Monday, January 23, 2023

Chiliasm: Will Christ Rule 1,000 Years On Earth?

 


Evangelical Protestants are obsessed with the "End Times" according to their interpretation of The Book of the Apocalypse (referred to by them, and most in the Vatican II sect, as The Book of Revelation).Since the heretical doctrines of "justification by faith alone" (sole fide) and "once saved, always saved" (so-called "perseverance of the saints") guarantee them salvation when they die, there's really not much to do, except to try and see how this world concludes. 

Moreover, Protestants have elaborate and systematic tenets regarding the End Times that are as intricate as they are novel.  The two most debated of these doctrines are those of the Rapture and The Millennial Rule of Christ (aka, Chiliasm from the ancient Greek word khiliasmos, meaning a "thousand"). This post will treat of the Rapture briefly, and focus on Chiliasm. I hear many people (including Vatican II sect members) that Christ will come to rule on Earth for a thousand years. This post will explain why no such occurrence will take place.

The "Rapture"

Originating in the 1700s and popularized in the 1800s, various Protestant sects began to teach that Christians will be taken up in the sky by God before the Antichrist rules the world, after which there will be a literal one thousand year rule of Christ on Earth. Even among Evangelical Protestants, they argue over whether the rapture will take place before, in the middle of, or after the Great Tribulation (referred to as pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib, respectively).  The term "rapture" comes from the Latin word rapiemur--"will be caught up." It is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, one of the "proof-texts" for Protestants: "Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever." (Emphasis mine). 

Surprisingly, some Traditionalists think the rapture to be true, or at least possible, not realizing it conflicts with Church teaching. Protestants point to Scripture verses such as St. Matthew 24:40-41, "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left." And St. Luke 17:34-35, "I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” 

Remember, all of the Bible must be read with Sacred Tradition and the guidance of the Magisterium. Ironically, right after the main "rapture verse" (quoted above in First Thessalonians), in the second epistle to the Thessalonians, we read, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."(Emphasis mine). 

2 Peter 1:20 states, "Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation." (Emphasis mine). Finally, in  2 Peter 3:16, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

Keeping all this in mind, what are we to make of the "rapture" as Traditionalists? Those Biblical "proof- texts" were always taught to be referring to the Second Coming of Christ. For the "rapture Protestants" He comes back, not once "to judge the living and the dead," but twice. This is heresy. The "caught up" refers to the resurrection of the bodies of the just on the Last Day. As for the "one taken, one left," if you read the next chapter in St. Matthew (chapter 25), it speaks of the sheep and the goats being separated on His right and left. The sheep (the Faithful) go body and soul to Heaven, while the goats (the damned) go body and soul to Hell. All pre-Vatican II theologians taught that the Church must endure throughout the Great Tribulation during which the Antichrist comes into power. "But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13). 

The "Millennial Rule" of Christ

Before I get into the specifics of the Millennial Rule of Christ (MRC), it will be necessary to explain the competing views as to when it occurs in relation to the Rapture. I found a Protestant source which succinctly and correctly captures the essence of the four views held:

Dispensational Premillennialism:

Dispensational premillennialists hold that Christ will come before a seven-year period of intense tribulation to take His church (living and dead) into heaven. After this period of fulfillment of divine wrath, He shall then return to rule from a holy city (i.e., the New Jerusalem) over the earthly nations for one thousand years. After these thousand years, Satan, who was bound up during Christ's earthly reign, will be loosed to deceive the nations, gather an army of the deceived, and take up to battle against the Lord. This battle will end in both the judgment of the wicked and Satan and the entrance into the eternal state of glory by the righteous. This view is called premillenialism because it places the return of Christ before the millennium and it is called dispensational because it is founded in the doctrines of dispensationalism.

Historical Premillennialism:

Historical premillennialists place the return of Christ just before the millennium and just after a time of great apostasy and tribulation. After the millennium, Satan will be loosed and Gog and Magog will rise against the kingdom of God; this will be immediately followed by the final judgment. While similar in some respects to the dispensational variety (in that they hold to Christ's return being previous the establishment of a thousand-year earthly reign), historical premillennialism differs in significant ways (notably in their method of interpreting Scripture).

Postmillennialism:

The postmillennialist believes that the millennium is an era (not a literal thousand years) during which Christ will reign over the earth, not from an literal and earthly throne, but through the gradual increase of the Gospel and its power to change lives. After this gradual Christianization of the world, Christ will return and immediately usher the church into their eternal state after judging the wicked. This is called postmillennialism because, by its view, Christ will return after the millennium.

Amillennialism:

The amillennialist believes that the Kingdom of God was inaugurated at Christ's resurrection (hence the term "inaugurated millennialism") at which point he gained victory over both Satan and the Curse. Christ is even now reigning (hence the term "nunc-millennialism" — nunc means "now") at the right hand of the Father over His church. After this present age has ended, Christ will return and immediately usher the church into their eternal state after judging the wicked. The term "amillennialism" is actually a misnomer for it implies that Revelation 20:1-6 is ignored; in fact, the amillennialist's hermeneutic interprets it (and in fact, much of apocalyptic literature) non-literally.

(See blueletterbible.org/faq/mill.cfm). 

Two considerations: (1) by the term "church" the Protestant heretics mean "all who believe in Christ" and not the One True Church which was founded by Christ as hierarchical and visible; (2) dispensational premillennialism is by far the most prevalent view among Evangelical Protestants today. I will focus on the common view of the MRC. 

The millennium is described as a time when Satan will be bound and, after it is completed, the dead will rise. It is based primarily on Apocalypse 20:1-3, "Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time." Pre-millennialists believe the millennium is a literal period of 1,000 years when Christ will rule on Earth after he returns in glory. After this reign, Satan will be released one last time when he, along with death and sin, will be conquered at the end of the world. 

What will Earth be like during this time? One Protestant sect explains it thus: During the Millennium, peace and prosperity will reign. Satan will be bound and can no longer deceive and torment mankind. All of God’s creation will be delivered from the bondage of corruption. Romans 8:22 says, “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” The Millennium will be a time of rest for God’s children. It will be a period of blessedness for all the earth. The fact that the saints will reign with Christ during this time is predicted several times. See Matthew 19:28; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Revelation 3:21; 5:10.  (See apostolicfaith.org). Many Protestants talk about the "lion laying down with the lamb" in perfect peace (ironically, the verse they use does not say this, rather in Isaiah 11:6 it states, "And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them;" Emphasis mine).  

For Traditionalists, we believe that Christ will come again in glory to Judge the living and the dead, Whom He will send to Heaven or Hell. The question now remains, "Is it possible to admit that between Christ's return in glory and the Last Judgement, Christ will rule on Earth for a thousand years?" The One True Church answers with a resounding NO! 

All Forms of Chiliasm are Condemned
(The following section is comprised of the teaching of theologians Sagues, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVB [1955], pgs. 487-492; and theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, [1929], 12:155-160. To these two theological giants I give full attribution---Introibo). 

Chiliasm exists in two forms, Exaggerated [or Crass] Chiliasm and Moderate [or Mitigated] Chiliasm. Proponents of Exaggerated Chiliasm teach that during the MRC there will be sensual pleasures allowed and all will indulge in them. People will neither age nor get sick. The advocates of Moderate Chiliasm say that the pleasures will be of a spiritual nature. The origin of Chiliasm appears to be in the apocryphal writings of the Jews from before Christ which taught of a future time in which humanity will enjoy material goods of every kind; and often some spiritual goods are said to be added to them. Taught about this by Judaism, and interpreting Apocalypse 20 incorrectly, some early members of the Church began to teach Chiliasm, either in Exaggerated or Moderate form. Whereas The Rapture is of recent origin (19th century), Chiliasm goes back to the early Church.

Exaggerated Chiliasm is condemned by all approved theologians as heretical. It stands condemned by the Natural Law, which excludes intemperance and unchastity from the Kingdom of Heaven. It is blasphemous and an insult to Almighty God to assert that Christ, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, hypostatically united to a human nature, will found an Earthly Kingdom of libertines which violates His All-Holy Attributes. It's no wonder that even those Fathers of the Church who entertained Chiliastic ideas vigorously condemned this hedonistic species of MRC as heretical.  

Moderate Chiliasm is erroneous. It contradicts a truth revealed by God but not certainly proposed as such by the Church. To knowingly hold an erroneous doctrine is a mortal sin directly against the Faith. 

Proof: Negatively, the Church has never mentioned in Her authoritative documents and decrees anything about a thousand year Earthly rule by Christ. From the beginning, the One True Church has taught of Christ returning in glory, and then Judging the living and the dead who go immediately to their reward or punishment.  

Positively, there have been two decisions on this topic from the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. In 1941, the Holy Office gave the following response to Archbishop Jacobi of Chile who asked about Chiliasm that was being promoted in his archdiocese: The system of millennialism, even in the mitigated form--namely, the teaching that according to Catholic revelation Christ the Lord will come again before the Last Judgement, whether preceded or not by the resurrection of many just persons, bodily to this Earth in order to reign--cannot be taught safely. Your Excellency should take great care lest the said doctrine be taught, propagated, defended, or recommended under any pretext whatsoever, whether verbally or by writings of any kind. This decision was approved and promulgated by order of Pope Pius XII.

Three years later, in 1944, the Holy Office responded to the following question submitted for a decision: "What should be thought about the system of mitigated millennialism, which teaches that Christ the Lord, before the Last Judgement, whether preceded or not by the resurrection of many just persons, will come into this world visibly in order to reign." Response of the Holy Office: The system of mitigated millennialism cannot be safely taught. This decision was also approved and promulgated by order of Pope Pius XII. Unlike the response of 1941, the Holy Office condemns mitigated millennialism even if taught as a theory and not "according to Catholic revelation," and even if the so-called MRC is "visible" (an apparition of Christ) and not Bodily. Hence, all forms of mitigated millennialism (moderate chiliasm) stand condemned. 

MRC Rejected by Scripture

The Bible nowhere speaks about a MRC. It so joins the general resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgement, which is followed by the immediate execution of the sentence, with the Second Coming of Christ, that it leaves no place for a thousand year kingdom. After the Last Judgement there is no thousand year kingdom for the just, but an eternal one (St. Matthew 25:34). After the resurrection of the dead on the last day (St. John 6:39) there will be on that same day the Last Judgement (St. John 14:48) and the immediate bestowal of reward or punishment ( 1 Thessalonians 4:15). 

Apocalypse chapter 20 does nothing to prove Chiliasm. Both St. Augustine and Pope St. Gregory the Great interpret it thus: The imprisonment of Satan refers to Christ's first coming, and his temporary loosening to His Second Coming (Parousia) at the time of the Antichrist. Christ's "millennial reign" is with His saints in Heaven, where the blessed reign with Him until the resurrection of the dead on the Last Day. Similarly, the term "first death" refers to physical death, and "second death" refers to eternal damnation. The number "one thousand" need not be literal, but indicates an indefinite period time of considerable length. Many Catholic exegetes accept this interpretation. 

MRC Rejected by Sacred Tradition

Despite appearances to the contrary, Chiliasm has no foundation in Tradition. Some early Christians held to Chiliasm, but it was rejected by the Fathers. It was accepted by Tertullian only after he became a heretic. St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus wrote about Chiliasm as a mere personal opinion stated as such. St. Jerome mentions "the fable of a thousand years," and St. Augustine, who at first admitted Chiliasm, subsequently rejected it as false. The great theologian Franzelin in his work De Divina Traditione et Scriptura, [1882], writes, "Therefore, in general, given the constant and firm consensus of the Fathers and Doctors at least from the 5th century up to our own time, there can be no doubt that they rejected this opinion [Chiliasm]." 

Conclusion

If any Protestant, or Vatican II sect member, tells you about "the rapture" and the "Millennial Rule of Christ" which will follow, don't you believe it. Contrary to a popular series of books, we need not worry about being "Left Behind," but rather we must focus on not being led astray. "But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." (St. Matthew 24:13).  

Monday, January 16, 2023

Catholic Identity In Modern Times

 

To My Readers: I hope you enjoy this insightful post by my guest poster, Lee. Please feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific query or comment for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

SPECIAL NOTE: Beginning this week, Lee will be doing as I do; if you want to ask him a question privately, please send a message to the comments below with an email by which you can be contacted. Ask that it not be published and you want the information forwarded to Lee. It will not be published and I will give Lee the contact info. Then, Lee will make contact with a private email which protects his anonymity. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

DISCLAIMER: Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy is cited by Lee in his post. There are many problems with him. First, he was dubiously ordinated a priest by Bp. Gaston-Lopez who apparently botched the ceremony. Coomaraswamy was married at the time, but claimed to be living with his wife while both renounced use of marital relations. The doctor was also friends with Malachi Martin, a snake-in-the grass, who had many problems of his own. It has been brought to my attention that Coomaraswamy was an occultist. His book cited, The Destruction of Christian Tradition, is a work of historical significance, and the passage referenced by Lee contains no errors--it is factual regarding Freemasons and accurately reflects Catholic teaching in all ways. 

Nevertheless, to avoid giving scandal, and to uphold this blog's goal of exposing occultists, Coomaraswamy WILL NEVER BE CITED HERE AGAIN. Furthermore, I cannot, in good conscience, recommend any of his writings, even if orthodox. Occultists are not welcome here. My sincerest thanks to the reader who sent me proof about Coomaraswamy and his occult connection.---Introibo 

Catholic Identity In Modern Times
By Lee

One of the most confusing issues of our time is identity. I'm not going to be talking about somebody who claims to be cisgender, a demigirl, or a hermaphrodite which might be taught at your local library or public/private school. Nor am I going to be talking about the difference between a RINO (Republican In Name Only) compared to a non-RINO. Those things have no doubt received much attention from social media and the news. Something far greater is at stake for 1.2 billion who claim it, so much so that their salvation depends on it. It's Catholic identity.

I grew up thinking I was Catholic and believed I was in the Church knowing a bare minimum of what was required of me to say that made me Catholic. To say I'm a Catholic in a time after Vatican II could mean a variety of things depending on who is asked. Protestants generally understand that a Catholic is somebody who puts too much emphasis on devotion to Mary and who belongs to a bunch of rich and corrupt men connected to the Vatican. A liberal Jew or agnostic would say they wouldn't agree with certain beliefs of a Catholic such as in Christ's teachings and such, but might say they love "Pope" Francis and are more willing to co-exist with them since Francis accepts them as "people of God." Others who generally hate religion altogether will just call Catholics part of a pedophile cabal. The sad reality is the word Catholic among non-Catholics has lost it's good name, due to the effects of a new religion (more on that below).

What about those who claim to be Catholics today? How would they describe what a Catholic is? In the early 50's if you said you were a Catholic it was universally understood that you believed as all Catholics believed outside of local customs and rites in the church. In the 70's it split into two factions, "Liberal" versus "Conservative."

Today there are all sorts of different shades of Catholic grays. If a "priest" at a local diocesan church were asked what is or defines a Catholic, instead of answering it he might revert the question back to you. Whatever the answer you give, he will say something like, "I hope your faith grows in whatever path you choose so as to encounter God's mercy and love." If you ask a cafeteria "Catholic" the question, they might say that it is the religion they were born into and leave it at that. 

A more traditional-minded "priest" who is associated with the FSSP (Latin "Mass" group), or a lay person from that apostolate, might give you a more concrete answer : a Catholic is somebody who is baptized, submits to the Pope as head of the Church, believes all dogmas/doctrines it teaches, and lives out his life with faith, hope, and charity. Nevertheless, when they are pressed with further objections on submitting to the Roman Pontiff by being asked, "If I must submit to Francis as the Roman Pontiff, would it be okay to believe what he believes such as Martin Luther not erring on justification, or that God does not exist but the Three Persons exist, or that God would not be God without man etc.," they might reply by saying the pope can err when not speaking on behalf of the whole Church, or he is only submitted to when he speaks infallibly. However, if you ask any of them if it's okay to believe and practice as "Pope" Francis, some will say "no" as if submission means just merely calling him "pope" while closing their eyes and ears to everything he says and does. Others are afraid to say "no" while not personally agreeing with him on much of anything and remain silent. A contradiction indeed. So what is a Catholic and who is a true Catholic today? 

A Vision from the Enemy

​Taken from his book Destruction of Christian Tradition, Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, this except shows how the enemy (the Freemasons) planned out how there would come a day when people will think they are marching under the banner of Catholicism, when in fact they are marching under the banner of Freemasonic beliefs. Dr. Coomaraswamy writes:

UNHOLY "OBEDIENCE" - AN EXAMPLE TAKEN FROM THE FREEMASONS.

In concluding this chapter, it is of great interest to consider some of the statements of the Freemasons on obedience. According to the Permanent Instruction drawn up by the Grand Masters of Freemasonry (Alta Vendita) in 1819-20, which fell in to the hands of the Church and were published by Pope Pius IX, "we must turn our attention to an ideal that has always been of great concern to man aspiring to the regeneration of all mankind. This ideal is the liberation of Italy, whence is to come the liberation of the entire world and the establishment of a republic of brotherhood and world peace." The document continues:

 "Among the many remedies that have been suggested by the more energetic members of our organization, there is one which we must never forget....The Papacy has always exerted a decisive influence on Italian destinies. Everywhere with the arms, voice, pen and heart of its countless bishops, monks, nuns and the faithful, the Papacy as always found people enthusiastically ready for sacrifice and martyrdom... At the present time we do not intend to rebuild, even for our advantage, this power which has been temporarily weakened [due to the overthrow of the papal states]. Our ultimate purpose is identical with that of Voltaire and the French Revolution: that is, the total annihilation of Catholicism and even of Christianity....

For seventeen hundred years the Papacy has been an essential part of Italian history... We cannot endure such a state of affairs; we must find a remedy for this situation. And here it is! Whoever he may be, the pope will never join the secret societies: therefore, the secret societies must take the first step toward the Church and the pope, for the purpose of vanquishing them both."...

The task we undertake will not be completed in a day, a month, or a year. It may require many years, perhaps even a century... We do not intend to win the pope over to our cause by converting him to our principles or making him their propagator... WHAT WE MUST DO IS WAIT FOR, like the Jews awaiting the Messiah, A POPE SUITABLE FOR OUR PURPOSES. Such a pope alone, will be of greater help to us in our assault on the Church than the little pamphlets of our French brothers or even the gold of England. And why? Because with such a pope we could effectively crush the rock upon which God built His Church... The little finger of Peter's successor would be caught in the plot, and this little finger would be more effective in this crusade than all the Urbans II and all the St. Bernards of Christianity....We have no doubt that we shall achieve this ultimate goal of our efforts... Before we can produce a pope according to our desires, we must produce an entire generation worthy of the kingdom we hope for. 

We must ignore old men and those of middle age. We must seek the young, and if possible, even the very young... Once your good reputation has been established in boarding schools, high schools, universities and seminaries, once you have won the trust of teachers and pupils alike, foster especially in those who are embracing the ecclesiastical state, a desire to associate with you... This reputation of yours will make the younger secular clergy and even the religious receptive to our doctrines. Within a few years, this same younger clergy will, of necessity occupy responsible positions. They will govern, administrate, judge and form the council of the Sovereign Pontiff; some will be called upon to elect a future pope. This pope, like most of his contemporaries, will be to a greater or lesser degree influenced by those Italian and humanitarian principles which we are now circulating. It is a small grain of mustard seed which we entrust to the soil...

Along this path which we now outline for our brethren there are major obstacles to surmount and difficulties of all kinds to overcome. With experience and wisdom, we shall triumph over them. The objective is so glorious that, to reach it, all sails must be unfurled. Do you want to revolutionize Italy? Seek a pope fitting our description. Do you want to establish the kingdom of the elect [i.e., the Masons] on the throne of the Babylonian whore? then INDUCE THE CLERGY TO MARCH UNDER YOUR BANNER, IN THE BELIEF THAT THEY ARE MARCHING UNDER THE PAPAL BANNER. Do you want to make the last trace of tyranny and oppression disappear? Lower your nets like Simon bar Jona; lower them into the sacristies, the seminaries and the monasteries, instead of into the sea. If you do not precipitate events, we promise you a catch of fish even greater than St. Peter's. The fisher of fish became a fisher of men; you will fish for friends at the very feet of St. Peter's Chair. BY SO DOING YOU WILL NET A REVOLUTION CLOTHED IN TIARA AND MANTLE, PRECEDED BY THE CROSS AND PAPAL ENSIGN; A REVOLUTION THAT WILL REQUIRE BUT LITTLE HELP TO SET FIRE TO THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD...IN A HUNDRED YEARS TIME... THE BISHOPS AND PRIESTS WILL THINK THEY ARE MARCHING BEHIND THE BANNER OF THE KEYS OF PETER WHEN IN FACT THEY WILL BE FOLLOWING OUR FLAG... THE REFORMS WILL HAVE TO BE BROUGHT ABOUT IN THE NAME OF OBEDIENCE."


Where is the Church?

To identify as a Catholic one must be a member of Christ's Mystical Body, the Church. Where is it? I can certainly say where it is not. It's not among those who teach and subscribe to the doctrines of Vatican II, which is what the majority of those who call themselves "Catholic" believe.

There are those who say Vatican II can be seen in light of tradition as if it doesn't contradict previous Catholic beliefs. If that is so, why are there many among the hierarchy (and laity), who believe in heretical teachings because of their modern understanding of Vatican II? Where is the unity of faith? Either the Church before Vatican II is the True Church, and the Church after Vatican II is a false one, or vice versa. With that said, if the Church after Vatican II is a false one, where is the One True Church?

Cardinal Manning quoting St. Hippolytus says in his lecture IV "The Churches shall lament with a great lamentation, for there shall be offered no more oblation, nor incense, nor worship acceptable to God. The sacred buildings of the churches shall be as hovels; and the precious body and blood of Christ shall not be manifest in those days; the Liturgy shall be extinct; the chanting of psalms shall cease; the reading of Holy Scripture shall be heard no more. But there shall be upon men darkness, and mourning upon mourning, and woe upon woe.” Then, the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible, hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking-places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were, from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early centuries…."

For many Catholics, this saying is very hard to believe because it speaks in such a way that makes it look as though the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church. It's a guarantee that such a thing shall never happen, as promised by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Below I will again post an article written by Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy titled as such:
 
The Gates Of Hell Shall Not Prevail

 In his great work Coomaraswamy writes:

One of the most frequent arguments in favor of the legitimacy of the post-Conciliar establishment is God's promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail." Implicit in this brief is that is neither possible nor likely that God has abandoned His own. How is one to respond to such an argument.

Let us start with indisputable facts. Whether we believe it or not, and whether it seems possible to us or not, what is abundantly clear is, that after a scandalous Council lacking both regularity and dignity, the Catholic religion has been changed. In the practical order, it has been replaced by another religion, an evolving religion, a religion greatly influenced by Freemasonry and Marxism and inspired throughout by what Popes Pius IX and X clearly rejected under the designation of "Modernism." Having created a "robber" Council that raised a host of errors such as the denial of the Church's "Unity" and Religious Liberty to the level of an infallible teaching, the post-Conciliar "Church" proceeded to abolish the Oath against Modernism and the Holy Office. What other purpose could such measures have than to deprive the Traditional Church - the Church of All Times - of all her defenses? And what followed? The turning of altars into tables, the changing of priests into "presidents," the invalidating of all the sacraments not acceptable to Protestants, the mistranslating of the Scriptures, and above all, the downgrading of Tabernacles and the destruction of the Mass - "humanist" and demagogic changes of the most serious nature. Cardinal Suenens was correct when he described this as "the French Revolution in the Catholic Church."

Consider the principle that "by their fruits you shall know them." Now what are the fruits of the new religion? Priests by the thousands have abandoned their calling - of those remaining over 25% requested and were refused permission to marry. Monks and nuns laicized by the thousands. The seminaries are virtually deserted. The median age for priests in the United States being the late fifties, with an anticipated drop to 40% of the present level by the end of the decade. Far more tragic: despite the wide range of "liturgies" offered - conservative to radical chic - Catholics by the millions have turned away from the Church and for all practical purposes the youth is no longer interested in what she has to offer. Only 15% of the erstwhile faithful still attend Sunday Mass and among these communions are up while confessions are down, suggesting that even sin is dwindling away. Over 80% of married Catholics use birth control and do so in the belief that such violates no divine principle, divorce statistics show no difference between Catholics and others;  and in the practical realm complete chaos exists with regard to sexual behavior.

Along with all this is the corruption, nay destruction of doctrine and theology. The acceptance of evolution as a fact in every realm - be it biology, theology, sociology - even the Teilhardian thesis that God Himself evolves! The abrogation of canons 1399 and 2318, the refusal of the Church to condemn out and out heretics and the blatant indulgence extended to those who like Hans Kung - their name is legion - would poison the thinking of the faithful are symptomatic of the wide-spread modernist malignancy. The self proclaimed "desacralization" and "demytholization" of the Church combined with the misrepresentation of everything traditional has resulted in an all-pervasive familiarity and vulgarity. Recent attempts to cover this over by dressing the presidents (clergy) and nuns in traditional garb has in no way changed the situation.

Let those who have ears hear. The writing was on the wall from the very opening of the Council. But who of us wished to listen. It's leitmotiv was Aggiornamento, a concept inimical to any religion based on eternal verities and Revelation. Roncalli, alias John XXIII, then declared his intention "to safeguard the sacred deposit of the faith more effectively." It does not take much imagination to understand what he meant - and he did not hesitate to declare that "...the substance of the ancient doctrine contained in the deposit of the faith is one thing, the manner in which it is expressed in another..." This claim is false and in fact satanic, for it opened the door to all the betrayals and falsifications that followed. The traditional formulations were not superficial luxuries, they were guarantees of the truth and efficacy; they more then adequately expressed what they wished to say - their adequacy was in fact their raison d'etre. Is not the truth inseparable from its expression? Was it not the strength of the Church that the old expressions were always valid? They only displeased those who wished to make modernism, scientism, evolutionism and socialism part of the "Deposit of the Faith."

One must take a phenomena for what it is. If one sees a tiger in the streets of New York one does not require a news broadcast to know that what one sees is a reality. One can deny its existence only at the risk of one's life.

Despite the obvious, there are those who, desiring to have the "best of both worlds," would exculpate the post-Conciliar Church; and who seek to explain why is it that the "smoke of Satan" has all but obscured "the dome of St. Peter's"? Some claim that it is because the Council and the subsequent innovations were "badly interpreted." But, by whom? Others, loudly proclaiming their loyalty to those usurping the Chair of Peter, claim it is the fault of the bishops and cardinals around him. But who appointed them? Since when has the principle of respondeat superior been abandoned? (Even hell has a hierarchical structure.) Despite the fact that such claims are often motivated by the desire "to cover Noah's drunkenness," they remain a combination of improbabilities and hypocrisy.

Whether we like it or not, this blame must fall primarily upon the post-conciliar "popes." Even though none of us are without an element of culpability, it is they who must bear the burden. It is they who approved the Council and the Reforms, and without their approval neither the Council nor the Reforms would have any meaning or authority. It is they who have misapplied the principles of obedience in order to bring the erstwhile faithful into line. It is they who tolerate every conceivable deviation while condemning out of hand whatever is traditional. They are not individuals who have "fallen into heresy," or who are, as Lefebvre would say, "tainted with Modernism." (Can one have a touch of pregnancy?) They are much worse, for they are heretics who have been elected precisely because they are heretics; men who, by the laws of the traditional Church have long since excommunicated themselves. And this condemnation applies to virtually the entire "electoral body" responsible for the implementation of what can only be described as a modernist conspiracy. It further applies to the sycophant hierarchy which declares itself una cum those in power.

"And Caiaphas was, in his own mind, a benefactor of mankind" (Blake). To speak of a conspiracy is not to deny the sincerity of those involved. But what heretic has ever lacked sincerity? Nor is it to claim that every individual who lent and lends his support is a conscious subversive. (Thou our Lord did said that he who is not with Him was  against Him - not to condemn error is to condone it.) The net result is clear. The Council and its aftermath was achieved by a conspiracy of individuals who Pope Saint Pius X clearly condemned, and against whom he desired to protect the Church. He went so far as to state, in his capacity as Pope and hence ex cathedra, that any individual who even defended a single modernist proposition condemned by his Encyclicals and Lamentabili was ipso facto and latae sententiae excommunicated - that is, by that very fact and without any need for any one to publicly so declare (Praestantia Scripturae, Nov. 18, 1907). No father signing the Council documents and no member of the hierarchy accepting and teaching them, can claim to fall outside this condemnation. Everyone who considers himself "in obedience" to the new Church implicitly accepts its Modernist principles.

Consider Religious Liberty - the idea that every man is free to decide for himself what is true and false, what is right and wrong, and that his very human dignity resides in just this license. Imagine Christ upon the Cross telling us that he came to establish a visible Church - "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic," and to confide to it those truths necessary for our salvation. He continues however to assure us that we have no obligation to listen to Him. - that we are free to choose for ourselves what we shall believe, and that our real human dignity resides, not in conforming to His image, but in making just such choices! Incredible!  And now, some two thousand years later, we find Christ's representative whose function it is to teach us what Christ taught us, assuring us that, as a result of Christ's incarnation, all men, even those who reject the very idea of God, are saved, that Christ's Church, through her own fault, has lost her "unity," and that the Crucifixion is but a "witness to man's human dignity" - his ability to determine for himself what is true and false. Madness reigns supreme!

It will be argued that these false popes have said some nice things. Such however is of no importance or interest in the present situation when we must decide whether or not they are truly Christ's representatives on earth. If they are truly "one hierarchical person" with our Lord, we must obey them. But Catholics must understand that the Pope's infallibility is totally dependent upon his being himself in obedience to Christ, and that when he rejects Christ and falsifies Christ's teaching, we must reject his authority. As Peter said, "one must obey God rather than man." A modernist pope is an impossibility. Either he is a modernist and then he isn't a pope, or he is a pope and then he isn't a modernist. All this is not a matter of picking or choosing what we shall believe. It is a matter of being Catholic. To deny this principle is to declare Christ a liar! St. Catherine of Sienna told us that a Pope who falsifies his function will go to hell, and further, that those of us who obey him will go there with him. Let us be done with those who claim that John Paul II is trying to bring the "Church" back to tradition. The lie is easily exposed. All he has to do is reject Vatican II and restore the traditional sacraments. Short of this he is but a wolf in sheep's clothing pulling the wool over our eyes.

Have the "gates of hell" prevailed?. Certainly not. Catholics know that Christ cannot lie. Let us then examine the meaning of this promise. What it proclaims is that the truth will ultimately win out - though not necessarily so in the "short run." That such is "true" is an intellectual certainty, for error can only be defined in terms of the denial of truth. Now the Catholic Church is true, and hence it can no more be totally destroyed than can the truth itself. But this Church resides, not in numbers, not in buildings, and not even of necessity in the hierarchy. The truth functions ex opere operatio. It resides in the faithful (the hierarchy must be "of the faithful," before they can be "of the hierarchy." Or as the theologians put it, members of the "teaching Church" (the Magisterium) must be first of all members of the "learning Church.") Every baptized infant, according to the traditional rite, becomes a "member of the body of Christ." And what is the Church if not the Body of Christ, the presence of Christ in this world? It follows then that, as Catherine Emerick points out, if there were but one person alive who was truly Catholic, the Church would reside in him.

Visibility is a quality of the Church. Does visibility require a hierarchy. The matter is open to debate, but time has not yet run its course. In any event traditional bishops are available, and if but one traditional bishop survives, the hierarchy would reside in him. What has to be remembered however is that the Church does not exist for the sake of the hierarchy, it is the hierarchy that exists for the sake of the Church. And history has shown that Catholics can live and retain the faith for centuries without any hierarchy. God knows his own and will not abandon them. If a bishop is necessary for the visibility of the Church, He will certainly provide one. Ultimately, it is we who abandon God, his truth and his Church, and never the other way around.

One would have thought that the changes were more than enough to induce the faithful to revolt. The great surprise, truly apocalyptic, was that the Catholic people did not do so. That they did not only goes to show what "sincere, pious, fervent and well intentioned" Catholics really valued. One is tempted to feel sorry for them, but as always, even in such a situation "God knows his own." One must insist upon this, for the truly innocent are far less numerous than one is inclined to believe. The argument that it is not possible or likely that God would abandon his own presumes that "his own" did not deserve to be abandoned, when in fact they did deserve it precisely to the degree that they are in fact abandoned.

 Why did Catholics not revolt?. Well, first of all, many did, but their stand was undermined by poor leadership. Psychologically dependent upon the hierarchy and the clergy, they looked for guidance that was not provided. The Modernists, working for decades, had prepared the ground, and even those who were not out and out subversives had their faith corrupted and hence weakened. At the Council there were perhaps 70 individuals who - towards the end - began to understand what was happening. No more! And among them not one was willing to take a clear cut stand on solid doctrinal grounds. Even Lefebvre based his opposition on false theological premises, arguing for example that one can disobey a valid pope. Secondly, for decades the faithful were both inadequately trained in their faith and discouraged from leading active spiritual lives. Educated in secularized colleges, taught by "liberal" priests, they were by in large modernists without knowing it. And finally, both clergy and laity found the modern world seductively attractive. 

They found the rejection and scorn of the modern world - a world which had repudiated the Church and like the Prodigal Son, had walked away from the bosom of the Father - increasingly intolerable. They could not accept the disapproval of this world in which they believed more strongly than in Christ. The Council declared the Church would henceforth not only be "open to the world," but that it would "embrace" it! Its avowed aim and promise was aggiornamento to bring the Church "into the twentieth century" and make it part of, and acceptable to that world. No longer did she proclaim that it was necessary for the Prodigal son to return to the bosom of the Father. Rather, abandoning both her function and her identity, she proclaimed that the Father was obliged to eat the swill fit only for pigs!. Both clergy and laity - exceptions apart - rushed headlong into to the sea to spend their patrimony as if there was no tomorrow. It is this that is at the heart of the conspiracy. It is this that is the crux of the problem. It is this that created the smoke swirling around St. Peter's Basilica. This spark of rebellion, present in the soul of every man, needed only the "winds of change" to create an inferno.

However, as has always been the case throughout the history of the Church, a remnant persisted in retaining the fullness of the faith. The true Church is to be found among those who believe and continue to believe in the manner of their ancestors. It is they who bear witness to the truth of Christ's promise. It is they who provide the proof that "the gates of hell have not prevailed." Not all are profound theologians. Not all are sinless. But they can be recognized by their insistence on true priests, true doctrine, and the true Mass - the Mass of All Times.

Some would accuse traditional Catholics - those that insist on retaining the fullness of the Catholic faith intact and who therefore refuse the new religion of the post-Conciliar Church, of being in "schism." The accusation is a lie. In reality, the schismatic is one who removes himself from the truth, and not one who insists upon it. And if it is necessary to separate oneself from something in order to save the truth, long live Schism! But in reality, it is not the traditional Catholic who is in Schism, but those who are responsible for changing the Catholic faith. But let is be both clear and honest. The new Church is not schismatic. It is heretical. In similar manner traditional Catholics are accused of being Protestants because they disobey the pope. Such accusations are false. Traditional Catholics do not "pick and choose" what they wish to believe; they are adhering with all their hearts to what the Church has always taught and always done. 

Nor are they disobeying the pope. They believe that the pope, being Christ's vicar on earth and "one hierarchical person" with our Lord, is to be obeyed. They know that when Peter speaks he is infallible because it is Christ who speaks through him. They are the out and out papists and are doing nothing less than refusing to disobey Peter. In such a situation they are obliged to disobey those who falsely speak in Peter's name. To obey modernist and heretical "popes" is to declare that they are "one hierarchical person" with our Lord and hence that Christ teaches falsely - quod absit!

It is an unfortunate fact that too many of the traditionalists do not wish to be labeled "integrists." or "sedevacantists." And why not? Why should they stop mid way? Such only leads to wrangling about the most absurd positions, or to timidity of language combined with conventional and infantile sentimentalities. If the post-Conciliar "popes" are true popes, let us obey them. If not, let us obey Peter and through him Christ. People claim to be "confused" or "troubled." Why? The ancient catechisms are always there and modern innovations are no different in principle than those of a prior era. Sin can change its style, but not its nature. "There is no greater right than that of truth," and despite the teaching of Vatican II, "error has no rights whatsoever."

Traditional Catholics often give scandal by arguing among themselves. The new Church in comparison seems more united. In point of fact it is, for it accepts within its aegis every conceivable deviation. But if traditional Catholics seem divided it is because, in the absence of clear leadership, each individual group seeks to determine just what is truly Catholic for itself. What is required is a deeper study and commitment to what is truly Catholic on the part of all. Paraphrasing Lenin, let us have no enemies on the right - none more orthodox and none more traditional than ourselves. Let us be united in the truth manifested in the constant teaching and practice of the Church throughout the ages. So help us God.

It is extraordinary that modern churchman should claim to be reading "the signs of the times." Christ depicted the "last times" in very somber colors. Scripture warns of an unparalleled outbreak of evil, called by St. Paul an Apostasy, in the midst of which a terrible Man of Sin and child of perdition, the special singular enemy of Christ, or Antichrist will appear; that this will be when revolutions prevail and the present framework of society breaks to pieces. We are told that they "shall defile the sanctuary of strength and shall take away the continual sacrifice and they shall place there the abomination unto desolation." Does not Jeremias speak in God's Name when he says "My Tabernacle is laid waste, all My cords are broken: My children are gone out from Me, and they are not... Because the pastors have done foolishly, and have not sought the Lord." And are we not told that "many false Christs will arise," that false doctrines will be preached and that even the seeming elect will be deceived? 

Finally, is not Christ specific when He tells us that at the final coming only a "remnant" will be left - a remnant persecuted by the Antichrist? Despite such warnings the modern Sanhedrin in Rome insist on supporting and fostering the forces of revolution. They proclaim their intention to create a better world, in which the principles of the French Revolution are brought to fruition - where all men will be free, equal, and live in brotherly peace. And with this in view they have committed themselves to the creation of a one world religion in which all men - even atheists - will be gathered together as "the people of God," and salvation will be as Vatican II preaches, "a communitarian process." Fortunately traditional Catholics can also read the signs of the times. They see in all this the fulfillment of the Scriptural prophecies. This is why they insist on being a traditional Remnant. May God give them the gift of perseverance.

"It is necessary that scandals should occur..." And this is not because of some arbitrary decision on the part of a personal God - quod absit - but because of the necessary ontological "play" that results from All Possibility, and which relates inevitably to the contradictions and privations without which the world would not be in existence. God does not desire "a given evil," but He tolerates 'evil as such" in view of a still greater good that results from it. Ad majorem Dei gloriam.

Conclusion
Despite the Church suffering immensely, not only from the lack of a Head, but most of it's Body, the hierarchy, She will always be in those who are baptized, profess it's dogmatic and doctrinal teachings, and obey lawful authority. Today, lawful authority has been reduced to tradition and those bishops and priests who, without papal appointment (because there has not been a pope for many years), substitute not as intruders, but as the last crumbs left on the table who have remained Catholic. The true intruders are masquerading throughout the whole world as imposters of the new Counterfeit Catholicism. 

Just as "the Grinch stole Christmas," heretics, apostates, and schismatics have stolen the Catholic name. The difference lies in the fact that they will not grow a heart big enough to give it back to those who are Catholic, unless a great miracle happens and they convert from the poison of Modernism. For the sake of informing the misinformed, when we say "I'm Catholic," we must explain what it always has meant and what it doesn't mean, as some might think. No matter what, I will still say gladly with St. Athanasius, "Christian my name, Catholic my surname."

Monday, January 9, 2023

Bad Medicine For Body And Soul: The Errors Of Homeopathy

 


Homeopathic medicine has seen a resurgence in popularity in the past few decades. Many homeopathic remedies are on the shelves at numerous drug stores, as they are typically over-the-counter treatments that customers can purchase without a prescription. Over six million people in the United States, and 200 to 300 million people worldwide, use homeopathy. According to statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO), homeopathy is practiced and is available in 40 out of 42 European nations. In France, 95% of all GPs, pediatricians and dermatologists use homeopathic remedies in their practices. The Swiss government recently concluded that homeopathy is “effective, cost-effective and safe.” The Swiss government now recognizes homeopathy as having a status equal to that of ordinary medicine.
  
(See timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/voices/despite-all-odds-homeopathy-continues-to-gain-popularity; See also World Health Report, WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine).

So what difference does the use of an alternative medical treatment have to do with the Faith? In the case of homeopathy, quite a lot. Not only is homeopathy capable of harming your body, it is based on occult ideas from its founder, who was a Freemason. It can lead to the acceptance of spiritual ideas antithetical to the One True Church. This post will outline the origin and purpose of homeopathy, as well as expose its physical and spiritual dangers. (In addition to the sources listed below, I have drawn heavily upon many other papers and books on homeopathy, most notably Samuel Hahnemann, Organon of Medicine, 6th edition, reprint [1978]; and Martin Gumpert, Hahnemann: The Adventurous Career of a Medical Rebel [1945]. My post is my compilation and condensation of the pertinent sources. All credit I give to the appropriate authors, and I take credit only for putting their works into a concise and thorough post.---Introibo). 

Origin and Purpose of Homeopathy
The word “homeopathy” comes from two Greek words which reflect this basic idea; Homoios, meaning like or similar and pathos meaning pain or suffering. Homeopathic medicine, then, is that substance which produces similar pain or suffering in a healthy person to that experienced by a sick person. According to the British National Health Service (NHS):

Homeopathy is a complementary or alternative medicine. This means that homeopathy is different from treatments that are part of conventional Western medicine in important ways.

It's based on a series of ideas developed in the 1790s by a German doctor called Samuel Hahnemann.

A central principle of the "treatment" is that "like cures like" – that a substance that causes certain symptoms can also help to remove those symptoms.

A second central principle is based around a process of dilution and shaking called succession.

Practitioners believe that the more a substance is diluted in this way, the greater its power to treat symptoms.

Many homeopathic remedies consist of substances that have been diluted many times in water until there's none, or almost none, of the original substance left.

Homeopathy is used to "treat" an extremely wide range of conditions, including physical conditions such as asthma and psychological conditions such as depression.(See nhs.uk/conditions/homeopathy/#:~:text=Homeopathy%20is%20a%20%22treatment%22%20based,than%20placebos%20(dummy%20treatments; Emphasis mine).

Discovering how homeopathy began is crucial to understanding why it is a false method of diagnosis and treatment. Homeopathy was developed by Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). In 1810 Hahnemann published his Organon of the Rational Art of Healing, the “Bible” of classical homeopathy. Editions today are frequently titled Organon of Medicine.

Dr. Hahnemann was translating a book which had described the effects of quinine or Peruvian bark on malaria. Out of curiosity, Hahnemann took the drug himself and discovered that it ap­peared to cause symptoms similar to malaria: general malaise, chills, fever, etc. Hahnemann was struck with a revolutionary thought: The possibility that a substance which causes symp­toms in a healthy person might cure those symptoms in a sick person. He therefore continued testing this idea on other substances using himself, his friends, and his family as subjects. Believing the results confirmed his theory, he developed the basic theory of homeopathy: “like cures like.” In other words, any substance producing symptoms in a healthy person similar to those symptoms in a sick person will cure the sick person. The idea was born from this experience and Hahnemann's occult ideas he received from Freemasonry. 

In 1774, Samuel Hahnemann, a 19-year-old with very little money, left his home, in Meissen, Germany, for Leipzig University to study medicine. Although he tried to earn money as a translator, making ends meet was very difficult for him. On the brink of starvation, he was introduced to an opulent Transylvanian baron, Samuel Brukenthal, the head of the Madgeburg Freemasons' Lodge. Hahnemann was initiated into the Lodge in Hermannstadt, Transylvania, in October 1777 (one of the first Lodges). He quickly came to esteem the many itinerant "teachers of mysteries" who were indoctrinating the Lodges in such matters as alchemy and spiritism. The next section deals with the dangers to your Faith inherent in homeopathy.

Occult "Energy"
 Hahnemann never even attempted to explain scientifically how "medicine," diluted to a point in some cases where there's almost nothing left of the substance, makes it "stronger." This is one of the two key points of homeopathy:

  • “Like cures like”—the notion that a disease can be cured by a substance that produces similar symptoms in healthy people.
  • “Law of minimum dose”—the notion that the lower the dose of the medication, the greater its effectiveness. Many homeopathic products are so diluted that no molecules of the original substance remain.
(See nccih.nih.gov/health/homeopathy; Emphasis mine). 

How can a substance that, in some cases, is literally no longer present be stronger than when it's present? How can a dilute substance be stronger than the same substance less diluted? Hahnemann has formulated a whole doctrine explaining this logical impossibility. First, he considers man as a tripartite being composed of:
  • will and thought (the inward man)
  • vital energy, spirit substance or immaterial essence (the ethereal body of the occult anthroposophists, the god Prana of the Hindus)
  • the body which is material
Here is Hahnemann in his own words taken from Organon of Medicine:
  • In the state of health, the dynamistic, immaterial, vital energy, animating the material part of the human body, reigns absolutely
  • A person becomes ill when a diseased agent infiltrates the body and disturbs the vital energy by dynamistic influence
  • It’s only when the vital principle is troubled by a diseased element (that is to say by the intrinsic nature of a virus in the form of incorporeal substance) that it emits reactions and symptoms of disease (Emphasis in all these quotes mine).
Here's the really disturbing part. To find the cure for a malady, that’s to say, the herb for the original tincture of the preparation, the researchers often have recourse to occult practices such as the pendulum. Dr. A. Voegeli, a famous homeopathic doctor, has confirmed that a very high percentage of homeopaths work with the pendulum. There are groups whose research is carried out during seances, through mediums who seek information from spirits. (See alopsis.gr/afieroma/af-homeopathy-examined-h-j-bopp-m-d-neuchatel-switzerland). Moreover, Hahnemann, like many homeopaths today utilize Masonic and occult mixing-and-shaking rituals with pendulums and invocations of spirits. 

Hahnemann held to many and varied occult teachings in addition to those in the Masonic Temples. He rejected Christianity, identified with Eastern religions, and took Confucius as his model. One biographer says, “The reverence for Eastern thought was not just Hahnemann’s personal hobby, but rather the fundamental philosophy behind the preparation of homeopathic remedies” (See Samuel Pfeifer, Healing at Any Price, [1988], p. 68). He was a follower of Emanuel Swedenborg, who taught his followers to enter an alternative state of consciousness in order to commune with spirits. Hahnemann called the occultic practices of Franz Mesmer “a marvelous, priceless gift of God” by which “the vital energy of the healthy mesmerizer endowed with this power [can be brought] into another person dynamically” (See Organon of Medicine, 6th edition, pp. 309, 311). Hahnemann held to the panentheist view that God is in all things, like the soul is in the body.

Maleficium
While the homeopathic "medicine" may contain none of the substance because it was diluted into nothing, it may contain maleficium, a Latin term for any magickal act intended to cause harm. According to theologian Szymanski, "Maleficium (occult potions, powders, and other substances) placed in food or drink can cause possession. The devil has his agents who prepare these diabolical substances by which he [Satan or a demon] is able to enter human and animal bodies." (See The Truth About The Devil, [1944], pg. 20). The same would no doubt hold true of "medicine" containing maleficium made during "Masonic and occult mixing-and-shaking rituals with pendulums and invocations of spirits." 

Harmful to the Body
Here is a perfect evaluation of how homeopathy is either ineffective (at best) and harmful (at worst) to your bodily health:

Homeopathy claims to use only “natural” substances. This is an attempt to contrast itself with conventional medicine. For example, homeopathic remedies include raw bovine testicles, crushed honey bees (Apis mellifica), Belladonna (deadly nightshade), cadmium, sulfur, poison nut (Nux vomica), hemlock (Conium), silica (Silicea), monkshood (Aconite), salt (Natrium mur), mountain daisy (Arnica), venom of the Bushmaster snake (Lachesis), arsenic (Arsenicum album), Spanish fly (Cantharis), rattlesnake venom (Crotalus horridus), Ipecac (Ipecacuahna), dog milk (Lac canidum), poison ivy (Rhus toxicodendron), and more. Some of these substances are quite harmless, but others can be toxic (especially at D4 and lower dilutions).

How did Hahnemann know that a remedy was appropriate for a particular disease (actually for a particular symptom)? Hahnemann and his students tested remedies on themselves. They would eat various plant, animal, and mineral substances and carefully observe what symptoms occurred. This is called “proving.” These reactions (or symptoms) were collected together into a book Materia Medica. For example, one of the symptoms of Pulsatilla (windflower) is “An unpleasant message makes him deeply sad and depressed after 20 hours.” During provings, the people knew which substance they were taking. This is a problem because one might anticipate a certain reaction or exaggerate some symptom.

Today, in modern science, we try to prevent this bias by not letting the person know what he or she is taking — a “test-blind” procedure. When evaluating symptoms, it is also important that the researcher does not know which remedy is being tested (a double-blind procedure) because the researcher can also be biased.

One recent German study did compare a remedy (Belladonna C30) to a placebo. Those who received the placebo reported even more symptoms than those who received the remedy. The symptoms reported included minor aches and pains in various parts of the body. Did the patient mistakenly assume that a normal ache or pain must be related to the remedy? It is possible that the ache or pain was the result of a confounding factor such as not enough sleep.

As we can see, homeopathy is not concerned with the disease. It concentrates on the symptoms reported by the patient. Homeopathy then matches these symptoms to those symptoms that a remedy causes in a healthy person. By contrast, scientific bio-medicine uses symptoms to identify the disease and then treats the disease itself.

Research

There are two points of view about homeopathy that are in conflict. One viewpoint says that homeopathy should not attempt to meet the rigorous requirements of scientific medicine. It is sufficient that there have been millions of satisfied patients during the last 200 years. Science is not relevant anyway because it rejects the concept of the energy of the “vital force” which is essential to homeopathy. This vital force is identical to the concept of vitalism — a primitive concept used to explain health and disease. And, besides, scientific medicine is unfairly prejudiced and biased against homeopathy. Dana Ullman, a leading spokesman for American homeopathy, says that personal experience is much more convincing than any experiments. The emphasis on experience shows that most people simply do not understand that good science, based upon experiments, is essential to the development of knowledge.

The second viewpoint is that scientific research is necessary if homeopathy is to be accepted by medicine and society. In the past 15 years many experimental studies have been done to examine homeopathic remedies. Two reviews of homeopathy are perhaps the best known.

J. Kleinjen, P. Knipschild, and G. ter Riet examined 107 controlled clinical trials of homeopathy. They concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to support the claims of homeopathy. C. Hill and F. Doyon examined 40 other clinical studies. They also concluded that there was no acceptable evidence that homeopathy is effective. Since the above reviews were written, four more research studies have appeared.

In 1992 the homeopathic treatment of plantar warts (on the feet) was examined. The homeopathic treatment was no more effective than a placebo.

A report in May 1994 examined the homeopathic treatment of diarrhea in children who lived in Nicaragua. On Day 3 of treatment the homeopathic group had one less unformed stool than the control group (3.1 Vs 2.1; p <.05). However, critics pointed out that not only were the sickest children excluded, but there were no significant differences on Days 1, 2, 4, or 5. This suggests that the conclusion was not valid. Further, there was no assurance that the homeopathic remedy was not adulterated (contaminated). Finally, standard remedies which halt diarrhea were not used for comparison purposes...

Sometimes we can learn much about a topic by examining who or what it associates with. In the first 100 years, homeopathy was closely associated with many pseudosciences including Mesmerism and phrenology. In the United States, many early homeopaths were members of the mystical cult of Swedenborgianism. Unfortunately, this has not changed today... Many homeopaths use iridology, reflexology, dowsing, and electrodiagnosis. None of these methods has scientific validity. In America, if you want to learn more about homeopathy, the best place to go is to any New Age bookstore or meeting place. 

(See quackwatch.org/homeopathy/articles/wagner).

Conclusion
Homeopathy is bad "medicine" that can harm both your body and (more importantly) your soul. Do not seek the services of some homeopath and warn anyone who does go of the inherent peril. None of the claimed evidences offered in support of homeopathy, theoretical or practical, proves that homeopathy is an effective medical procedure. Not only does homeopathy fail to operate under the principles of scientific medicine, it may cause bodily harm and involve one, unwittingly, in the occult that can lead to demonic possession. 

Addendum: Did True Popes Give Approval To Homeopathy?
A reader/commenter wrote an often used story of homeopaths, namely, that several true popes used homeopathy and gave honor to homeopathic doctors. I said it was false and calumnious--not on the part of the commenter, but of the homeopaths that spread these stories. There are several major problems. It is alleged that different popes used homeopathy. All of the sources I've seen are from homeopaths.

Moreover, the popes who allegedly used or approved homeopathy vary. The list of popes includes Popes Gregory XVI, Pius IX, St. Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, and false pope Wojtyla. For obvious reasons, I will not count Wojtyla. 

Problems:
1. During this era of history (from Gregory XVI to St. Pius X), doctors employed methods such as bleeding and blistering to cure patients, or they relied upon herbal mixtures of one kind or another because they had not yet developed methods for creating effective medicines. Many put any herbal remedy under the umbrella term "homeopathy," although it wasn't actually such. There is still confusion about the two today. (See fullcirclewomenshealth.com/blog/mind-body-spirit/2013/12/29/hello-world-2/). 

2. Homeopaths cite...each other! In this particular homeopathic website sueyounghistories.com, gives the follow "proof" of approval from Pope Pius IX:

(a) Ferdinand de Lesseps was a negotiator for Pope Pius IX. It links to a Wikipedia page on de Lesseps, and it does not state that he was a homeopathic practitioner, or that he used homeopathy. Note that he was a negotiator for Pope Pius IX, not an ersatz doctor or medical consultant. Even if, ad arguendo, he used/practiced homeopathy on the side, how would we know the Pontiff was even aware of such? He was doing negotiations in the diplomatic realm.  

(b) Pope Pius IX also granted Alexandre Charge the Order of St. Gregory the Great for travelling to the South of Frace (sic) to treat a major cholera epidemic with homeopathy, and for the exceptional care he provided at this time. The information is taken from a book, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy, written in 2007 by Dana Ullman, who is one of the biggest promoters and apologists for homeopathy. In turn, The Homeopathic Revolution cites to an 1863 writing by W.F. Hunt, The Condition of Homeopathy in Europe, Transactions of the New York State Homeopathic Medical Society, [1863], pgs. 118–123---another homeopath. In no case is there proof of such an honor bestowed for practicing homeopathy except the ipse dixit of the homeopaths themselves. Even if I stipulate that the event occurred, was the honor for actual homeopathy, or herbal remedies? This is not the kind of "proof" that gives reassurance as to the truth of the statement asserted. 

(c) In 1847, Francois Perrussel received a special apostolic letter from Pope Pius IX in remembrance of his work The Truth in Medicine Found and Demonstrated by the Laws of Universal Attraction. The proof? This link: homeoint.org/seror/biograph/perrussel.htm, which begins, "A Mexican magazine for February 25, 1873, contains the following :" Really? "A certain Mexican magazine"? The page ends with this whopper: "The above has been condensed from very interesting accounts by Drs. Chauvet and Leboucher in the Bibliothèque Homoeopathique, vol. 5." Again, a homeopathic source! If such a letter existed, the contents--verbatim--should be published, and now it could be photographed and published. Maybe we should believe Perrussel got rid of such an honor and/or did not allow its publication?

3. The case of Pope Pius XII.
 The pro-homeopathy website:
 homeopath.lt/homeopathy_news_information, states The personal doctor of Pius XII was homeopath Galeazzi-Lisi, succeeded by another homeopath professor Negro, who was also the doctor of Paul VI. I found no mention of Dr. Galeazzi-Lisi to have been a homeopath. According to the New York Times, he used a different method of the embalming process using herbs and spices without draining the body of its fluids, "like Christ." He botched the job of embalming Pope Pius XII so badly, the body literally decomposed before the eyes of the mourners.  The stench was so acrid that the Swiss Guards could not take it, and Pope Pius' body had to be rotated every 15 minutes. 
(See theguardian.com/world/2001/jun/04/catholicism.religion). 

Could he have been a homeopath and occultist unknown to the pope, and used his herbs to desecrate the body? Who knows, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, so I won't go there. However, one thing is certain--there is no solid evidence that any true pope endorsed occult homeopathy.---Introibo

Monday, January 2, 2023

Contending For The Faith---Part 11

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:
  • The existence and attributes of God
  • The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
  • The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
  • The truth of Catholic moral teaching
  • The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 
In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

SPECIAL NOTE TO MY READERS: Happy New Year 2023! It's hard to believe but this is the 600th (yes, six hundredth) post to be published since I began on June 2, 2010. Please pray for my guest posters Lee, Joanna From Poland, and me. Please ask that we may continue to write as a means of serving Christ, and to the edification of the faithful. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Miraculous Cures
The Church has always been extremely careful when declaring a cure as miraculous. Such cures are most often the subject of beatifications and canonizations. This post will set forth Church teaching on miraculous cures in regard to beatifications/canonizations and what the Vatican II sect has done to make a mockery of sainthood and the truly miraculous. 

Brief Summary of Church Teaching on Miracles
The definition of a miracle. According to theologian Parente, the word miracle comes from the Latin word miror---I wonder. In the broad sense, it is an extraordinary event which calls attention and excites wonder. Theologians explain it is: (a) done by God as principle cause; (b) done in the world; (c) in a way superior to all forces of nature; and outside or above, but not in violation of the laws of nature, but by an exceptional happening brought about by a divine power that intervenes in created things, producing an effect superior to their natural power. The possibility of the miracle rests chiefly on the absolute dominion of God as the First and Free Cause of the Universe, Whose laws are subordinate to Him and cannot limit either His freedom of action or His power. Only the logically impossible and that which violates His Nature (sin) are impossible to Him. (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, [1951], pg. 188).  

Miracles are an effect wrought in nature by the direct intervention of God. They are proofs of the truth of the Catholic religion.

Proof: From the Oath Against Modernism promulgated by Pope St. Pius X for all clerics on September 1, 1910:

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. (Emphasis mine)

From the Vatican Council (1870):

If anyone shall say that miracles are impossible, and therefore that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy Scripture, are to be dismissed as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine origin of Christianity cannot be proved by them; let him be anathema.


Miracles cannot be used to help give credibility to that which is false. Any "miracle" that does so is either (a) naturally explained, and therefore not a miracle, or (b) of demonic origin.

Proof: A miracle is a deed that is sensible, extraordinary, and of divine origin. Hence, since transubstantiation is not sensible, it cannot be considered a miracle in the strict sense. Miracles can only be used to support that which is true and good. It is impossible for God to deceive. Moreover, God would equivalently be producing falsehood if He were performing some miracles in order to demonstrate that some false doctrines or a doctrine that is altogether human has been revealed by Himself. We should recognize that God allows extraordinary things to be performed by the devil. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 1:40-45; Emphasis mine). 

God can (and does) permit miracles for the benefit of unbelievers. This is why some falsely claim that "miracles happen in all religions." 

According to theologian Lepicier:
We readily admit that miracles can be worked outside the Catholic body in exceptional and individual cases, since the Holy Ghost is free to seek His instruments where He will. This creates no difficulty especially when the miracle-worker is a man of holy life and has no other aim in his works but the honor of God...as their [miracles] purpose [is] to furnish extra proofs of the existence of the supernatural order. (See Le Miracle, [1936], pg. 518; Emphasis mine). 

It is certain that in no religion except the One True Church of Christ do miracles occur commonly under the full glare of scientific investigation and prove Her Divine Origin. However, the sheep that have gone astray are still under the watchful eye of the Good Shepard. The confusion of tongues at the Tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Pharaoh's dreams, and the plagues of Egypt are some examples of of miracles performed primarily for the benefit of unbelievers.  

Summary of the Requirements for a Miracle
Cardinal-theologian Lepicier gives the requirements for a miracle as follows:

  • the event must take place comparatively rarely. God did not create the world to interfere constantly with its laws
  • since it is Divine in origin, the event must be of a reasonable and moral nature, with no trace of deception or sleight of hand
  • it must always have a recognizable spiritual purpose
  • it must bring about a general or individual good
  • it is often instantaneous, but it can be progressive when God uses secondary causes
Miraculous effects should be lasting, but that is not absolutely indispensable. A cure may be granted to demonstrate the existence of God or the efficacy of prayer, or to permit some useful action to be performed; its purpose once achieved, the disease, arrested as though by an antibiotic, may resume its natural course. Miracles, in general, correspond to prayer. (See Ibid; my summary of the information given). 

While we must believe in miracles (especially those contained in the Holy Bible), we are not bound to believe in every specific event claimed to be miraculous. We should only give credence to those events considered miracles by the authority of the Church. 

Proof: Many events thought to be miraculous were denied as such by the Magisterium of the Church prior to the defection of the hierarchy at Vatican II. 

  • Many people claimed that they saw the statue of Our Lady of Assisi move and smile. (1948) The Church later declared there was no apparition of Our Lady in Assisi, and no miraculous events.
  • There are people hundreds of years into the canonization process as of 1958 (death of Pope Pius XII) whose alleged miracles were never confirmed despite large numbers of witnesses.
  • Theresa Neumann (d. 1962) was alleged to have survived only on the Eucharist for 30 years, and claimed the stigmata. The Church has never confirmed nor denied these miraculous claims which were investigated beginning in 1928.

Miraculous Cures in the Canonization Process
[This information comes from the writings of the holy medical doctor, Dr. Francois Leuret, M.D. He was frequently called by the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Under Canon 253, the Congregation, in addition to its duties regarding discipline of worship and the sacraments, also has its competence extending "...to all that in any way concerns the beatification and canonization of the servants of God, as well as sacred relics." The Congregation would call in physicians of the highest learning and most eminent experience to help determine legitimate miraculous cures. Dr. Leuret was one such medical expert, and he was at the Medical Bureau in Lourdes to determine miraculous cures there as well. He has written extensively on the proceedings of the Congregation of Rites and the medical process in determining miraculous cures. Although not a theologian, all his writings were given both the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur pre-1958, thereby ensuring beyond doubt that they are free of doctrinal and moral errors. All credit to Dr. Leuret---Introibo]

As a general rule, two miracles are required for beatification. The less conclusive is the evidence for virtues, the more miracles are demanded by the Church. This is the idea behind the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites dated April 23, 1741, which requires two miracles if the witnesses to the heroic virtues were eyewitnesses, and four if the evidence for heroic virtue or martyrdom was not derived from eyewitnesses. This was modified by Pope Benedict XIV on July 17, 1744; two miracles suffice if the witnesses merely received the information from eyewitnesses, information received from other meant three miracles were required. The rule does not apply to martyrs.

In the case of martyrs, if the fact of martyrdom is clearly established, marvelous signs called prodigies may suffice. A prodigy is an inexplicable happenings, the miraculous nature of which is not subjected to any rigorous proof. After the Congregation has passed the decree on martyrdom, the Congregation next must decide whether these marvelous signs are sufficient, whether they must be verified as miracles, or whether two other declared miracles are necessary. The pope, in the decree on martyrdom, may dispense from this, as was the case on March 25, 1945, for Maria Goretti, who would be canonized on June 25, 1950 by Pope Pius XII. 

When deciding a miraculous cure, two medical experts are called to make a complete report. They must have extensive knowledge of,  and specialize in, the diagnosis and treatment of the particular disease in question. The expert doctors' reports, concisely worded and supported by clear arguments, must reply to the following two queries:

1. If a cure is alleged, can the person in whose favor it is claimed be held as truly cured?

2. Can the fact put forward as miraculous be explained by the laws of nature or not? 

Pope Benedict XIV lists the seven characteristics which stamp a cure as miraculous:

1. The disease must be serious and impossible, or at least very difficult, to cure.

2. The disease must not have reached a stage at which it was liable to disappear shortly of its own accord.

3. No medical treatment must have been applied, or if it were, it must have certainly been ineffectual.

4. The cure must be sudden, instantaneous. [it can be progressive when God uses secondary causes]

5. The cure must be complete.

6. It must not be preceded by any crisis due to natural causes at the expected time; otherwise the cure, far from being miraculous, must be considered wholly or partially as natural.

7. Finally, there must be no relapse into the same disease after the cure. [Within due time limits. Hence, a  21 year old man cured miraculously of cancer, could get cancer at age 81, and it in no way implies the cure 60 years prior wasn't miraculous]. 

(See Pope Benedict XIV, On the Beatification and Canonization of Servants of God; Explanations in red font mine). 

A preparatory session of the Congregation looks over the reports. They look over the reports and decide if  they proceed to the entire Congregation in a general meeting with the pope himself presiding. If the medical reports disagree in any way, more experts are called in until enough information is supplied. If the preparatory session votes in the negative, the cause goes no further. If the vote is in the affirmative, the cause goes forward.

If the cause moves forward, the Congregation meets in the presence of the pope, and an outline of the whole case for the servant of God is presented to His Holiness. The arguments for and against beatification are made. After several days, the pope himself decides if the miracles are genuine. If the pope decides they are, the decree of approbation of miracles is signed and published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and the Church recognizes them as authentic miraculous cures from God. 

The Congregation will then meet with the pope to discuss the following question: Whether it is now safe to proceed to the beatification of the Servant of God? The pope will listen to the opinions of all the cardinals and theologian-consultors of the Congregation. If the pope answers the query in the affirmative, the date of the beatification will be fixed on the papal calendar.   

Before canonization two more miracles, which took place after the beatification, must be approved in the same way as in the beatification process. If successful, the infallible decree of canonization is signed and solemnly read by the pope; the verbiage has been fixed since 1313 by Pope Clement V:

In honor of the holy and undivided Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own, after mature deliberation and having frequently implored the Divine aid, in accordance with the desires of our venerable brethren the cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops assembled in this city, We declare and define that (Name) is a saint, and We inscribe him (her) in the catalogue of saints, and order that his (her) memory shall be kept with piety and devotion on (Feast Date), in the ranks of  the martyrs (or confessors, virgins...). In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. 

A Vatican II "Saint" with a Dubious "Miracle"
As an example of what passes for a "saint" in the Vatican II sect, I will take the example of Mother Teresa of Calcutta (d. 1997 and "canonized" in 2016 by Bergoglio). The Modernist Vatican only requires one miracle for beatification and one for canonization. Before the beatification process can begin, the candidate must be declared "Venerable" by heroic virtue and impeccable orthodoxy of Faith (same as pre-Vatican II).  There was an eye-opening book written in 2007 entitled, Mother Teresa: The Case for the Cause by Mark Michael Zima (not a Traditionalist). This well-researched book raises serious problems with the nun. Mother Teresa apostatized to the Vatican II sect. She went full force with heretical ecumenism. 

Mother Teresa: Spreading False Ecumenism.
Mother Teresa is quoted as saying, Some call him Allah, some simply God. But we all have to acknowledge that it is he (sic) who made us for the greater things: to love and be loved.  God is not the false moon "god' named "Allah." God created us to know, love, and serve Him in this life, and to be eternally happy with Him in the next.

In another disturbing quote, she claimed her purpose was not to convert others but to make the Christian the better Christian, the Muslim a better Muslim, and a Hindu a better Hindu. Addressing the Masonic United Nations in 1985, she said, No color, no religion, no nationality should come between us. We are all children of God. (Emphasis mine) The purpose of a Catholic religious is to convert others to the One True Church of Christ, not to entrench others in their errors. A better Mohammedan makes for a worse person. And while it is true that God created all humans, we are not all His children. God Wills all to be saved, but He does not force Himself on us. Those who reject Him, are not His "children," anymore than non-Jews before the coming of Christ could be called His "chosen people."

She is reported as telling those in her care that, we will meet all our friends and family members who died before us in Heaven regardless of their beliefs. She also told non-Catholics, You could replace Jesus by God if you are not a Christian. She forgets "Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him this man standeth here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (See Acts 4: 9-13; Emphasis mine). 

Does this sound like "orthodoxy in doctrine" that one would expect from a saint? I'll let the reader decide. 

A Questionable "Miracle"
Lastly, there's doubts as to an alleged "miracle" being used for her "canonization." It involved the cure of a young Indian woman, Monica Besra, who claimed that a tumor on her ovary was cured when a medal of Mother Teresa was touched to her body where she felt pain.  Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, the chief gynecologist treating her, claims that it was the four drugs to which she was responding. The Vatican never contacted Dr. Mustafi to investigate, and nevertheless claimed "there was no medical explanation" for her cure.

Can this even begin to compare to the investigations of the One True Church?

Objection: Couldn't Mother Teresa have converted by the grace of God on her deathbed, sincerely repented, and be in Heaven as a saint? 

Reply: Yes, she could be in Heaven as described because we don't know what happened in the last moments of her life between her soul and God. She did many acts of charity, and God may have granted her the grace to convert and repent as a result. "...for charity covereth a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8).
However, that would make her a saint with a small "s" and all of whom we celebrate on November 1st, All Saints Day. To be a canonized saint, with "St." before the name and a feast day, it requires much more, i.e., that the saint be worthy of emulation by all the faithful. Clearly, the One True Church of Christ does not want others to emulate a "female Bergoglio:" Proselytism is solemn nonsense. 
[N.B. Now that Ratzinger has gone to Judgement, how long can it be to his "canonization"?]
Conclusion
Miraculous cures are few, and a rigorous investigation should be conducted to determine what is truly from God. If in need of a cure, or anything else, have recourse to the true saints recognized from 33 to 1958. The Vatican II sect makes dubious "saints" at best. You don't want to risk praying (God forbid) to a damned soul.