jews is especially important to Christians. John Paul II spoke of them as our "elder brothers", and Benedict XVI’s "fathers in the faith" further highlighted the deep bond between Christians and Jews.

On Islam: This path of discovery between the spirituality of unity and Islam has had some noteworthy moments: the meeting for Muslim friends held in 2008 in Rome, Italy which was entitled “Love and Mercy in the Bible and in the Holy Koran”. The presentation by Muslim Professor Adnane Morkrani, entitled “Reading the Koran with the Eye of Mercy” was very much appreciated by the Imam and Muslims who were present.

On atheists, agnostics, and other modern day heathens: By the end of the 70s the Movement spread beyond the confines of church and a natural dialogue opened up with agnostics, atheists and people indifferent towards religion. The rapport between all was such that each felt free to express their thoughts certain that unity also means having profound respect for the person, his dignity, identity, culture and needs as well as what he believes in. (All above quotes taken from

Their goal is simple: A one-world, dogma-free religion based on a Modernist notion of "love."

What the One True Church Teaches

On True Unity---Pope Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos # 13): Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate. (Emphasis mine).

On Respecting All Faiths---Pope Leo XIII Custodi Di Quella Fede #15): Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Emphasis mine)

On the Jews---Pope St Gregory the Great, Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers 1:92 If we because of our faith in Christ are deemed children of Abraham, the Jews therefore because of their perfidy have ceased to be His seed. (Emphasis mine)

On Islam---Pope St Pius V, Salvatoris Domini: ...[Moslems] are the enemy of the Catholic faith.

On Atheists and Agnostics---Vatican Council I (1870): 1. If anyone shall say that the One True God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema. 

Focolare is No Work of Mary

The Blessed Mother gave us Christ Who is Truth Itself. It is both blasphemous and inconceivable that she could approve such lies present in the teachings and works of Chiara Lubich and the WOM. It is evident that it comes from the father of lies, and this movement spreads the gravest of errors. Yet, what did the Vatican II "popes" have to say about WOM?

1. John Paul II (Wojtyla)
  • John Paul II requested Lubich's participation as an observer at several meetings of the Synod of "Bishops." He held her as a confidant, and approved the group's activities. They de-emphasize the priesthood and religious life, and only allow a woman to be its president (Currently Maria Voce since the death of Lubich in 2008)
  • On June 29, 1990, the "Pontifical Council for the Laity" decreed recognition of the WOM as an international association of the faithful of pontifical right. The WOM has 140,440 members worldwide as of 2015. The centers of common life ("Focolare") are present in 89 countries as follows: Africa (17), Asia (14), Europe (31), Middle East (6), North America (8), Oceania (3) and South America (10). There are about 4.5 million other people who are involved more broadly in the movement, including 47,000 from other churches; 30,000 co-workers and sympathizers belonging to other religions outside Christianity, and 70,000 co-workers and sympathizers without religious convictions. 
2. Benedict XVI (Ratzinger)
  •  Upon her death in 2008, Benedict XVI regarded Lubich as the “founder of a large spiritual family that embraces multiple domains of evangelization,” and expressed his admiration for Lubich’s constant commitment for "communion in the Church," for ecumenical dialogue, and for fraternity among all people.
3. Francis (Bergoglio)
  • Called the Focolare "a little seed in the Catholic Church’s womb that in the course of the years has brought to life a tree...[which] now extends its branches in all the expressions of the Christian family and also among members of different religions and among many who cultivate justice and solidarity together with the search for truth."
  • Opened the cause for Lubich's "canonization" and gave her the title "Servant of God."


The Focolare Movement is the work of Satan and his minions; the Modernists and Masons. It has nothing to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary and everything to do with hiding behind her glorious name to advance a wicked agenda of a One-World Ecumenical Religion. Don't be fooled by "Rosary rallies," Fatima "canonizations," and flowery sermons on Mary. No one can, for example, pray the Rosary and claim to honor Mary if they then attend the Novus Bogus "mass" that makes an invalid, sacrilegious mockery of her Divine Son's unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross. 

 Likewise, don't be fooled by "popes" who speak sweetly of Mary and then promote a movement named after the Blessed Mother which seeks to undermine her Divine Son and His One True Church. True unity of faith is only achieved by converting everyone to the True Catholic Church, outside of which no one can be saved. The "unity" of Lubich and her wicked disciples is one where the truth is forsaken. The motto initially adopted by the WOM was "Unity or Death." It should be, more aptly, "False Unity AND Eternal Death in Hell." 

Monday, May 15, 2017

Do-It-Yourself Theology

Fred and Bobby Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) are to theology what professional wrestling is to the Olympics. Although the former in each case is phony, they are each more amusing, if nothing else. Our baffled "Benedictine brothers" love to pontificate on every theological topic under the sun, while lacking in any theological training. Moreover, they condemn to Hell anyone who dares to disagree with their opinions (subject to continuous change), and based on their (current) private interpretations of ecclesiastical decrees. It was brought to my attention that our Feeneyite fiends have put out an article entitled "Historical Examples of Approved Theologians Teaching Error."  Ironically, the only errors are in the article, not the approved theologians!

The Dimonds write, "A false doctrine has become somewhat widespread in our day among those who deny the Church’s teaching on salvation and baptism.  The error involves elevating the fallible writings of certain ‘approved’ theologians to the status of the Magisterium.  This is a grave mistake which denies the true rule of faith (the magisterial proclamations) by substituting another in its place (the fallible teaching of theologians).  Having adopted a false rule of faith, these people fall into various errors and heresies, especially on the issue of salvation." Is this really the case? In this post I will put forth the facts surrounding the issue.

Flawed Dimonds

 Before you entrust the care of your immortal soul to Fred and Bobby Dimond, here are the facts about them I have published in the past. They:

  • Claim to be Benedictines, yet are sedevacantists. Having been born in the 1970s, they could not be members of the Traditional Benedictines, so they either are "self-appointed" or were made such by someone in the Vatican II sect they claim to abhor. 
  • Have no formal ecclesiastical training or degrees, yet pontificate on every topic and damn to Hell anyone who disagrees
  • Used to tell people they can attend the Mass of sedevacantist priests who are "heretics" (believe Church teaching on BOD and BOB), as long as they don't contribute money. By the same logic you could attend the Mass of an Eastern Schismatic/Heretic as long as you don't contribute money!
  • Claimed that a Mass with the name of the false pope in the Canon (such as by the SSPX) is a grave evil to attend, yet for years attended the "mass" of the Eastern Rite Vatican II sect which always puts the name of the false pope in the Anaphora (their Canon)
  • Have spread the Feenyite heresy denying Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as forcefully as possible and have made an excommunicated Jesuit, reconciled to the Modernist Vatican and holding to many strange ideas and practices (Fr. Leonard Feeney), an ersatz "hero"
  • Currently tell people they can go to Traditionalist priests for Confession, but not for Mass and Communion, and of course, anyone who disagrees is damned to Hell. They are like the Jehovah's Witnesses sect whose teachings change frequently and often contradict prior teachings
  • Have claimed to know that certain people who died were in Hell (we cannot know, except by special revelation, who is in Hell except for Judas Iscariot)
  • Have an unhealthy fascination with UFOs, and material that's fit to be published in supermarket tabloids
Real Theologians

 The book by Fr. Reginald-Maria Schultes OP, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, was used by priest-students studying for doctoral degrees at Pontifical Universities. Fr. Schultes himself taught at the world-renowned Angelicum University. A theologian is thus defined by him (and recognized by the Church) as "learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church."
 The pre-Vatican II theologians were all clerics (i.e., priests and bishops) who received either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). The latter are known as canonists and apply the proper theological principles to the Sacred Canons to ascertain the correct meaning and application of each Canon to each unique situation. Every theologian had to defend and publish a dissertation before the Board of Examiners of a Pontifical University, and it had to bear an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat declaring the work free from all error against faith and morals.  The breadth and depth of theological knowledge enjoyed by theologians was vastly superior to both laymen and the average priest or bishop because of the excellence of their training.

1. What do we mean by "approved" theologians? Theologians are said to be "approved" at least insofar as (a) they manifest a certain eminence in doctrine in their writings and (b) display orthodoxy at least to the extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the theological schools, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the Magisterium of the Church.

2. Theologians demonstrate, and do not determine Catholic doctrine. Theologians do not determine whether some doctrine is de fide or some other theological note, like "certain."  They merely demonstrate, or manifest, or give witness,  that a particular doctrine is Church teaching and to what degree. They prove their assertions with convincing arguments, so that when theologians reach an objective, morally unanimous consensus, we must accept such conclusions as belonging to the Faith. According to Schultes, theologians   are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, but also to its meaning. (a) In explaining and determining the meaning of dogmas, theologians are considered private teachers with regard to the methods they use (arguments, etc.),but not when they propose a doctrine as a doctrine of the faith or the Church, even though they express its meaning to other persons using other concepts and formulas. (b) The opposite opinion obviously sins against the teaching of the Church regarding the authority of theologians. (c) Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that the Fathers of the Church and her theologians erred in setting forth and explaining the meaning of the doctrine of the faith. This opinion involves the Jansenist error that the faith has been "obscured" in the Church.

 On the subjects of BOD and BOB, theologians may disagree as to what theological note is to be ascribed to them, yet they are unanimous in their teaching that BOD and BOB must be believed. A theological note is a category that tells us how close a teaching is to the truths revealed by God, and which He requires us to believe. For example, a doctrine may be "of the faith" (de fide), the denial of which would be heresy, or "certain," the denial of which would be a direct sin against the Faith, but not heretical. The specific category therefore, has a corresponding censure. However, any category would place the doctrine among teachings that Traditionalist Catholics must adhere to or sin against the Faith. Some theologians simply teach doctrines without assigning theological notes to them, however ALL theologians agree BOD and BOB are in conformity with the truth presented in the Sources of Revelation and the Universal Magisterium, otherwise, they would not teach the doctrines and their works would be censured.

Fr. Fenton's The Concept of Sacred Theology makes clear that Councils, encyclicals, etc, are the raw data the theologian uses for his work. Theology is not simply quoting Church documents, any more than law is not simply quoting the Supreme Court. Thousands of people have (to their detriment) "diagnosed themselves" on  Web MD, thinking they can understand their symptoms and arrive at a correct determination without medical education and training. 

3. The unanimous teaching of the theologians represent the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

The universal and constant agreement of the theologians that something belongs to the faith is not a case of some erudite priests or bishops who can be wrong, nor is it a fallacious appeal to authority. It is how the Church teaches us free from error. It is the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium at work.

Proof: "For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683 (Emphasis mine)

Catholics are bound to believe the teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.

 Proof: "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING POWER [Magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed." Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792; Emphasis mine.

The Code of Canon Law (1917) imposes the same obligation. ( See Canon 1323 section 1). Therefore, to reject the unanimous teachings of the theologians is to reject the teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

4. To reject the unanimous teachings of the theologians is to deny the Infallibility of the Church.
 As demonstrated by theologian Fr. Joachim Salaverri Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: 327,  The consent of theologians in matters of faith and morals is so intimately connected with the teaching Church that an error in the consensus of theologians would necessarily lead the whole Church into error.But the whole Church cannot err in faith and morals. (The Church is infallible.) Therefore, the consensus of theologians in matters of faith and morals is a certain criteria of Divine Tradition.

5. Proof of Church approbation of approved theologians.
(a) The many popes who taught material from the works of the theologians.
(b) The founding, directing, and supervision of the various theological schools by the Magisterium.
(c) Since the Council of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes.
(d) Popes have used theologians as consultants and commissioned them to draw up Magisterial documents. Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange drafted the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) condemning modern errors, and theologian Guerard des Lauriers drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declaring the dogma of the Assumption.
(e) The writings of various theological schools have been praised and recommended by popes. Likewise, the popes and Roman Congregations have been diligent in censoring theologians who go astray. Consider that Frs. John Courtney Murray, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, and Josef Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were all censured in their writings and/or suspected of Modernism. These were the theologians who "hijacked" Vatican II for the new Modernist religion it created.

6. The enemies of theologians.
According to Salaverri (and Church history) they include: Protestants, Jansenists, Humanists, and Modernists.

7. The Magisterium further supports the theologians in the last two Ecumenical Councils.
 From the history of the Council of Trent and Vatican I (1870) it is certain that in the theologians was recognized, as a certain criterion of the truth of faith and morals, the unanimous consent of the theologians or of the theological schools.

8. When the Church has not pronounced a subject closed to debate, the theologians (and theological schools) may disagree. 
By argumentation, the theologians refine their arguments and clarify all sides of an issue until there is consensus, or the Magisterium takes sides. This is NOT "proof" that a theological school (or theologians in general) are "in error."

Examples of Approved Theologians Preventing False Interpretation of Magisterial Pronouncements 

 Chapter II of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (July 18, 1870), declares: "Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse ex ipsius Christi Domini institutione, seu jure divino, ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores; aut Romanum Pontificem non esse beati Petri in eodem primatu successorem: anathema sit."

Translation: "If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema." (Emphasis mine)

 The "plain meaning" of this Magisterial text seems to teach infallibly that there will always be a pope except for the brief period of time between the death of one pope and the election of the next. (False) Conclusion: sedevacantism is heretical as it denies a "perpetual line of successors." Many opponents of sedevacantism have used this decree of the Vatican Council to denounce it. They are as theologically ignorant as the Dimonds, because they reject the theologians and come up with a private interpretation. Here's what real theologians teach about "perpetual successors:"

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)

The (1870) Vatican Council's definition was directed against heretics who contended that (1) the Primacy was an extraordinary power Christ gave to St. Peter alone, (2) Christ did not intend it to be passed along in perpetuity to his successors, and (3) this power either died with Peter, or was passed along to the Church or episcopal college. (See Dorsch, de Ecclesia, 2:191-2) The definition therefore means, "a primacy of true jurisdiction, together with a full scope of rights and duties would continue in the Church, and this in virtue of the will of Christ or by divine law." (Dorsch, Ibid 2:191)

Rightly understood, the First Vatican Council does not oppose sedevacantism at all.

As a second example, Feeneyites are fond of repeating the second infallible canon on baptism from the Council of Trent: "Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: 'Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost,' let him be anathema." Only "true and natural water" can confer baptism, so BOD and BOB cannot be true. Rejecting the theologians (and the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium along with them), the Feeneyites make two fundamental errors. (1) BOD and BOB are not the sacrament of baptism, yet they can confer extra-sacramentally the grace of the sacrament. (2) The canon they cite was not ruling out extraordinary means of salvation by BOD and BOB, it was defining the matter of the sacrament.

 According to theologian Pohle, "That natural water is indispensable for the validity of Baptism has been clearly defined by the Tridentine Council: 'If any one saith that true and natural water is not of necessity for Baptism...let him be anathema.' This declaration excludes the figurative use of the term 'water,' as employed by the later Socinians, and denies Luther's assertion that any liquid that can be used to bathe in, is valid matter for Baptism."

The Alleged "Historical Example" of Approved Theologians Teaching Error

 The Dimonds allege that the Council of Florence dogmatically defined the Canon of Scripture (Books of the Bible) and that after Florence, theologians still disputed the Canon of Scripture. Their whole contention is easily refuted in two points.

1.  Florence did not settle the issue of the Canon of Scripture dogmatically.
You have to be careful with the Council of Florence because not all that came from that Council is considered the dogmatic pronouncement of an ecumenical council. This council was called to deal with the Eastern/ Latin Schism and many of its canons were directed to individual Eastern sects and not to the Universal Church. The portion of the council that dealt with the canon was a bull [a letter] from the pope to one of the Eastern sects (2/4/1442). For that reason it was not and is not accepted as being the formal definition of the Canon. That would later occur at Trent when the matter was taken up specifically for formal definition for the entire church. 

In their attempt to prove Florence definitive, they cite (out of context) Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus #20. Read in context what the pontiff wrote: "But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. For the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it-this system cannot be tolerated. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. These are the words of the last: "The Books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council (Trent) and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical." 

 The "ancient and unchanging truth" that was "solemnly defined"  deals with Divine Inspiration, not the Canon of Scripture! Notice how the pope says the subject was "finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican." The First Vatican Council speaks to the Inspiration of Scripture, not the Canon. "The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council [Trent] and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author." Notice, too, how it mentions the Council of Trent, but not Florence. Hence, it was Trent and not Florence that dogmatically ended the dispute. The very decree of Florence says before the enumeration of Biblical Books, "It professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit." No pope, nor theologian, nor Trent or Vatican I ever cited the Council of Florence as settling the issue of the Canon of Scripture. The fact the Florence got the Canon correct, shows the protection of the Holy Ghost in dogmatic development, and equally shows that the Church has never ruled against unanimous consent of the theologians. An issue not settled and open to debate does not have unanimous consent by definition, and is another matter altogether.

2. If the Dimonds are correct, Pope Leo X was a heretic. 
In their article, the Dimonds claim "after the Council of Florence, a famous cleric, in a Bible approved by Pope Leo X (though not in an infallible capacity), denied the inspiration of the deuterocanonical books." Here, the famous cleric is Cardinal Ximenes. If Florence had been dogmatic on the Canon of Scripture, Pope Leo X would be a heretic. The fact that Pope Leo approved the Bible is a testament to the fact the Canon of Scripture was NOT dogmatically defined. Would the Dimonds dare assert that because Bergoglio didn't "infallibly" allow adulterers to receive "communion" it's not formally heretical? Did Wotyla (John Paul II) escape the charge of heresy because he didn't "infallibly" promulgate the encyclical Ut Unam Sint? He didn't infallibly claim to order anyone to kiss the Koran as he did, so it's somehow not an act of apostasy? I could multiply these examples, but I think you get the point.


 The misfit, malevolent "monks" of MHFM have it exactly backwards. Those who reject the teachings of the theologians, reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and wind up in heresy, not those of us who follow them in keeping with the Church. You can follow the approved theologians of the Church, or let Fred and Bobby Dimond "teach" you. Be careful if you choose the latter. They have no ecclesiastical education or training (probably no secular learning beyond high school) and cannot claim to be real Benedictines. They will read Church documents and "interpret them" for you. They will declare you to be damned to Hell for not following their every utterance, so check their website daily (all their opinions are subject to complete change without notice, so it's up to you to keep abreast). They twist citations to fit their private interpretations, much like good Protestants. 

The only authentic interpreters of doctrine are the makeshift "magisterial" wannabe monks, Fred and Bobby Dimond; the Westboro Baptist version of "Traditionalism." I used to credit them for spreading the truth that the See of Peter is vacant, but the damage they do to souls and the True Church far outweighs the good. They will do anything, no matter how duplicitous, to keep people in their Feeneyite heresy--the one thing they never change--in much the same way the Jehovah's Witness sect will change everything except their doctrine denying people life-saving blood transfusions. 

So the next time Fred and Bobby Dimond come out with more "historical examples" of approved theologians teaching error, I hope you will remember not to put your faith in MHFM--Massively Heretical Fraudulent Monks.