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.

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.

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 http://www.traditionalmass.org/. 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.