Remember Sodom: Trying To Make The Unnatural Legal

With the Modernist Vatican at the center of a homosexual cabal of "bishops" and "cardinals" it's no wonder not a word was heard from Bergoglio as the US Supreme Court heard two key cases this week on whether or not sodomites have a "right" to marry. Please see my post "The Secular Case Against Sodomy" of August 2010. The Vatican II sect has lost all moral authority and is unable (as well as unwilling to stand up for what's right). Just as God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, we will destroy ourselves. Presented here is a synopsis of the peer-reviewed research of Dr. Paul Cameron on the link between child molestation and homosexuality.

"Do homosexuals disproportionately molest children? Gay activists vehemently deny it, yet the empirical evidence says otherwise. The key concept is proportionality. Probably a numerical majority of child molestations involve a male adult and a female child, but given the small fraction of homosexual practitioners, the number of homosexual molestations is disproportionate to the percentage of homosexuals. This briefing summarizes some of the key evidence.

Three Critical Facts

• Homosexuals comprise < 2% of adults
• 90+% of child molesters are male
• The Gay Report — 23% of gays reported sex with boys aged <16 7="" aged="" boys="" li="" with="">

From Facts to Disproportionate Reality

• Human Rights Watch 2008 World Report — ~150 million girls, ~73 million boys “have experienced rape or other sexual violence”
• U.S., Canadian reports — girl/boy ratio also about 2:1
• 25-40% of molestations are thus same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals

Homosexual Molestation in Positions of Authority

• ~43% of sex between teachers & pupils
• ~50% of sex between foster parents & foster children
• 21 group home sex scandals — 71% were same-sex

Sex With One’s Own Children

• Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6%

References:

• Sahil (2009) Cruel Numbers 2009
• Freund K, Watson RJ (1992) The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 18:34-43
• Jay K & Young A (1979) The Gay Report. NY: Summit
• Cameron P (2007) Teacher-pupil sex, how much is homosexual? Empirical Journal Same-Sex Sexual Behavior;1:1-19 (on-line)
• Cameron P (2005) Child molestation by homosexual foster parents: Illinois, 1997-2002. Psychological Reports 96: 227-230
• Cameron P (2005) Are over a third of foster parent molestations homosexual? Psychological Reports 96:275-298
• Cameron P & Cameron K (1996) Homosexual parents. Adolescence 124, Winter, 757-776"

 

The Francis-Rodney Connection

"Salus Animarum Est Suprema Lex"--(The salvation of souls is the supreme law). At least this is the case in the True Church. The Vatican II sect of Antipope Francis is putting ecumenism on steroids. Instead of leading souls to the Truth, Mr. Bergoglio, an apostate himself, sends people outside of his counterfeit Catholicism and wants them to stay there! As long as you're not a Traditionalist in the Truth, then stay as you are in a One World Religion where you only have to look at Bergoglio as a "first among equals."  Let's just get along and have peace! Two powerful stories brought that point home this week.

1. MOSLEM CONVERT LEAVES VATICAN II SECT

  As reported by the Religious News Service:

VATICAN CITY -- A high-profile Italian Muslim who converted to Catholicism and was baptized by Pope Benedict XVI announced on Monday that he will leave the church to protest its soft stance against Islam.
Egyptian-born Magdi Cristiano Allam, 61, a prominent journalist and outspoken critic of Islam, publicly entered the Catholic Church on March 22, 2008, during an Easter Vigil service, receiving baptism directly from Benedict.
After his conversion, Allam founded a small right-wing political party that lost badly in Italy's general elections last April.
Writing on Monday in the right-wing daily Il Giornale, Allam explained that he considers his conversion to Catholicism finished "in combination with the end of (Benedict's) pontificate."
"The'papolatry' that has inflamed the euphoria for Francis I and has quickly archived Benedict XVI was the last straw in an overall framework of uncertainty and doubts about the Church," he wrote.
On Friday, Francis pledged to "intensify dialogue among the various religions," particularly Islam.
Allam, who has called Islam an "intrinsically violent ideology," said his main reason for leaving the church was its perceived "religious relativism, in particular the legitimization of Islam as a true religion."
"Europe will end up being subjugated to Islam," he warned in Il Giornale, unless it "finds the courage to denounce Islam as incompatible with our civilization and fundamental human rights," and to "banish the Quran for inciting hatred, violence and death towards non-Muslims." Europeans also need to "condemn Sharia as a crime against humanity" and to "stop the spread of mosques."
Allam said he would remain a Christian but that he didn't "believe in the church anymore."
Allam's surprise conversion was orchestrated by Archbishop Rino Fisichella, currently head of the Pontifical Council for the New Evangelization, who "personally accompanied" the Muslim intellectual's approach to the Catholic faith.
At the time, the Vatican's chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, stressed that the conversion was the result of Allam's "personal journey" and was not intended as a direct message to Muslims.
A leading Muslim intellectual involved in interfaith dialogue with the Vatican, Aref Ali Nayed, criticized the public conversion ceremony as a "triumphalist way to score points," and said it raised "serious doubts" about the Catholic Church's policy toward Islam.

What can we expect when Vatican II teaches "The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God". (Nostra Aetate 3)

Compare with the teaching of the True Catholic Church: Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (ex-Cathedra and infallible):
 

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (“Cantate Domino,” 1441) Emphasis mine.
 

2.  BERGOGLIO SENDS WELL WISHES TO THE ARCHLAYMAN OF CANTERBURY

From RNS:  Pope Francis today sent a message to the new Archbishop of Canterbury on the occasion of Dr. Justin Welby's enthronement at Canterbury Cathedral. Below, please find the full text of Pope Francis' greetings to Archbishop Justin Welby of Canterbury: To the Most Reverend and Right Honourable
Justin Welby
Archbishop of Canterbury
"May grace and peace be multiplied to you" (1 Pet 1:2b)
I thank you for the kind words contained in your message to me at my election, and I wish in turn to offer my greetings and best wishes on the occasion of your Enthronement at Canterbury Cathedral.
The pastoral ministry is a call to walk in fidelity to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Please be assured of my prayers as you take up your new responsibilities, and I ask you to pray for me as I respond to the new call that the Lord has addressed to me.
I look forward to meeting you in the near future, and to continuing the warm fraternal relations that our predecessors enjoyed.

From the Vatican, 18 March 2013

Ironically, both Bergoglio and Welby are  neither valid priests or bishops. The new rite of Montini is invalid on the same grounds as Anglican Orders which were declared "absolutely null and utterly void" by Pope Leo XIII in his Apostolic Constitution "Apostolicae Curae" of 1896. Yet not only does he regognize him and refer to him as a "bishop", he wants him to "walk in fidelity to the Gospel of Our lord Jesus Christ" while remaining a heretic and outside the Church! Again the True Church says,

"But God forbid that the sons of the Catholic Church ever in any way be hostile to those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love; but rather they should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them, whether poor, or sick, or afflicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and 'being fruitful in every good work' [Colossians 1:10], they may attain eternal salvation."
--Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, par. 9, August 10, 1863 (Denzinger 1678)
Empasis mine.

Ecumenist heretics like Mr. Bergoglio, want us to all "get along" and not let little things like absolute Truth get in the way of making nice. True Charity is in conversion to the absolute Truth. Antipope Francis says we "need Anglicans to stay Anglicans" (!) as if the missionary martyrs died for nothing, and an implict denial of the dogma "extra ecclesiam nulla salus est" (Outside the Church there is no salvation). There can be no True and lasting peace (let alone SALVATION) except in the Truth of the One True Church of Christ. So the next time Bergoglio wants us to "all get along", let's remind him that we Traditionalists can't do that. Because the King we follow isn't named Rodney; He's Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace and Truth Incarnate.

 

 

 

New Course For "Papacy"? No, Just Going To Hell Faster

According to the Religious News Service:
"Ahead of his formal installation as pontiff on Tuesday (March 19), Pope Francis is sending clear signals that he intends to lead a papacy markedly different from his predecessor — and perhaps different from that of any other pope in modern times.
In weekend meetings with the cardinals who elected him and in encounters with parishioners after Mass on Sunday, in a Saturday audience with journalists and in his first public appearance since his election, Francis set a tone of informality and approachability and indicated that it was no longer business as usual in the church"

Notice like Ratzinger, JPII, and JPI he will be "installed" not coronated. But the worst is yet to come.

As he concluded a Saturday morning meeting with some of the thousands of reporters who have been covering the papal transition, Francis said he would bless the group, but out of respect for their differences would not make the sign of the cross over the gathering. “Given that many of you do not belong to the Catholic Church, (and) others are nonbelievers, I give this blessing from my heart, in silence, to each of you, respecting the conscience of each one, but knowing that each of you is a child of God,” he said, to applause.

Compare condemned proposition # 15 of Pope Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors (1864):
"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."

At the same event, Francis went off script to explicitly mention both the church’s “virtues and her sins.” In highlighting again his emphasis on solidarity with the poor, he indicated that it should extend beyond mere charity. “How much I would like a poor church, for the poor!” the pope exclaimed.

The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 gives the following definition of the Church's indefectibility:

"By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will be preserved unimpaired in its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change, which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men."

Church members can and do sin, but the Church Herself is the sinless Bride of Christ. And did not Our Lord Himself say,"For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always" (St. Matt. 26:11)? Help the poor? Of course! However,the reason for the Church's existence is to SAVE SOULS.

On Sunday, appearing from his apartment window overlooking St. Peter’s Square, Francis recited the Angelus prayer with a huge and enthusiastic crowd of more than 150,000. In the midst of his brief and informal reflection, he praised by name the writings of Cardinal Walter Kasper, “a very sharp theologian,” he said. Kasper’s desire to open the church to reform has prompted sharp debates over the years with Benedict.

A "very sharp theologian"? The Society of St. Pius X documented the following (footnotes have been omitted, but I have left the web link for those so interested):
"For Walter Kasper, the miracles narrated in the Gospels are not historical facts related as eyewitness testimony by two Apostles, and as testimony heard by two of the Apostles' disciples, nor are they "segni certessimi” of Our Lord Jesus Christ's divinity as defined by Vatican I dogma. Rather, they are "instead, a problem which makes Jesus' activity strange, and difficult for modern man to understand."¹ So, in homage to "modern man," or to be precise, to prideful man who believes only in himself, Walter Kasper deems himself authorized to put into perspective the "undeniable tradition which witnesses these miracles to us."³

Let us pass over the process that Kasper employs because we've previously treated it,⁴ and because it is just the parroted echo of the gratuitous assertions of the worst Protestant rationalist "criticism." Instead, let us move on to the conclusions: For Kasper, the new purple biretta, what are Jesus' miracles?

"These non-historical stories," he writes, "are statements of belief in the salvific meaning of the person and message of Jesus."⁵ Briefly, for Walter Kasper, Jesus never raised either Jairus' daughter or the widow of Naim's son from the dead, nor did He even call Lazarus from his tomb. Neither did He ever calm tempests, nor multiply the loaves, nor walk on water, etc.

According to Kasper, the evangelists invented these "non-historical stories" the way that our grandmothers made up fables at the fireside when there was no television to corrupt children. And just as our grandmothers' fables only sought to inculcate a "morality," so too the Evangelists' "fables" about Jesus' miracles "did not intend to present Jesus as Lord over life and death."⁶

In any case, for Walter Kasper, also as to his assumption that the miracles did occur-which, like all of the "new theologians" he firmly doubts-Jesus could not have performed miracles simply because he was not God. Jesus, he says, never advanced such "claims," and at Caesarea Philippi, Peter merely confessed, "You are the Messiah," and Jesus also proclaimed this before the Sanhedrin.⁷ But when the first Christian community confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, it did not in fact mean that Jesus really is the Son of God, but only wished "to express the idea that God manifests and communicates Himself in an absolute and definite way in the story of Jesus." End of story. In fact, the first Christian community did not intend "to acknowledge a dignity for him that would further his claims." Naturally, it was St. Paul's and St. John's habit to further Jesus' "claims."⁸

In our day, we are fortunate to have the Dutch Catechism to sort out all of this for us. Kasper partakes of its heresy, namely that "the doctrine of Jesus' divinity and humanity constitutes a development of the original conviction that this man is our divine salvation."⁹

You have read it correctly: salvation is "divine,” but Jesus is simply "this man"! And this would be "the original belief of the faith," indeed, the primitive Church's belief and faith!

We could stop here because we don't see how a man can still exercise his priestly function, be made a Bishop, and today even be made a Cardinal who, in his writings, negates fundamental Christian doctrine, i.e., Our Lord Jesus Christ's divinity, which, rather than heresy ought to be called apostasy.

If Jesus is not God but was made so by his later followers, there can logically be no resurrection. And in fact, Walter Kasper negates the Resurrection. For him, "the empty tomb represents an ambiguous phenomenon, open to different possibilities of interpretation."¹⁰ And interpretations of the Resurrection are "beliefs and testimonies produced by people who believe," and who, via the "new theology's" strange logic, necessarily lie, and who also simply attest to whatever facts that they have been lead to believe.

Undoubtedly, he continues, a certain "grossly erroneous type of assertion that Jesus was touched by their hands and ate at the table with his disciples...runs the risk of justifying a too coarse Paschal faith."¹¹ But fortunately, as to the spiritualization of this "coarse" Paschal faith which has been the Church's faith for 2000 years, lo and behold, we have Walter Kasper to inform us that these apparitions were nothing more than "meetings with Christ present in the Spirit."¹²Clear, no?

So, for Walter Kasper, Our Lord Jesus Christ was not divine, there were no miracles, no resurrection and, therefore, no ascension.¹³ And in error's inexorable "logic," there was no Immaculate Conception or divine maternity. Consequently, Walter Kasper actually teaches the windy rehabilitation of Nestorius. Isn't that also logical? If, for Kasper, Jesus is not God, then Nestorius was wrongly condemned for having denied Mary the title, "Mother of God."¹⁴Everything squares in the new Cardinal's "logic." What a pity that it is the logic of apostasy and of total rejection of Revealed Truth!

(http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/SiSiNoNo/2001_November/Cardinals_With_No_Faith.htm)

Francis also continued to stress his role as the new Bishop of Rome, first among equals rather than the boss of all other bishops. He continued to refer to his “brother cardinals,” and at every liturgy and at meals he insisted on standing or sitting with the bishops and priests instead of taking the special place reserved for the pope. Vatican experts saw that as an important sign of the kind of collaborative leadership model many have been looking for

From the Infallible Definition of the First Vatican Council:
"So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."

St. Francis of Assisi was told by God to "rebuild My Church." Antipope Francis is on a mission from Satan to tear down whatever Remnants of the Roman Catholic Faith may remain. Christ save us.

His Name May Be Francis, But He's Been Less Than Frank

Here's just a partial list of the doctrinal and moral aberrations as reported by other web sites concerning the "conservative" "Pope" Francis:

• He comes from that order in the Vatican II sect, the Jesuits, most criminally involved in the sex and money scandals, as well as "Liberation Theology."

• At an "Ecumenical Meeting" at Buenos Aires on June 19, 2006, he knelt to received the imposition of hands from Protestant ministers there present. 

• He is a flaming "ecumenist" (syncretist), who has been prominently involved in all kinds of blatantly unCatholic and anti-Catholic gatherings with Protestants, Jews, and Mohammedans, many of which he allowed to be held in his own Vatican II cathedral.

• Like Ratzinger, he is a particular friend of the Jews, who hailed his election. He has regularly participated in Jewish services and in lighting the menorah.

• He has shown a hostility to the "Latin Mass," even Ratzinger's Modernist Vatican II "Motu" Mess of 1962+ additions.

• He has been described by one of his own flock as "an utter enemy of tradition."

• He has espoused a decidedly Modernist mindset of "a changing tradition."

Bergoglio is just another heretic, the sixth antipope of the Vatican II sect. He is a Modernist and will hopefully be more and more radical, putting the nail in the Vatican II coffin, and sending many into the loving arms of the True Church of Traditionalism. Don't be fooled by media reports of "humility" and being "conservative" (a label that doesn't even apply to Catholicism--you're either orthodox or heterodox). He's not about to deny those reports of false humility and conservatism either. He's not Frank; he's a phony.

Habemus Anti-Papam

Today, March 13, 2013, the Vatican II sect elected their sixth antipope, Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina, who will take the name "Pope" Francis. Unfortunately, he is a surreptitious Modernist like Ratzinger, who will continue to advance "Frankenchurch" under the guise of being "conservative."
He is perceived as conservative because he will probably not introduce women priestesses, or allow abortion. The record of Mr. Bergoglio, the first layman "pope" neither validly ordained (1969) or consecrated (1992), speaks differently and has some pseudo-traditionalists scared. From one such blog, they write:

"Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.

A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.

Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.

His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.

He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary interreligious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was "blessed" by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the "powers" of the TV-pastors.

This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion or homosexual "marriage"[approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.

It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work."

Alas, it is EXACTLY what Ratzinger wanted, namely, another unrepentant Modernist. They may differ in style but their substance is the same--Satanic. More about Bergoglio in the days ahead.

Screaming to Heaven for Vengeance

"Archbishop" Sal Cordileone of San Francisco, who was recently arrested for drunk driving, has one of his "pastors" removing the photo of Ex-antipope Ratzinger from the Church? The reason? As the parish bulletin stated," The feeling was while he was pope, as well as his time as a cardinal, Pope Benedict had made hurtful and hateful statements regarding the LGBT [Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transsexual] Community and, thus, his picture should not be placed on the altar [sic] of Most Holy Redeemer. I was also warned, many parishioners would walk out of Sunday Mass [sic] if the picture was not removed."

 It's the normal people with any sense of the Catholic Faith who, like Lot, should walk away and not look back until they rest in a Traditionalist Catholic Church. What will happen to Cordelione who tacitly approves this mess? Like the secular law, he will get a slap on the wrist from the heretics in the Vatican. The new antipope will do nothing. Now it's becoming ever more clear that the so-called "Red Dossier," which contains of a homosexual cabal running out of the Vatican itself and 300 pages of documented corruption under Ratzinger and Wotyla, is the principle reason behind Ratzinger's abdication. It also explains why the "bishops" get away with murder---and sodomy---which are two of the four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance. Such vengeance may not be far behind.

The Real March Madness Begins

Tomorrow, March 12, 2013, the Vatican II sect shall begins its false conclave to elect the next antipope. Many people wonder when a real conclave can or will occur. Will Christ Himself end this period of sedevacante since at least 1964? Are the so-called sedeprivationists (i.e., those who hold to the theory which states that an antipope-heretic is still a "material" pope who can only appoint cardinals, but becomes a "formal" and true pope should he abjure the heresies of Vatican II, embrace the One True Faith, and get validly consecrated as bishop in the Traditional Rite if needed) to be proved correct if the next antipope converts? Many people begin to have doubts about sedevacantism because of the length of time we have been without a pope.

Do not be deceived by the length of time the Chair of Peter has been empty. It's not crazy to think the Church could be without a pope for so long; it is insanity to expect anything but another heretic to emerge from this conclave. I will now quote from theologian, Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, as revised and edited by Mr. John Lane in 1999:

"In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society - Theological Essays, comprising twenty-nine essays by Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time. The book expresses with wonderful clarity and succinctness many important theological truths and insights on subjects indirectly as well as directly related to its main theme.

For our purposes the book has in one respect an even greater relevance than it did at the time of publication, for in it Fr. O'Reilly asserts with the full weight of such authority as he possesses, the following opinions:

1. that a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the indefectibility of the Church; and
   
2. that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See (other, of course, than that a true pope will never fall into heresy, nor in any way err).

Of course Fr. O'Reilly does not have the status of pope or Doctor of the Church; but, that said, he was certainly no negligible authority. Some idea of the esteem in which he was held can be obtained from the following facts:

Cardinal Cullen, then Bishop of Armagh, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Thurles in 1850.

Dr. Brown, bishop of Shrewsbury, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Shrewsbury.

Dr. Furlong, bishop of Ferns and his former colleague as professor of theology at Maynooth, chose him as his theologian at the Synod of Maynooth.

He was named professor of theology at the Catholic University in Dublin on its foundation.

The General of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Beckx, proposed to appoint him professor of theology at the Roman College in Rome, though as it turned out circumstances unrelated to Fr. O'Reilly intervened to prevent that appointment.

At a conference held regarding the philosophical and theological studies in the Society of Jesus, he was chosen to represent all the English-speaking "provinces" of the Society - that is, Ireland, England, Maryland, and the other divisions of the United States.

In short Fr. O'Reilly was widely recognised as one of the most erudite and important theologians of his time.

Finally, the following quotation by Dr. Ward in the justly renowned Dublin Review (January 1876 issue) is worth quoting (emphasis added):

"Whatever is written by so able and solidly learned a theologian - one so docile to the Church and so fixed in the ancient theological paths - cannot but be of signal benefit to the Catholic reader in these anxious and perilous times."

Dr. Ward thought his times were anxious and perilous! Well, let us now see what "signal benefit" we, a little more than a century later, can derive from some of Fr. O'Reilly's writing.

We open with a brief passage from an early chapter of the book, called "The Pastoral Office of the Church". On page 33 Fr. O'Reilly says this (emphases added):

"If we inquire how ecclesiastical jurisdiction...has been continued, the answer is that...it in part came and comes immediately from God on the fulfilment of certain conditions regarding the persons. Priests having jurisdiction derive it from bishops or the pope. The pope has it immediately from God, on his legitimate election. The legitimacy of his election depends on the observance of the rules established by previous popes regarding such election."

Thus, if papal jurisdiction depends on a person's legitimate election, which certainly is not verified in the case of the purported election of a formal heretic to the Chair of Peter, it follows that, in the absence of legitimate election, no jurisdiction whatever is granted, neither "de jure" nor, despite what some have tried to maintain, "de facto".

Fr. O'Reilly makes the following remark later in his book (page 287 - our emphases added):

"A doubtful pope may be really invested with the requisite power; but he has not practically in relation to the Church the same right as a certain pope - He is not entitled to be acknowledged as Head of the Church, and may be legitimately compelled to desist from his claim."

This extract comes from one of two chapters devoted by Fr. O'Reilly to the Council of Constance of 1414. It may be remembered that the Council of Constance was held to put an end to the disastrous schism which had begun thirty-six years earlier, and which by that time involved no fewer than three claimants to the Papacy, each of whom had a considerable following. Back to Fr. O'Reilly:

"The Council assembled in 1414...

"We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope - with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum."

Thus one of the great theologians of the nineteenth century, writing subsequently to the 1870 Vatican Council, tells us that it is "by no means manifest" that a thirty-six year interregnum would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ. And we can therefore legitimately ask: at what stage, if any, would such be manifest? After thirty-seven years? Or forty-seven years? Clearly, once it is established in principle that a long interregnum is not incompatible with the promises of Christ, the question of degree - how long - cannot enter into the question. That is up to God to decide, and who can know what astonishing things He may in fact decide.

And, indeed, as Fr. O'Reilly proceeds further in this remarkable chapter, written over a hundred years ago but surely fashioned by Divine Providence much more expressly for our day than for his, he makes this very point about what it can and cannot be assumed that God will permit. From page 287 (all emphases added):

"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance...nor ever with such a following...

"The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one's service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."

While Fr. O'Reilly himself disclaims any status as a prophet, nevertheless a true prophecy is clearly exactly what this passage amounts to. Moreover it is the kind of prophecy which, provided it is advanced conditionally, as in this case, both can and should be made in the light of the evidence on which he is concentrating his gaze. In respect of much that lies in the future there is no need for special revelations in order that we may know it. As Fr. O'Reilly indicates, except where God has specifically told us that something will not occur, any assumptions concerning what He will not permit are rash; and of course such assumptions will have the disastrous result that people will be misled if the events in question do occur. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord." (Isaias 55:8)"

And in Rome, the maddness begins....

Shooting Yourself In the Foot is More Than An Opinion

 After the death of my Spiritual Father, the late great Fr. Gommar A. DePauw in 2005, I began attending Mass at the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV). They are a wonderful and dedicated group of priests led by Bishops Kelly and Santay who derive their episcopal orders from the late Bishop Alfred Mendez of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. The group is officially sedevacantist, but they don't want to impose a theological "opinion" on anyone else. Hence, their sermons, like the one I heard today, are of the "nice, nice, sweet, sweet" variety where we talk about spirituality and never dare bring up the topic of sedevacantism directly.

 To be sure, they make it clear that to receive Communion, one must be in the state of grace, fasting, and "embrace the Catholic Faith whole and entire, as it was always held before Vatican II." Furthermore, "one can not attend the Novus Ordo, the Motu/Indult Mass, or Masses of the Society of St Peter (FSSP)." They will only touch upon sedevacantism rarely, and then dance around the specifics as to why one must have nothing to do with the Vatican II sect. So they don't want to be controversial right? There are other things to discuss besides attacks on Modernist Rome, and sedevacantism is an "opinion" after all.

 The sad result of not taking the heretics head on hit home today as I was preparing to go into the 8:30 High Mass. I was downstairs by the excellent book shop while those attending the 7 am Low Mass were starting to leave. The nice gentleman who takes care of the bookshop (I'll call him Mr. M) seemed very sad. We had spoken on several occasions and he knew I was with Fr. DePauw for many years. He started with Father back in the 1960s when he was the "only game in town" for the True Faith, Mass and sacraments. In 1978, when the Society of St. Pius X opened up, he attended Mass there because he wanted his two sons to go to their school and insulate them from the Modernism that had taken hold everywhere since Vatican II. Father DePauw never ran a school. Later, when nine priests split to form the de facto sedevacantist Society of St Pius V, Mr. M went with them.

 This morning Mr. M said to me "I called the Ave Maria Chapel (Fr DePauw's chapel) this week to get my son's baptismal certificate. He's getting married." I congratulated him, though he seemed crestfallen. He continued, "He's marrying in the Vatican II Church. He said you're supposed to get married in the girl's parish. I'm not going, that's for sure." He looked like he was holding back tears as he turned and walked away.

 Not to place blame on the good priests of the SSPV, but perhaps if his son heard sedevacantism preached loud and proud at least once a month and had not been educated in an SSPX school where the "pope" is accepted but Vatican II rejected, he would realize that saying his fiance's "parish" is another expression of Catholicism is ludicrous. The whole idea of sedevacantism being an "opinion" is itself absurd. Either the post-Vatican II popes are legitimate and must be obeyed (in which case Vatican II can't be bad and must be accepted) or Vatican II is heretical and those who adhere to it, including the post-Vatican II "popes" (with the next one on the way), are antipopes and must be rejected. To quote from Bishop Donald Sanborn:

Opinionism places the identity of the Roman Pontiff, i.e., whether Ratzinger is the Vicar of Christ or not, in the category of "theological opinion."
The very term opinion indicates that it is not certain whether he is or he is not the pope. It is impossible to hold, however, that there is a lack of certitude on this subject.
Those who hold that he is the pope point to absolutely certain signs: (1) a legal election which was universally accepted; (2) Ratzinger's own acceptance of the election; (3) Ratzinger's functioning as pope; (4) the universal acceptance of Ratzinger as a legitimate pope.
None of these things is uncertain. If one is using these arguments as evidence of his papacy, where is there any room for doubt?

Those who argue against his papacy use arguments which are in themselves certain and incontestable: (1) that he has promulgated to the universal Church false doctrines, false moral teaching, and evil disciplines; (2) that he has said heretical things and has acted like a heretic, even an apostate, on many, many occasions; (3) that he has appointed heretics and/or apostates to the Roman Curia and to episcopal sees, maintains them in power, and is in communion with them.
None of these facts is disputable or in doubt. They are sufficient, particularly no. 1, to prevent him from being pope.

So if you hold that he IS the pope, for the reasons alleged, how could you hold that it is a legitimate opinion to say that he is not the pope? If you hold that he is NOT the pope, for the reasons alleged, how could you say that it is a legitimate opinion to say that he is the pope? Where is the doubt? Where is there, in these arguments, any fear that the opposite side may be true?

The theological underpinning and the moral justification of the traditional movement is that Vatican II and its reforms are false and evil. They are a substantial distortion of Catholicism. Why do we establish an apostolate against that of Ratzinger and the local Novus Ordo bishop, except because the doctrines, rites, and disciplines of Vatican II and its reforms are contrary to faith and morals? If they are not contrary to faith and morals, then why do we have a traditional movement? Why are we doing this? What justification would we have to do it in the eyes of God?

If, however, it is certain that Vatican II and its reforms are contrary to faith and morals, then it is certain that they are not promulgated by the Church. If, in turn, it is certain that they are promulgated by the Church, then it is certain that those who promulgate them do not represent the Catholic Church. Then it is certain that Ratzinger is not the pope.

The conclusion that Ratzinger is pope carries with it necessary conclusions: that the doctrines, disciplines, and rites which he has universally promulgated are Catholic and not sinful. If Ratzinger is pope, then by the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church, the religion which he approves and promulgates is the Catholic Faith. One could practice it in all good conscience; indeed one must.
The conclusion, on the other hand, that the doctrines, disciplines and rites of Vatican II are false and evil, and contrary to Faith, religion, and good morals, carries with it a necessary conclusion: that the person or persons who have promulgated it do not have the authority of Christ. The infallibility and indefectibility of the Church, which come from the solemnly promised assistance of Christ, cannot bear that such a thing happen. One must conclude to Ratzinger's non-papacy, if one concludes these things about Vatican II

So it is impossible, logically and theologically to say, "I accept Ratzinger as pope, but I reject Vatican II and its reforms." Likewise it is impossible, logically and theologically to go the other way, saying, "I reject Vatican II and its reforms, but I accept Ratzinger as pope."

In other words, Ratzinger's papacy necessarily means the religion he promulgates is Catholic, and the non-Catholicism of Vatican II and its reforms necessarily means that Ratzinger cannot be pope.
The Society of Saint Pius X is guilty of the first fallacy, of accepting Ratzinger but rejecting his religion. They mount a worldwide defiance of him by the establishment of a parallel apostolate in which they try to lure souls away from him and his hierarchy.

The opinionist is guilty of the second fallacy. He rejects Vatican II and its reforms, but admits the acceptance of Ratzinger is theologically viable. It makes no sense.

If you have undertaken a resistance to Vatican II and its reforms, you cannot say that it is a legitimate opinion to hold that Ratzinger is the pope. To say this is to implicitly admit that you are not certain that Vatican II and its reforms are truly contrary to faith and morals. To be opinionist about Ratzinger is to be opinionist (and therefore doubtful) about the whole basis of the resistance to Vatican II.
If it is possible that Ratzinger is pope, then it is possible that Vatican II, the New Mass, the new sacraments, the new canon law, and ecumenism are Catholic. If it is possible that Ratzinger is pope, then it is possible that we are all wrong about Vatican II."

 We are not wrong about Vatican II and the Counterfeit Catholic sect it spawned, so it's about time we ask all True priests to speak about sedevacantism often, in order to remind those born in the 1990s and later what happened, and why we fought so hard to give them the One True Faith of the One True Church. The Vatican II "parish" is NOT Catholic. If we Traditionalists fail to properly instruct our young members they will be ensnared in the ecumenical Frankenchurch--after all (they will protest), the guy in Rome might be the pope, so you can't enforce your opinion on me! I'd rather be with my friends and girlfriend/boyfriend in the closer Catholic church without all the rules. This is shooting ourselves in the foot, and it's not simply my opinion. Just ask Mr. M.