Monday, December 20, 2010

"Deliver Us From Evil; The False Vatican II Sect"

As I've stated many times, I do not attack the Vatican II sect BECAUSE of their immorality. Rather, I claim that the immorality is a direct result of the heresy they profess. Having lost their Faith and the supernatural help of the True Sacramants, they threw away their morality as well. Allowing men with "same sex attraction" into the seminaries, rejecting sodomy as one of the four sins which scream to Heaven for Vengeance, denying and downplaying the gravity of sin, and rejection (de facto) of the Dogma of Hell, leads inevitably to the sad story which follows.

Oliver O'Grady, an invalidly ordained "priest" of the Vatican II sect, was the subject of an award winning 2006 documentary entitled "Deliver Us From Evil."
Here is what O'Grady is up to according to the news report in the Lodi News Sentinel:

By Ross Farrow
News-Sentinel Staff Writer Lodi News-Sentinel

Convicted pedophile priest Oliver O'Grady, who served at St. Anne's Catholic Church in the 1970s, was arrested on Friday on charges of possessing thousands of pictures of child pornography, according to the Dublin Times newspaper in Ireland and Catholic canon lawyer Patrick Wall.

O'Grady was arrested at his Dublin hostel just after 7 a.m. Ireland time, the Times reported. Authorities found child pornography photos on O'Grady's laptop and a hard drive, the newspaper reported.

O'Grady, 65, was released from custody on bail that amounts to 500 euro, the equivalent of about $750, Wall said on Sunday. He is next due in court on Friday.

Oliver O'Grady previously served seven years at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione after pleading guilty to four counts of sexual abuse with children under 14 in Calaveras County while he a priest in San Andreas.

He served at St. Anne's in Lodi from 1971-78 and at parishes in Stockton, Turlock, Hughson and San Andreas from 1979 until his arrest in 1993.

O'Grady was paroled from Mule Creek in 2000 and deported to his native Ireland.

A documentary about O'Grady's life, called "Deliver Us From Evil," was released in 2006. Much of the movie involved interviews with Bob and Maria Jyono of Lodi, whose daughter was sexually abused by O'Grady. The film is available on DVD.

Since being deported to Ireland, O'Grady moved to Holland, where he volunteered at a parish and organized birthday parties at a McDonald's restaurant there, Wall said. He grew a beard and went by Brother Francis (Francis is his middle name), Wall added.

"We don't blame Oliver," Wall said. "He can't control himself. It was the people who were supposed to supervise him (we blame).

"The only reason it came out is that, like all criminals, Oliver made a mistake," Wall said. "He was coming back (to Ireland) from Holland and left his laptop on the plane."

Authorities found videos and still photos of child pornography on his computer, with victims as young as the age of 2, Wall said.

O'Grady had applied for Dutch citizenship, but he returned to Ireland after someone saw him in "Deliver Us From Evil" in Holland and reported him to police, Wall said.

When, o when will people wake up and reject the Vatican II sect en mass?

Monday, December 13, 2010

Our ...Father...Mother....Whatever....Who Art in Heaven?

In an interview before U.S. Thanksgiving Day, November 25, 2010, Timothy Dolan, Concilliar "archbishop" of New York, who is the new head of the U.S. "Catholic" bishops, had this to say about Thanksgiving and Christ:

"Thanksgiving is a time of the year when people are open to the Lord, and we don't think about ourselves. We're grateful to God. We're conscious that somebody -- some call him or her, whatever you want -- somebody beyond us is in charge, and we are immensely grateful." Him/her/whatever you want? Ecumenism and religious indifferentism rule the Vatican II sect! The True Church, established by Christ (not by Angelo Roncalli aka John XXIII and Giovanni Montini aka Paul VI) teaches differently! We are called to bring all men into the True Church remembering Our Lord's Words:
"But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 10:33/DRV).
More disturbing was Dolan's response to a reporter concerning his upset election as new president of the US "Catholic" Bishops. He was asked about his win over a "liberal" bishop, presumably making Dolan "conservative." He said, "All of us agree on the essentials. It's more a matter of style" They all agree on praying to "whatever" (the 'substance') and how far away they fall from Catholic Orthodoxy must be demed 'style'? Kyrie Eleison!!

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

First Sodomy, and Now Attempted Murder

The depravity of the Vatican II sect grows. They threw out the True Faith, and the authentic Catholic morality went with it. I do not argue against the Vatican II establishment because of bad clergy; rather I argue that the bad clergy is a result of the rejection of the Catholic Faith and the adoption of the Modernist heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X. When God's grace is withdrawn because the Sacraments were replaced with empty Protestant services, people lack the strength to be moral. The new "feel good" catechisms do not teach Traditional Catholic Morals. Add to this the acceptance of "Same Sex Attraction" (which no longer disqualifies a man from entering a Vatican II seminary), and the following story from the AP Newswire makes sense:

Former priest accused of trying to hire hit man
(AP) – Nov 22, 2010

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — In a murder-for-hire case worthy of a Dan Brown novel, a Roman Catholic priest has been arrested on charges that he solicited a hit man to kill a teenager who had accused him of sexual abuse.

Authorities said John Fiala first offered the job to a neighbor, who blew the whistle and helped police arrange a sting. They said Fiala got as far as negotiating a $5,000 price for the slaying before investigators moved in.

The 52-year-old clergyman was arrested Nov. 18 at his suburban Dallas home and jailed on $700,000 bond. In April, he was named in a lawsuit filed by the boy's family, who accused Fiala of molesting the youth, including twice forcing him to have sex at gunpoint.

The abuse allegedly took place in 2007 and 2008, when Fiala was a priest at the Sacred Heart of Mary Parish in the West Texas community of Rocksprings, a rural enclave known for sheep and goat herding.

The family's lawsuit also named the Archdiocese of San Antonio and Archbishop Jose Gomez, alleging that church leadership should have known Fiala was abusive.

The suit was filed just a month before Gomez was introduced as the new incoming leader of the Los Angeles Archdiocese. He is currently serving as an assistant to Cardinal Roger Mahony, who will retire next year. Gomez then automatically becomes archbishop.

The allegations against Fiala seemed like they could have formed a plotline for Brown, who wrote "The Da Vinci Code" and other religiously themed thrillers. But the accuser's attorney said they hit too close to home.

When he learned of the murder-for-hire investigation, the boy "was terrified and rightly so," attorney Tom Rhodes said. As far back as 2008, Fiala threatened the teen, and repeatedly brandished a pistol, Rhodes said.

Fiala "began saying, 'If you tell anyone, I'll hurt you, I'll hurt your family, your girlfriend,'" Rhodes said. "It was more than once he threatened him with a gun."

Fiala only recently rented a place to live in suburban Garland, where police say he initiated the attempted contract killing — even though his new home is more than 300 miles northeast of Rocksprings.

Rhodes said an anonymous informant who initially identified himself as a neighbor of Fiala contacted his office and said the priest had approached him about killing the accuser, who was 16 at the time and is now in his late teens. Rhodes urged the informant to contact the police, who then sent an undercover agent to meet with Fiala.

Rhodes said he had been told Fiala offered $5,000 to carry out the slaying. A spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety said he could not confirm the amount of money involved.

It was unclear how close Fiala came to actually putting his plan in motion or how he wanted the boy killed. A call to the Edwards County Sheriff's Office, which headed up the investigation, was not immediately returned.

Jail records list Fiala's attorney as Rex Gunter in Dallas, but he was in court Tuesday and did not return a call from The Associated Press. Fiala is charged with one count of solicitation to commit capital murder and two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child.

San Antonio Archdiocese spokesman Pat Rodgers said Fiala has been removed from the public ministry, meaning he cannot present himself as a priest.

Authorities removed him in October 2008, before the accusations of sexual assault emerged, because of his interference with the custodial relationship between the teen in Rocksprings and his grandmother — a case the sheriff's office investigated. Authorities have not disclosed the nature of Fiala's interference.

"We were shocked by the allegations and saddened by the story," Rodgers said. Since Fiala was removed from the public ministry, "we haven't contacted him, and haven't had any reason to contact him."

Rhodes said Fiala originally met the accuser in 2007 and was a frequent visitor at his grandparents' house, where the teen was living. He often came bearing gifts, including new a cell phone and MP3 player, and eventually gave the boy cash to help buy a car.

Fiala used the pretext of private catechism lessons to be alone with the boy, Rhodes said, and in 2008 took the teen to a youth event in the town of San Angelo, Texas, during which he raped him in a motel room at gunpoint.

"He's a dangerous predator and has been since at least 1988," Rhodes said. "The church has known how dangerous this guy is for many, many years. They had full knowledge, we believe, and the documents seem to bear that out — that they knew what a bad person he was and what a danger he was to children."

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Crossing The Threshold of Apostacy

A new book released by a SSPX sypathizer excoriates John Paul II as a destroyer of the Church, yet recognizes him as a true "pope." In Crossing the Threshold of Confusion Andrew McAuley tells us Wotyla was anything BUT "Great", specifically he notes that his "papacy" was a disaster for the following reasons:

1.his failure to enforce discipline in the Concilliar sect, especially against widespread sex crimes against children by his "bishops" and "priests"
2.his statements implying the heresy universal salvation
3.the destabilization of marriage caused by his novel "Theology of the Body"
4.his confusion of the Church's traditional position on the morality of capital punishment
5.his erroneous statements about the nature of the Church (i.e. "FrankenChurch")fabricated by the Modernist Council Vatican II
6.his appointment of many known homosexuals as bishops, as well as immoral bishops who undermined Catholic moral teachings and the doctrines of the Faith, allowing seminaries to become homosexual havens and allowing heresy and depravity to flourish in Newchurch
How could a man do this in his official capacity and still be "pope"?

For anyone who truly has the Catholic Faith could not:
· kiss the Koran, the Mohammedan “Bible.”
· say that all men are united to Christ solely by virtue of the Incarnation.(1)
· say that all men are saved.[2)
· say that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the Creed is present, in all its essential elements, in non-Catholic sects.[3]
· say that the Catholic Church is in communion with non-Catholic sects.[4]
· say that the Catholic Church is incapable of giving credibility to the Gospel, unless there is a “reunion of Christians.”[5]
· say that the Catholic Church shares a common apostolic faith with the non-Catholic sects.[6]
· say that non-Catholic sects have an apostolic mission.[7]
· say that the Holy Ghost uses non-Catholic sects as a means of salvation.[8]
· say that it is divinely revealed that men have a right to religious freedom and freedom of conscience.[9]
· say that a properly ordered society is one in which all religions are given free rein to practice, proselytize and propagate.[10]
· say that Our Lord’s descent into hell simply means that He was buried.[11]
· participate in all forms of non-Catholic worship, including that of the Lutherans, the Jews, the Hindus, the American Indians, the Polynesians, to mention only some;
· praise the voodoo religion;
· permit the abomination of Assisi, in which a golden statue of Buddha was placed upon an altar an incensed by a Buddhist priest;
· permit the ecumenical abominations contained in the Ecumenical Directory.
· approve of sacrilege to the Blessed Sacrament by permitting non-Catholics to receive It.
· hold and teach the blasphemous and heretical notion of the Church, that the Church of Christ is not exactly the same thing as the Catholic Church, but merely subsists in it. This heretical doctrine was taught by Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, and its heretical meaning has been upheld by John Paul many times, particularly in the Ecumenical Directory.
· say that Moslems and Catholics worship the same God.[12]
· Give public approval to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which contains many explicit heresies, and utterly contradicts the solemn teaching of the Council of Trent concerning justification.
These are merely some of the heresies of John Paul II. We must never forget that someone can manifest an adherence to heresy not only by word, but also by deed. Thus his many ecumenical acts which are an affront to the one, true God are manifestations of an interior adherence to heresy.
All of these errors and heresies are held and taught by John Paul II in the name of ecumenism. It is this ecumenism which is John Paul II’s apostasy. Ecumenism is apostasy, because it reduces all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith to relativity. In the ecumenical system, all religions are seen to have a certain part of the truth, and all religions are seen to therefore have a certain value. For this reason, John Paul II has frequently repeated the heresy of Vatican II: that the Holy Ghost has not hesitated to use non-Catholic religions as means of salvation.
Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable, Karol Wotyla was an Anti-pope, John Paul "The Great Apostate."

Redemptor Hominis, 13.3
[2] Homily in Santa Maria in Trastevere, April 27, 1980
[3] Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion., (1992)
[4] ibid.
[5] Osservatore Romano, May 20, 1980
[6] ibid.
[7] Osservatore Romano, June 10, 1980
[8] Catechesi Tradendæ, October 16, 1979
[9] Redemptor Hominis, 12.2 and Dives in Misericordia, and his speech to the United Nations on October 2, 1979 and in many other places.
[10] Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanæ, a document which John Paul II says has a particular binding force.
[11] General Audience, January 11, 1989
[12] May 31, 1980 in a speech to the Moslems in Paris.

Friday, November 5, 2010

All The Right Premises, But A False Conclusion

It never ceases to amaze me how members of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and other pseudo-Traditionalists will get the problem in the Church correct, but get the answer wrong by continuing to affirm Ratzinger and the post-concilliar "popes" as true Vicars of Christ. One John Vennari starts out an article concerning the 100th anniversary of St. Pius X's Anti-Modernist Oath this way:

"Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the eminent American theologian, called the Oath Against Modernism 'the most important and most influential document issued by the Holy See during the course of the 20th Century. It is a magnificent statement of Catholic truth in the face of errors which were being disseminated within the Church by the cleverest enemies the Mystical Body of Christ has encountered in the course of its history.'

The Oath Against Modernism was abolished two years after the close of the Second Vatican Council, yet the men who took the Oath at ordination are still bound by it. Those who swore this sacred Oath and then promoted the modern program of Vatican II, including the Council’s new ecumenism and religious liberty, have shown themselves unfaithful to the Oath they swore solemnly before God.

Stressing the seriousness of the matter, Msgr. Fenton noted in 1960 that a man who took the Oath Against Modernism, and who then promoted Modernism himself, or allowed it to be promoted, 'would mark himself not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith but also as a common perjurer.'

He who takes the Oath Against Modernism swears solemnly: 'I sincerely hold that the doctrine of Faith was handed down to us from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation (eodem sensu eodemque sententia). Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another, different from the one which the Church held previously.'

At the end of the Oath, he makes this solemn Promise before God Himself: 'I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.'

It is hard to see how a person who holds to the countersyllabus of Vatican II can claim to have kept the Faith 'in exactly the same meaning and always in the same explanation' as the Church always held. It is hard to see how someone who accepts the Council’s new program of ecumenism and religious liberty can claim to have “guarded inviolate”, and 'in no way deviated' from the clear teachings of the pre-Vatican II Popes regarding true Christian Unity and the Social Kingship of Christ.

Both Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar stated openly, as if it’s something to be proud of, that Vatican II is a countersyllabus – that it says the opposite of key teachings from pre-Vatican II Popes.

The spirit of infidelity to traditional Catholic doctrine, the lust towards change and novelty that Pius X’s anti-Modernist measures condemned, and the violation of a Sacred Oath against God by highly-placed Churchmen, is the true legacy of the Second Vatican Council and its consequence reforms." (Internal Citations omitted).

If Ratzinger allows and promotes the heresy of Modernism to be promoted and is guilty of perjury, he is a heretic. The Church teaches that a heretic can NOT be pope! We can not "recognize and resist" a true pope; we must obey.Theologian Vitoria puts an end to the myth that a Catholic can "recognize and resist" when he writes in De Potestate 22, Obras, 485: “Non videtur permittendum cuicumque privato sua auctoritate resistere et non parere mandatis Pontificis… Probatur. Quia esset magna irreverentia et quasi contemptus, si cuilibet hoc concederetur respectu Pontificis… non licet propria auctoritate discedere.” Translation:

“Proposition 23: ‘It would not seem permitted for any private person on his own authority to resist and not obey the Pope’s directives, however much these would contradict a Council’s decision.’ This is correct. For it would be a great act of irreverence and near-contempt for supreme authority if anyone were allowed to act towards a Pope in a way that would not be permitted towards a bishop, whose directive (however unjust) one may not disobey on private authority.”

Since the 16th century nearly all canonists and theologians who have addressed the issue teach that a pope who becomes a manifest (public) heretic “would, by divine law, fall from office without any sentence.” M. Conte a Coronata, Institutiones Juris Canonici (Rome: Marietti 1950) 1:316

To paraphrase Fr. Cekada:Ratzinger openly denies the rule of faith. He commits the sin of heresy.

We Traditionalists need not hesitate to call a heretic a heretic — even though no Council has convicted him — any more than we hesitate to call an abortionist a murderer.

Nor should Traditionalists hesitate to point out the consequences: A public heretic cannot be a true pope. He deposes himself.

Monday, October 25, 2010

The Mistake is Vatican II

According to the Washington Post:
"A Catholic church in the central Swiss city of Lucerne has sparked controversy among believers with an AIDS awareness campaign that involves distributing to teenagers condoms bearing the slogan 'protect thy neighbor as thyself.'

The church plans to hand out 3,000 condoms as part of an effort to engage young people turned off by the Vatican's long-standing opposition to the use of condoms.

Spokesman Florian Flohr says the campaign has drawn mostly positive reactions but some Catholics have expressed concern.

Officials at the diocese of Basel didn't immediately respond Monday to requests for comment. A spokesman in the neighboring diocese of Chur was quoted by Swiss television SF1 describing the condom campaign as 'a mistake.'

How does a blasphemy like this pose as a "mistake?" If you can plot out such nonsense and claim it as error, could you do the same with all of the heresy of Vatican II---and jettison it once and for all?

Monday, October 4, 2010

Vatican II: Less Orthodox Than Anglican Heretics

According to several news sources including the Sydney Morning Herald:

"An Australian Anglican tribunal has found one of its bishops guilty of eight counts of “disgraceful conduct and wilful violation of church ordinances.”

Bishop Ross Davies of Murray, who resigned on September 24, was accused by two fellow Anglican bishops of engaging in verbal abuse, covering up sexual abuse, promoting the Catholic faith instead of his own, and worshiping at a Catholic parish in Adelaide. Before his resignation, Bishop Davies was on sick leave for a year and was living outside his diocese."

This proves that the Anglcans have their own problems with vice, yet isn't it interesting that one of the charges was "worshiping at a Catholic (sic)parish"? Ecumenism is less rampant among heretics of old than Ratzinger's sect. Had one of his "Bishops" done what this Anglican had done, he would have been promoted to Cardinal! Forget the vices--he's appropriately ECU-MANIACAL!!!

Monday, September 20, 2010

The Darkness of Islamism Embraced

'Cardinal" Theodore McCarrick, "Archbishop" Emeritus of Washington D.C. recently told CNSNews that: “If a person sees the Quran as proof of God’s presence in the world, then I cannot say, ‘Don’t embrace the Quran.’ So that I think we are, we should always be willing to talk to people and we should always be willing to love them and we should always be willing to allow them that freedom of conscience which comes from God.”

"Comes from GOD"??? If someone sees the Satanic Bible as proof of God's presence in the world would he tell him it's OK to embrace it? What does the True Roman Catholic Church teach?

The following propositions are CONDEMNED as error by Pope Pius IX in his famous 1864 "Syllabus of Errors":

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

Also Pope Gregory XVI: "And so from this rotten source of indifferentism flows that absurd an erroneous opinion, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience must be claimed and defended for anyone." — Pope Gregory XVI

Has McCarrick been condemned as a heretic and excommunicated by the Vatican II establishment? That's a rhetorical question folks! Just another proof of the heresy embraced by the Concilliar "church."

Saturday, September 18, 2010

"Women Priestesses" Welcome Ratzinger with a "Mass"

This video shows women "priestesses" who claim sarcedotal power, offering the Novus Ordo in union with "Benedict our Pope." Were these women excommunicated by Ratzinger? No! For that you need to go to a Traditionalist Church and attend the Real Mass offered by a Real Priest! Another reason Ratzinger will never be and CAN NOT BE "our Pope"!

Friday, September 17, 2010

Was Pope Alexander VI a Heretic? Hardly! Let Ratzinger Supply the Beer and Pretzels as We Explain

There are some defenders of the Vatican II sect who use the pontificate of Alexander VI to "prove" that a heretic CAN be pope!! He was accused of heresy, yet is acknowledged as a true pope throughout the rest of Church history. Does this case refute sedevacantism? Not in the least! I will reprint an article written by Traditionalist apologist Mr. John Lane of Australia that explains this clearly:

"The fact that public heresy is absolutely incompatible with holding office in the Catholic Church has been argued elsewhere by this author. In fact, it is the constant tradition of Holy Church, taught explicitly by numerous popes, Doctors, theologians, saints, and accepted by General Councils. It is also expressly legislated in the Code of Canon Law, in the section on resignations. Canon 188, section 4 states that he who publicly defects from the faith resigns his office by the very fact, and this resignation is accepted by operation of law without the need for any declaration.

We should, therefore, expect to find evidence in history of its application to concrete cases. In fact, we find a number. The case of Savonarola and others versus Alexander VI is one such precedent. Fra Girolamo Savonarola was a Fifteenth-Century Dominican, famous for his zeal for the salvation of souls, and for his opposition to the gross immorality of many of the members of both the clergy and laity of his time. He was also a very competent theologian and philosopher, referred to by many as brilliant. Unfortunately for him, his preaching against vice was too effective for the comfort of many in positions of authority in Holy Church, and he came into open conflict not only with members of the Roman Curia, but with Pope Alexander VI. Alexander VI, a Borgia, generally competes with one or two others for the title of "Most Immoral Pope" in Church Histories. Eventually the friar was convicted of heresy in rather confused circumstances, hanged and then burnt. There seems to be no dispute that his death was contrived for political purposes, and that the charges of heresy were unjust. Even the historian Kirsch, whose account in The Catholic Encyclopedia is thoroughly hostile to Savonarola, affirms that he was not a heretic, and notes that the notary falsified the records of the trial.

Savonarola went further than simply accusing the Pope of vice - he accused the Pope of heresy. While it was a commonplace among knowledgeable Catholics that Alexander had purchased the papacy, it was not said so openly that he was actually a heretic in his personal theology. Savonarola not only made this claim in private correspondence with Cardinal della Rovere, but was agitating to have a council called at which he could prove his claim, and have Alexander deposed.

The following is from a life of the Dominican: "Many good and experienced Catholics maintained the opinion that Alexander's election was null and void, having been obtained, as all knew, by simony, and that the only way to put an end to the numerous scandals of which he was the cause, would be to summon a council to depose him. The leader of this party was the pugnacious Cardinal of St. Piero in Vincoli, afterwards Pope Julius II. (Footnote 2 ref. - The footnote reads, in part, as follows : 'Padre Marchese, "Storia di San Marco," p. 225 and fol. : [Latin quotation from Marchese omitted]. The said Cardinal, on being made Pope, issued a Bull (14th of January, 1505) in confirmation of the Lateran Council, declaring Alexander's election null, and incapable of convalidation, even by the subsequent homage of the Cardinals…") [Contrary to Villari's impression, this Bull seems not to have been in confirmation of the Lateran Council, which did not open until 1512, but rather in confirmation of the promise he had made before his election to call a General Council for the reform of the Church. The Lateran Council, when it finally came, was the fulfilment of this promise - hence the wording of the footnote, I presume. Unfortunately, I do not have access to this Bull. It sounds very similar in principle to Cum Ex Apostolatus, which was also issued in the Sixteenth Century, but with the purpose of ensuring a suspected heretic Cardinal was not elected pope at a subsequent conclave. Cum Ex Apostolatus also taught that if a heretic was elected pope the election would be absolutely impossible to convalidate by the subsequent homage of even the entire Church.]

"He [Della Rovere] styled the Borgia [Alexander VI] an infidel and a heretic, and was constantly in waiting on King Charles [of France], doing his utmost to induce him to assemble a council, and achieve the reform of the Church. … The first time the French passed through Rome, no less than eighteen cardinals joined Della Rovere in pressing the King to procure the desired reform." Life and Times of Girolamo Savonarola by Professor Pasquale Villari, trans. by Linda Villari - T. Fisher Unwin, London, circa 1910 (my copy is inscribed by hand "1910" on inside cover), pp. 392,393.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Alexander VI mentions Villari as a source, and appears to grant him considerable credibility. The author of the article is Mgr. James Loughlin of Philadelphia. The article on Savonarola, by Mgr. J.P. Kirsch of the University of Fribourg, the celebrated historian, also gives Villari as a source in the bibliography at the end of that article. However it should be noted that Villari reads as a partisan of liberalism, and this is confirmed by his dedication of the work to "Gladstone, Champion of Italian Freedom." Given that this book was written not long after the uniting of Italy under Freemasonic hegemony, one can hardly be sympathetic with this reference! Additionally, it is clear that our hero is loved by Villari chiefly because of his supposed promotion of "democracy" against the "tyranny" of the Medici. A more obvious theme for a Freemason could hardly be devised.

At any rate, Villari doesn't hesitate to mention that della Rovere "styled the Borgia an infidel and a heretic", which of course is the only ground upon which a Catholic could expect to see a properly elected pope "deposed." Undoubtedly the future Pope Julius II knew this. The Catholic Encyclopedia, on the other hand, omits mention of heresy, preferring to mention only the question of simony in the election (another possible cause of invalidation, but not the only one at issue). From other sources, however, we know that Villari's account is correct. Savonarola and the cardinals were seeking to overthrow Alexander VI on account of the latter's heresy, and Savonarola made the point in correspondence to della Rovere and to various Catholic Princes that if they could only achieve the gathering of a council for the judgement of Alexander, then he (Savonarola) would prove the pope's heresy publicly.

Cardinal Journet, in his The Church Of The Word Incarnate (Vol. 1, p. 484, trans. A. H. C. Downes, Sheed & Ward 1955) offers the following information about these letters of Savonarola: 'In a study in the "Revue Thomiste" (1900, p. 631, "Lettres de Savonarole aux princes chretiens pour la reunion d'un concile"), P. Hurtaud, O.P., has entered a powerful plea in the case - still open - of the "Piagnoni". He makes reference to the explanation of Roman theologians prior to Cajetan, according to which a Pope who fell into heresy would be deposed "ipso facto": the Council concerned would have only to put on record the fact of heresy and notify the Church that the Pope involved had forfeited his primacy. Savonarola, he says, regarded Alexander VI as having lost his faith. "The Lord, moved to anger by this intolerable corruption, has, for some time past, allowed the Church to be without a pastor. For I bear witness in the name of God that this Alexander VI is in no way Pope and cannot be. For quite apart from the execrable crime of simony, by which he got possession of the [papal] tiara through a sacrilegious bargaining, and by which every day he puts up to auction and knocks down to the highest bidder ecclesiastical benefices, and quite apart from his other vices - well-known to all - which I will pass over in silence, this I declare in the first place and affirm it with all certitude, that the man is not a Christian, he does not even believe any longer that there is a God; he goes beyond the final limits of infidelity and impiety" (Letter to the Emperor). [Footnote : These were neither new nor isolated accusations. cf. Schnitzer, "Savonarola", Italian translation by E. Rutili, Milan, 1931, vol. ii, p. 303.]

'Basing our argument on the doctrinal authorities which Cajetan was soon to invoke, we should say that Savonarola wished to collect together the Council, not because, like the Gallicans, he placed a Council above the Pope (the Letters to the Princes are legally and doctrinally unimpeachable), but so that the Council, before which he would prove his accusation, should declare the heresy of Alexander VI in his status as a private individual. P. Hurtaud concludes: "Savonarola's acts and words - and most of his words are acts - should be examined in detail. Each of his words should be carefully weighed and none of the circumstances of his actions should be lost sight of. For the friar is a master of doctrine; he does not only know it but he lives it too. In his conduct nothing is left to chance or the mood of the moment. He has a theological or legal principle as the motive power in each one of his decisions. He should not be judged by general laws, for his guides are principles of an exceptional order - though I do not mean by this that he placed himself above or outside the common law. The rules he invokes are admitted by the best Doctors of the Church; there is nothing exceptional in them save the circumstances which make them lawful, and condition their application."'

From The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. 1, p. 291, Alexander VI, Pope, we have the following : "The policy of Alexander was dictated not only by a laudable desire to maintain the peace of Italy, but also because he was aware that a strong faction of his cardinals, with the resolute della Rovere at their head, was promoting the invasion of Charles as a means towards deposing him on the twofold charge of simony and immorality. In September, 1494, the French crossed the Alps; on the last day of that year they made their entry into Rome, needing no other weapon in their march through the peninsula, as Alexander wittily remarked (Commines vii, 15), than the chalk with which they marked out the lodgings of the troops. The barons of the Pope deserted him one after the other. Colonna and Savelli were traitors from the beginning, but he felt most keenly the defection of Virginio Orsini, the commander of his army. Many a saintlier pope than Alexander VI would have made the fatal mistake of yielding to brute force and surrendering unconditionally to the conqueror of Italy; the most heroic of the popes could not have sustained the stability of the Holy See at this crucial moment with greater firmness. From the crumbling ramparts of St. Angelo, the defences of which were still incomplete, he looked calmly into the mouth of the French cannon; with equal intrepidity he faced the cabal of della Rovere's cardinals, clamorous for his deposition. At the end of a fortnight it was Charles who capitulated. He acknowledged Alexander as true Pope, greatly to the disgust of della Rovere, and "did his filial obedience", says Commines, "with all imaginable humility"; but he could not extort from the Pontiff an acknowledgment of his claims to Naples."

What does this tell us? Firstly, it demonstrates the fact that cardinals, including a future pope, were not afraid to try and unseat a pope, on the grounds of heresy and/or simony. Secondly, there is no suggestion by later authors (that I'm aware of) that this was unCatholic behaviour. Thirdly, della Rovere himself, after his accession to the Chair of Peter, confirmed the principle upon which he had acted as a cardinal, by the most solemn document a pope can issue - a bull. Fourthly, even in the period when Holy Church was at her most vulnerable, suffering from terrible levels of immorality among the clergy and laity, heresy was considered so serious that it constituted grounds upon which even a pope could be judged. This is in accordance with the teaching of the great Thirteenth Century pontiff, Innocent III, as expressed in a sermon as follows: "The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in all other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for the sins which I might commit in matters of faith." Finally, it needs to be emphasised that Savonarola is singularly famous for the very fact that he wished to bring about the deposition of Alexander VI, and yet numerous popes and saints have been devoted to him. The Apostle of Rome Saint Philip Neri, for example, used to pray to Savonarola, and attributed miracles to his intercession. It is difficult, nay impossible, to imagine that so many saints and popes could have praised a man who was famous for being wrong, and in so grave a matter!

While it is true that Alexander never ceased to be pope, and it would be at least rash to assert otherwise, this is not necessarily because he was not a heretic, as some authors maintain. To understand what actually happened a little more theology is necessary. Heresy can be either internal or external. That is, one may doubt or deny a dogma merely internally, without expressing it, or one may announce one's heresy to others. While some authors maintain that all heresy makes one a non-Catholic, the common opinion is that only externally manifested heresy causes the loss of membership in Holy Church. And it is the loss of membership in Holy Church which is responsible for the automatic loss of offices in the case of manifest heretics. In addition to this, there is another distinction drawn by theologians, between "manifest" and "public." The common opinion is that only "public" heresy actually deprives one of the status of Catholic; "manifest" is a term which may apply to a case in which somebody admits their heresy privately, to one or two discreet individuals. Evidently, in a perfect and visible society, offices cannot be said to be lost by merely manifest heresy, if "manifest" is to be understood in this way. [Note : different authors use these terms in different ways - our concern is with the meaning, not the terms.] Heresy, for it to deprive a person of membership in Holy Church, and consequently any offices they hold, must be "public." For the sake of completeness, it is worth mentioning that "notorious" is again distinct from "public." "Public" facts are known, or capable of being known, to many. "Notorious" describes things which are actually known, or could be easily known, by all.

Applying these considerations to the case at issue, then: we see that indeed Alexander VI could well have been a heretic internally, and that he may have manifested this to a select number of persons, and that this could have been brought to the notice of Savonarola. There is no doubt that some doctrinal failure came to Savonarola's notice. But for Alexander to lose the papacy he would have to cease being a Catholic, and this is why Savonarola was agitating for a council to be called at which he could make his case. Once the case was made publicly, then Alexander would cease to be a Catholic and thus pope. In other words, Savonarola was most certainly right in his theology; and he was possibly right in his assertion that Alexander was a heretic. There seem to be absolutely no grounds for asserting that Savonarola was actually wrong in any way at all, unless we count excessive zeal for the honour of Christ's Church as an error.

Would that more suffered from this fault! The greatest tragedy of our era, and the most obvious cause of the further tragedies, is the failure of the clergy to act at the great moments of crisis in 1958 (when Roncalli emerged "victorious" from the conclave) and again in 1965 (when Vatican II was "promulgated" by Montini). Another great opportunity for action occurred in 1969 with the appearance of the Abomination of Desolation itself, the New "Mass." It was the express command of the Blessed Virgin that the third part of the Secret of Fatima be revealed by 1960, at the latest. In 1957 Sister Lucy confided to Father Fuentes, "The Most Holy Virgin has told me that the devil is about to engage in a decisive battle against the Virgin ... and that he knows what most offends God, and what will make him gain the most souls in the shortest possible time. He does everything to gain souls consecrated to God, for in this manner, he will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them."

History knows no examples of such almost unanimous negligence, weakness, and faithlessness as that presented by the clergy of our age. Faced with somebody (Alexander VI) who was but a pale reflection in evil-mindedness of the servants of Satan who have despoiled the See of Peter in recent decades, no fewer than eighteen cardinals rose to the cause of defending Holy Church. And during the depths of the Arian crisis, the Roman clergy deposed Pope Liberius on the basis that he had compromised with the Arians, even though it was clear that he was not actually one of them. Where were men such as these when the Immaculate Spouse of Christ needed them to come to her defence in 1958?

And more importantly, where are they now?"

John Lane
December 13th 1998
Gaudete Sunday and Feast of St. Lucy
Revised December 22nd 1998
Feast of St. Frances Xavier Cabrini

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

No Stairway to Heaven

According to Reuters, the Vatican II sect in Australia has just banned the use of rock, pop and secular songs (as well as DVD presentations) at funerals! The once sacred Requiem Mass is now as defunct as the Faith and Morals of the Vatican II hierarchy.
The story says:
Football club songs and pop or rock music have been banned from funerals in Catholic churches in Australia under new guidelines distributed this week to priests and funeral directors.

A funeral should not be a "celebration" of the deceased's life, Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart said in the rules, but a final sacred farewell. Celebrations of that life should be held at social occasions before or after the funeral, he said.

"The wishes of the deceased, family and friends should be taken into account ... but in planning the liturgy, the celebrant should moderate any tendency to turn the funeral into a secular celebration of the life of the deceased," the guidelines state.

Some funeral directors, however, said the directive was insensitive to relatives' needs as many grieving families wanted to incorporate multimedia presentations, including photographs and video of the deceased person's life as well as music.

Centennial Park, a leading provider of cemetery, crematorium and memorial services in Australia, in 2008 compiled a list of the 10 most popular songs at Australian funerals.

The top song was Frank Sinatra's version of "My Way," followed by "Wonderful World" by Louis Armstrong, "Time To Say Goodbye" by Andrea Bocelli and Sarah Brightman, and "Unforgettable" by Nat "King" Cole.

Rounding out the top 10 were "The Wind Beneath My Wings" by Bette Midler, "Amazing Grace," "We'll Meet Again" by Vera Lynn, "Over the Rainbow" by Judy Garland, "Abide With Me" by Harry Secombe, and "Danny Boy."

The list of top 10 most popular unusual funeral songs included listed as Queen's "Another One Bites the Dust," AC/DC's "Highway to Hell, "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" by Monty Python, and "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" from "The Wizard of Oz."

At least the "Punk Priest" can still do his groovy thing in Pennslyvania! Maybe 45 years after Vatican II, Ratzinger may want to adopt "Still Crazy after All These Years" for his sect.

Friday, September 10, 2010

The Real Absence

Pity the Vatican II sect. Some "conservatives" who still believe in Traditional dogmas, try to stop "abuses." Here is a video put together by a group of conservative Concilliarists showing how one priest (most likely validly ordained before Vatican II), wanted to stop "communion" in the hand. This video takes place in the Diocese of Rockville Centre, which makes up all of Long Island, New York. "Bishop" William Murphy, originally from (where else?) Boston was quick to force him to re-instate the practice. Meanwhile, Murphy allows his "priests" to clamor for contraception, women "priestesses", and 'loving homosexual relationships.' Where is Ratzinger in all of this mess? Good question! Obviously, they forgot to check underneath the rocks. He can't do anything because he doesn't want to stop it! After all, the Chief Rat was among the most radical of heretics at Vatican II! As long as you belong to his One-World Ecumenical Religion, anything goes--from the so-called Motu Mass to this craziness shown in the video.

I just wish the Concilliarists would wake up and realize that Ratzinger is not the pope, and the Vatican II sect he helped found is NOT the Roman Catholic Church. These are not "abuses" in the video, they are the directly and indirectly sanctioned fruits of the heretical teachings of Vatican II. Since the Church is Indefectible (can not give evil), but the changes are evil (even when done 'by the book'), then the Church did not give us Vatican II. The heretics who lost their authority (and now their morality as well) sought to lessen and eventually destroy belief in the Real Presence to accommodate ecumenism. Ironically,what conservatives in the Concilliar sect subjectively believe to be Eucharistic sacrilege and blasphemy, is objectively nothing of the kind. Having invalidated both Holy Orders and the Mass, an invalid piece of bread and drink of wine is all they have left. One can almost hear the angels at the tabernacles (whatever is left of them) filled with mere bread saying, "You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, He is not here." For the love of God, and the salvation of your soul, run, don't walk, to the nearest Traditionalist Church and convert!!

Thursday, September 2, 2010

"A Good Tree Can Not Bear Bad Fruit"-- Beware of Heretics in Shepherd's Clothing

As we prepare to celebrate the feast of Pope St. Pius X, foe of Modernism (September 3), let us see the Modernist fruits of Vatican II. These fruits are the result of the deadly heresy of Modernism, which Pope St. Pius X drove underground, but came back after Roncalli (John XXIII) and Montini (Paul VI) lost their authority and worked to destroy the Church through Vatican II. The True Church is now underground, until Our Lord restores His Bride.

"Let's look at the numbers in the US first. In 1965, at the end of the Council there were 58,000 priests. Now there are 41,000. By 2020, if present trends continue (and there is no sign of a dramatic upsurge in vocations), there will be only 31,000, and half will be over 70. To give an example, I was ordained in 1981 at the age of 27. Today at the age of 52, I can still attend priests' meetings and be one of the younger priests there. In 1965, 1575 new priests were ordained, In 2005, the number was 454, less than a third, and remember that the Catholic population in the US increased from 45.6 million in 1965 to the 64.8 million of 2005, almost a 50% increase. The Venerable John Henry Newman said, "Growth is the only evidence of life." By his definition, the Church in the United States has been and continues to be in sharp decline. Now, quite clearly, there has been a sharp decline in the number of seminarians over this time period. Between 1965 and 2005, the number of seminarians fell from 50,000 (some 42,000 high school and college seminarians, and 8,000 or so graduate seminarians) to today's approximate 5,000, a drop of ninety percent.

The religious men and women (those taking vows) have even more precipitously declined in the US over this time period. In 1965, there were 22,707 priests; today there are 14,137 with a much higher percentage of them well over the age of 65. Religious brothers have gone from 12,271 to 5,451, and women religious from the astounding number of 179,954 in 1965 to 68,634 in 2005. I should mention here that the attrition in these numbers, as well as that of diocesan priests is not only due to deaths and a dearth of priestly or religious vocations, but also a massive defection, whether sanctioned or not by the Church. Again we do not have time to analyze the multiple causes that caused this precipitous decline in belief and practice; the doubting in questions of faith and morals that was widely spread in the post-conciliar Church after the Council also led many priests and religious to abandon ship into lay married life. Naturally this also has a depressing effect on the recruitment of response to a vocation by young men and women who had seen this exodus in full play. Quite clearly the abandonment or radical changes on the part of many religious congregations of their historical rules, community life, and clothing also had a deleterious effect both on perseverance and recruitment in vocations. There are many more women religious over the age of ninety than under the age of 30 in the US. The number of Catholic nuns, 180,000 in 1965, has fallen by 60%. Their average age is now 68. The number of teaching nuns has fallen 94% from the close of the Council. The number of young men studying to become members of the two principal teaching orders: the Jesuits and Christian Brothers, have fallen by 90 percent and 99%, respectively. There is little sign of growth in this part of the Church in the US. However there are some signs of hope with the arrival of some new religious congregations and revival of others.

"We can now examine the state of what was, in many ways, the pride and joy of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church in America: the educational system that extended from grammar school through hundreds (yes, hundreds) of Catholic colleges and universities. It is accurate to say that there had never been such an extensive, and at least in appearance, such a fundamentally sound, education system, in any place or at any time in the history of the Church. Elementary education was basically taken care of by the parish following the pioneering work of St. John Neumann. The parish also directed many high schools but there were also many directed by the armies of men and women religious. Virtually all of the high schools were single-sex while some were co-institutional i.e., boys and girls in the same building but educated separately. Naturally the combination of stable marriages, relatively large families, and strong catechesis produced not only vocations but also well formed men and women who lived their faith in a coherent way in their professional work, including politics and marital life. That is all virtually gone now.

"Almost half the Catholic schools open in 1965 have closed. There were 4.5 million students in Catholic schools in the mid-1960's. Today there is about half that number. What is even more troubling is that those children still attending Catholic schools (grammar and high) are taught by lay poorly formed Generation X Catholics who often themselves have serious difficulties with aspects of Catholic doctrinal and moral life. Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers accept Church teaching on contraception, 53 percent believed a Catholic woman could get an abortion and remain a good Catholic, 65 percent said Catholics have a right to divorce and remarry, and in a New York Times poll, 70 percent of Catholics ages 18-54 said they believed the Holy Eucharist was but a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus." (See
Fr. C J. McCloskey, in an article entitled "The Church in the US,"at

As Bishop Sanborn has said: "Such are the fruits of Vatican II. Consequently, we Catholics turn our eyes with disgust upon Vatican II, and curse the day that it was conceived in the Modernist brain of John XXIII. Our lives have been miserable ever since. What Ratzinger and his henchmen have done is to throw a wrench into a well-oiled and humming engine of truth, to smash a crystal-clear and precious vase of decency and righteousness, to defile a golden chalice of supernatural beauty by the turpitude of their heresies. They have destroyed our Catholic world and our Catholic lives. And after forty years, as the Catholic world falls down around them, they have nothing better to say or do than to tell us that it is all wonderful. It makes us sick to hear it.

Our Lord said: 'By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.' (Matth. VII: 16-20)"

Friday, August 20, 2010

Welcome to the Novus, Novus, Novus Ordo

On November 27, 2011, the Vatican II sect will release the third (yes folks, that's right, third) edition of the invalid Neo-protestant bread and wine service which replaced the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the third revision since it was released in 1969. Conservative members of the sect will claim it's a "reform of the reform", a "better translation", with "more expression of traditional theology." Yeah. Right. Sure.

Before anyone thinks this is anything positive, be warned that it is evil to the core. Simply replacing phrases like "and also with you" with "and also with your spirit" after the "priest" says, "The Lord be with you" does nothing to change the Novus Ordo's essential fixation on the "Assembly" as the center of worship. "Assembly theology" still reigns supreme, as the "General Instruction on the Roman Missal" states, "Then through his greeting the priest declares to the assembled community that the Lord is present. The greeting and the congregation's response express the mystery of the gathered Church." (See sec. 28, DOL 1418). The Novus Ordo equates the virtual presence of Christ "where two or more are gathered", as well as in the Bible readings, with the Real, Substantial Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Heretical theology to be sure, and now moot, since they have no more valid Eucharist. (Due to invalidly ordained "priests", incorrect words of Consecration--"for you and for ALL---and reading the words of Consecration, incorrect or not, as an "Institution Narrative").

Therefore, all this change is merely window dressing, much like "High Church" Anglicans, whose beautiful vestments and decorated Churches do nothing to give validity to their worthless services. This could be described as putting "putting lipstick on a pig." But even that analogy fails, since the pig was slaughtered and the pork sold to pay for Ratzinger's presbyter-pedophiles.

Monday, August 9, 2010

The Secular Case Against Sodomy

This month, a federal district court judge found California's Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. Proposition 8, ratified by 52% of California voters in 2008, made so-called "gay marriage" illegal in that state. As the Vatican II sect is too busy mired in their own unnatural sins which scream to Heaven for vengeance, they have lost all moral authority to speak on the issue (if, indeed, they speak to it at all). I will now give some good secular arguments to show how a person can oppose "gay marriage" WITHOUT any appeal to God, the Bible, Sacred Tradition, or Church authority.

This will show that, as in all cases, there is no contradiction between Faith and reason. Indeed, reason shows how all people of good will should oppose the legalization and celebration of sodomy, even if a person were an atheist! Here are the main pro-sodomite arguments and the secular counter-arguments:

1. Anti-Gay Marriage Statutes/Amendments (hereinafter "AGM") discriminate against homosexuals.

Reply: No they don't. The AGMs discriminate against behaviors, not persons. Marriage laws discriminate against the behaviors of homosexuals as well as bigamists and the incestuous, but not against them as persons. Laws must protect us from harmful behaviors regardless of why they commit them (and I will argue that homosexual behavior is harmful to society at large later in this post).

2. Homosexuals are a minority class deserving of equal protection.

Reply: No, homosexuals are no more a "class" of persons than those who commit bestiality or pedophilia. We should not classify people based on BEHAVIORS that are chosen--EVEN IF THE DESIRES ARE NOT CHOSEN. Are alcoholics a "class" that we discriminate against because we don't let them drive when not sober? Even if they are "born that way", the behavior is dangerous to society at large and can not be tolerated.

3. Homosexuals deserve equal rights.

Reply: They already have them. Everyone has the right to form their own relationships, but not all people are entitled to have them endorsed by the State. The State, for good reasons, chooses to endorse opposite sex relationships between two consenting adults. If the State must endorse homosexual relationships based on some fuzzy notion of "equality", on what basis do we deny this so-called "equality" to Mormons who consent to polygamy or first cousins who wish to wed?

4. Gay "marriage" is just as good as traditional marriage.

Reply: Not by a long shot. Traditional marriage is essentially about procreation, gay "marriage" is about hooking up. While it's true that we allow an old man and old lady to marry (and they can't procreate), the essence of traditional marriage is procreative. Hence, Red delicious apples are good to eat by essence or nature, even if a particular apple has a worm and is not edible. Rocks, in essence and nature, are NEVER edible and good for you to eat. Likewise, sodomites can NEVER procreate by natural means. They must adopt (two men), or use in vitro (two women). Homosexual "parents" always deny the child a mom or dad, and will confuse a child about their own sexuality (as most are born heterosexual--even if we buy into the idea of being "born that way").

5. AGMs violate the separation of Church and State.

Reply: Wrong again! Morality is being legislated and all laws legislate morality, including a law that legalizes gay 'marriage' through someone's moral ideas of equality and justice, and the notion that homosexual behavior is moral!! Just because some religions are against gay 'marriage' doesn't mean we can't legislate against it. If that were true, how could we pass laws against rape, murder, and stealing as most religions condemn these behaviors as well?

6. Homosexuality is not harmful to society.

Reply: Homosexual behavior is harmful because: (a) it results in numerous health problems to those who practice it, such as increases in AIDS and STDs, as well as rectal and colon cancer (See Dr. Jeffery Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, Grand Rapids, MI, Baker, 1996), pg. 51), and (b) shortens the median life-span of homosexuals by 20-30 years (See Paul Cameron, Ph.D, William Playfair, M.D., and Stephen Wellum, B.A., 1994. "The Longevity of Homosexuals: before and After the Aids Epidemic." Omega Journal of Death and Dying, Vol. 29, No. 3, 249-272)

7. Gay "Marriage" won't hurt YOU!

Reply: Sure it will. Your social security taxes may go up in order to pay survivor benefits to gay 'widows' and 'widowers.' Medical costs could soar if insurances must cover fertility treatments for lesbian couples. Employee benefits may be reduced as limited benefit dollars are spread to cover homosexual partners. The ability to adopt children may be hindered as preference is given to homosexual couples who can't procreate on their own. your free speech and freedom of religion may be hindered as well, as opposition to homosexual behavior (now made equal to heterosexual behavior) will be seen as "hate speech" and denial of constitutional rights.

How's that for starters?

In summation, secular arguments show us homosexual "marriages" are destructive and should be banned. I guess it would be off-color (but not off the mark) to suggest that a society that condones sodomy will get it in the end.

Monday, August 2, 2010

Once a Pope, Always a Pope?

An anonymous person left a comment at my post of 7/29/10, asking me to read an article written by one Mr. John Salsa, a lawyer and conservative member of the Vatican II sect (please see the comment to said post for the link to Mr. Salsa's article). This anonymous poster implores me to reconsider my "being in schism" after reading what Mr. Salsa has written. I read the article carefully, and I now implore both the anonymous commentator and Mr. Salsa to correct their ignorant and incorrect views regarding sedevacantism and join the fight against Ratzinger as Traditionalists.

Mr. Salsa's article, entitled The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law is a masterpiece of obfuscation regarding the pope's loss of authority when he falls into heresy. I would like to ask that my prior posts be read from June and July, as it will help paint a clear picture of what sedevacantism is--and is not. The title of the article is a red herring, as sedevacantism is an issue of DIVINE LAW, not ecclesiastical law, and Mr. Salsa's application of both is manifestly incorrect.

He begins his article with the gratuitous--and incorrect--assumption that the biggest argument ("stick" as he calls it) that Traditionalists use is Pope Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (herinafter "CEAO"), declaring the election of a heretic to the papal throne null and void. Where Salsa gets this idea, I haven't a clue, and he provides us with no citations. All the big names in sedevacantist circles, Cekada, Dolan, Sanborn, Pivarunas, etc. cite to CEAO and a declaration by Pope Innocent III, to show that the Church has always held with theological certainty that it was possible for a heretic to wind up on the papal throne.

Pre-Vatican II theologians and canonists (e.g. Baddi, Bellarmine, Beste, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prummer, Regatillo, Salaverri, Van Noort--to name but a few!!) have held that a pope, once elected, could (as a private theologian) fall into heresy and lose his authority as pope. Please refer to the wonderful pamphlet Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope by Fr. Cekada, and the articles on sedevacantism available at Salsa admits that CEAO does not cover this circumstance, but goes on to make the incredible assertion (without citations) that "most Sedevacantists believe (an elected pope losing his authority) is almost if not entirely impossible." Really? I hope you research your legal briefs better than your theological papers, Mr. Salsa.

Salsa claims that his analysis of CEAO applies to the case of a pope elected and then falls into heresy. How so is anybody's guess. Taking his enunciated principles to task, he claims that we can only know a heretic is a heretic "after the Church judges the matter." Well, not really. The maxim that "The First See is Judged by no one" is explained as follows by canonist Capello: "The Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. The First See is judged by no one (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19). This means that there can be no ecclesiastical tribunal by which the pope can be judged, or his decisions appealed. The maxim thus refers to a procedural norm.

One of the canonical sources for the maxium "The First See is judged by no one" comes from the Decree of Gratian, ca 1150, which reads as follows: "whose sins (the pope's) no mortal man presumes to rebuke, for he shall judge all and is to be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the Faith." (Decree, I, dist. 60, ch. 6) This tells us the very OPPOSITE of what Salsa claims: defection from the Faith is the one sin of the pope we are permitted to judge!

Further, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) one of the greatest canonists of his time, taught that a pope is "judged":"..he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly 'loses his savor' in heresy. For 'he who does not believe is already judged'" (Sermo 2: In Consecratione, PL 218:656). A pope who commits a sin of heresy can indeed be shown as one "already judged." Salsa ends his article with this uncanny paragraph, "Restoring the Church will be furthered by recognizing the authority of the current pope, as well as properly distinguishing his binding papal teachings from his mere opinions and actions, which may be the product of human weakness or self-respect, but which can never be evidence of formal heresy."

Really, Mr. Salsa? If you recognize Ratzinger as your pope, you are bound in conscience to follow his commands! Do you believe that a Mass can be valid with no words of consecration, as Ratzinger with official approval from JPII decreed? If he's your pope you must! Who decides what is binding papal teaching and "mere opinion"? You, Mr. Salsa? The decree on a mass with no words of consecration was officially taught by the Modernist Vatican, Mr. Salsa! Who says actions and opinions can never be evidence of formal heresy Mr. Salsa? You? According to theologian Merkelback, external heresy can consist of "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds" (Summa Theologia Moralis 1:746). Where does the Church teach that "human weakness" or "self-respect" excuses from an act such as kissing the blasphemous Koran like JPII? No where Mr. Salsa! You have not one citation for this novel contention! Salsa also equivocates on the meaning of "formal heresy." "Formal" does not mean "requiring a binding decree", but rather having lost the Faith after holding to it (as opposed to the "material heresy" of one raised in Protestantism, and never being a member of the One True Church).

In summation, being a Traditionalist does not make you a schismatic, but the "recognize the pope, and we will decide what to accept" thesis of Salsa will leave you schizophrenic! Counselor, if you practice civil law as poorly as you attempt to expound on Divine and ecclesiastical law, you'll be the defendant in a legal malpractice suit very soon.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Show Me the Heresy

Some Vatican II apologists claim that the post-conciliar "popes", Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, never really professed heresy, and therefore could not lose authority. The statements were "ambiguous" or "able to be squeezed within the limits of orthodox teaching." Such is simply NOT the case. Let's look at (a) heresy defined and(b) heresy displayed by the alleged "pontiffs."


A heretic, according to Canon 1325.2 is “one who, after the reception of baptism pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths to believed by divine and Catholic faith.” The teaching must be an article “of divine and Catholic faith” that the Church has authentically proposed as such.
A prior ex cathedra or conciliar definition is not required. “The explicit teaching of the universal ordinary Magisterium suffices for a truth to be authentically proposed for adherence by the faithful.” (See Michel, DTC 6:2215)

The heretic may deny the doctrine “in explicit or equivalent terms,” (See R. Schultes, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae (Paris: Lethielleux 1931), 638. “verbis explicitis vel aequivalentibus.”) through either a contradictory or a contrary proposition.

(B) Heretical Teachings

  • Justification: The October 31, 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification , approved by Ratzinger and John Paul II. This overthrows the solemn dogmatic definitions of the Council of Trent concerning justification.

  • The Church: The Declaration on Communion, the Ecumenical Directory and the Declaration Dominus Jesus, written by Ratzinger and approved by John Paul II.
    These documents promote the “Subsistent Superchurch” heresy, as Fr. Cekada calls it, which, among other things, denies an article of the Creed (“I believe in one Church”), as well as the proposition “outside the Church there is no salvation.”

  • Actions such as JP II kissing the blasphemous Koran. Canonists and theologians teach that external heresy consists in dictis vel factis — not only in words, but also in “signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds.” (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.) Vatican II apologist Jimmy Akin ( has tried to defend this kissing of the Koran because JPII may have wanted to show respect for "elements of truth" that the Islamic unholy book contains. Using the same logic, one could excuse kissing the Satanic Bible because it teaches "elements of truth" as well!

  • Declaring "valid" a "mass" with no words of Consecration!!!

The list could go on and on, but one thing is for certain: it's much easier to point to the few instances of NON-HERETICAL statements and actions of the post-conciliar "popes" than the plethora of heresy the Unholy Fathers of Modernist Rome regularly pour forth leading to the damnation of souls.

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Going to the Dogs

It has been reported by the Associated Press and at a web site, that a dog named Trapper (owed by one Mr. Donald Keith) was allowed to receive "communion" with his owner at an Anglican Church in Toronto. Like the Vatican II sect, the Anglicans have no valid Apostolic Succession or True Mass, so the two only received bread, not Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under the appearance of bread. However, the Vatican II sect has become more and more like the Anglicans, who profess faith in almost anything, yet really believe nothing.

The Anglicans profess faith in the Real Presence, yet like their Vatican II counterparts, they have no sense of the sacred. Their actions tell us they do NOT believe in Christ's Real Presence. Did not Our Lord Himself tell us not to give "that which is Holy to dogs"? According to the report, Mr. Keith was asked to come up and receive communion by his minister, who gave communion to Trapper the dog. After receiving "communion" it was said that Trapper then "bent his head and said a little prayer." The Anglican bishop has done nothing to discipline his priest. He merely said it would not happen again. Peggy Needham, an official at the parish, said the complaint only came from one disgruntled person who e-mailed the bishop.

Before anyone says this was the Anglican Church, let's not forget how close to Anglicanism the Vatican II sect gets with each passing year. Standing and receiving communion in the hand, always allowed in the Anglican Church to tacitly negate faith in the Real Presence, was adopted by Vatican II "popes." Look at any Vatican II parish to see the scantily clad women handing out the Novus Ordo cracker to men dressed for the beach (at least during the summer). Watch as they sing inane songs like "Michael Rowed His Boat Ashore" and talk/laugh while going up to get the cracker. Sitting replaces kneeling after reception. Does anyone think it will be long before some Vatican II cleric like the Punk Priest thinks it's totally cool and bodacious to give the Novus Ordo cracker to a dog?

Hey, why not? After all, doesn't their Chief Heretic, Joseph Ratzinger fancy himself as their German Shepard?

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Is Sedevacantism Heretical?

One Vatican II apologist, I(van) Shawn McElhinney, has posted what he terms a 'treatise' entitled, "A Prescription Against Traditionalism." The author mainly tries to vindicate the Novus Ordo "Mass" and rails against the so-called Traditionalists of the Society of St. Pius X. One part of his posting is optimistically called "A Refutation of the Heresy of Sedevacantism."Far from a refutation, it merely recycles arguments which either misrepresent the issue or have premises which are false.

I will present his arguments available at and expose the fallacies.

1. Christ did not depose the Pharisees who conspired to put Him to death, so who are sedevacantists to declare the papacy vacant?

Answer: We do not depose popes and make declarations. The Church through Her theologians has taught that an heretical pope loses his authority ipso facto, by divine law. As theologian Billot explains "...having become an unbeliever, he (the pope) would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church." (See De Ecclesia, 5th edition,[1927],632). Sedevacantists recognize the fact of heresy and act accordingly. There is no legal declaration that Osama bin Laden is a terrorist, but would Mr. McElhinney want to board a plane where he was the pilot? In the practical order you see the turban, recognize the fact of a terrorist (in the absence of any legal disposition), and stay off the plane. No legal declarations, just public determinations. The author's argument analogizing to the Pharisees (and making an attempt to satirize it using "The Revised Sedevacantist Version" of the Holy Bible) is very glib, but doesn't get him very far. First, the laws of the Old Testament were superceded by the New Testament, and second, the Church has already interpreted through Her appointed theologians what Scripture and Tradition mean. According to Her approved theologians, the Church has taught that nothing in the Bible or Tradition precludes the possibility of sedevacantism.

2. The definition of the first Vatican Council in 1870 dogmatically assures us there will be "perpetual successors" in the papacy, therefore to claim that the papal throne is vacant is heretical.

Answer: Pure theological and historical ignorance. According to theologian Dorsch (See de Ecclesia, 2:191-192), the definition was directed against heretics who contended that either (a) the Primacy was a power that was given by Christ to St. Peter ALONE, or (b) Christ did not intend the Primacy to be passed perpetually to his successors, but it would either die with St. Peter or pass along to the episcopal college. Mr. McElhinney and his Vatican II sect apologists would have us believe that the definition of Vatican I means that except for a brief period of interregnum between the death of one pope and the election of another, we must always have a living, breathing pope on St.Peter's Throne.
As theologian Salavarri devotes 23 dense pages to this issue (See de Ecclesia, 1:385), the Church tells us that the papacy is an INSTITUTION whose rights and duties will endure in perpetuity, and does not teach that there must always be a man to fill that position.

3. Papal legislation regarding conclaves promulgated by Pope Pius XII allows Masons/heretics to be validly elected as pope.

Answer: The declaration Vacante Sede Apostolis is irrelevant to the issue of sedevacantism. Heresy is an impediment of divine law, that prohibits a man from receiving papal authority (See Coronata, Inst. I. C. 1:312, wherein "Heretics and apostates [at least public ones] are therefore excluded {from being pope}." To be free from heresy and apostasy, he explains, is a requirement to become pope "by DIVINE LAW"--emphasis mine. Hence, the contention that Pope Pius can dispense from Divine Law is false as NO HUMAN AUTHORITY CAN DO SO! Pius dispensed only from impediments of ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

Mr. McElhinney claims that it is "impossible to embrace sedevacantism and not be a heretic." The facts prove otherwise. While he derides sedevacantists as theological "amateurs" and scoffs at "proof-texting," he nevertheless doesn't understand the Church documents he cites!! McElhinney's "Prescription", far from being medicinal, is pure theological poison that should result in a lawsuit for malpractice. In reality, it is impossible to embrace Ivan Shawn McElhinney's poor attempt at argumentation and not be an ignoramus.