He Judges Not--And Stands Already Judged As A Result

Got That Francis?

  

"Pope" Francis has dropped another bombshell: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis told journalists, as he flew from Rio de Janeiro to Rome. “The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…They’re our brothers.” He said this in response to queries about sodomite "priests."

Modernists are sly and wicked. Frankie can quickly give the appearance of being orthodox by saying that the tendency to homosexuality is not a sin and homosexuals should not be victimized. Remember, however, he said this in the context of the priesthood. There are several pertinent problems with his statement.

• If someone is a homosexual and searches for the Lord and has good will, then he will know that God wills for him to be celibate. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and sinful. They are one of the Four Sins That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance.

• "Who am I to judge"? Ah, aren't you supposed to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth? A "vicar" is one who takes the place of another. Christ is the judge of the universe. Therefore, Frankie should judge homosexual acts as wrong and those who commit them as sinners who need to repent. Then again Frankie doesn't like to be called "pope" (apropos since he's not), he calls himself "Bishop of Rome"; a kind of "first among equals" heresy espoused by the Eastern Orthodox.

• Homosexuality is a personality disorder, and renders the man UNFIT for the priesthood. The Vatican II sect has long abandoned the traditional concept of "occasion of sin." Putting a man with a sexual disorder around other men and children (sodomites are disproportionate child molesters) is an occasion of sin much akin to placing a normal man in the company of women when he has a vow of chastity.

• Even our brothers receive "fraternal correction" (from the Latin "frater" meaning "brother"). He commits a logical fallacy. Frankie claims he shouldn't judge. So that means IN HIS JUDGMENT, it's wrong to judge! Can anyone say, "self-refuting"?

Frankie went on to say, when someone sins and confesses, God both forgives and forgets. “We don’t have the right to not forget.” Not exactly.

•  When someone sins and confesses God does indeed forgive IF the penitent is (a) truly sorry for his sins and (b) has a firm resolve to avoid them in the future. Someone who doesn't recognize a sin for what it is when he has been informed of Church teaching and/or refuses to seriously stop his sinful life  can't be forgiven.

• The priests' vow makes such sins especially egregious and the disordered person has an unusually hard time stopping, which is one of the reasons such men are per se unfit to be priests.

• God, being omniscient, can't literally forget. He simply refuses to hold anything against us as if it never happened and there's nothing to remember.

• As far as humans are concerned, although forgiveness must be given when sought by one who offends us, "Ordinary friends are not obliged to unite the ties of severed friendship" (See Davis, Henry Moral and Pastoral Theology, Volume I, pg. 317, Sheed & Ward !935). If what happened to sever those ties is serious and you can't trust him, you must forgive and have no ill will, but need not take him back as your friend because you want to protect yourself against the wrong done which you must necessarily remember.

And to those who will object that Frankie was merely doing as Jesus commanded in the Gospel of St. Matthew 7:1-5, "Do not judge lest you be judged."

• They fail to take His Words in context. The rest of the passage has Our Lord saying, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

• Notice Jesus is not telling us not to judge--He's telling us how to judge. He commands us to take the speck out of our brother's eye (which requires a judgment), but also commands us to stop committing even bigger sins so we can better help him. In other words, do not judge hypocritically.

• Jesus Christ actually commands us to judge in St. John 7:24, " Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

With all the crimes committed by his sodomite clerics against children, and the "gay mafia" running the Vatican, Frankie tells us "we don't have the right not to forget'? In reality, we have a duty to remember lest we allow the damning behaviors of the past to continue.

Didn't Vatican II Make Enough Of A Mess Already?

Mr. Jorge Bergoglio, aka "Pope" Francis, has been working the crowd at World Jailbait, er, I mean YOUTH Day!! The usual Modernist claptrap was accompanied by this interesting remark, "I want to tell you something. What is it that I expect as a consequence of World Youth Day? I want a mess. We knew that in Rio there would be great disorder, but I want trouble in the dioceses!" I want to see the church get closer to the people. I want to get rid of clericalism, the mundane, this closing ourselves off within ourselves, in our parishes, schools or structures. Because these need to get out!"

He wants a mess? What does he think he has now?  He wants trouble in the dioceses? I would think large numbers of convicts is trouble enough. He wants the "Church" (i.e. Vatican II sect) get closer to the people? There would be less of the aforementioned convicts if they kept their distance. Get rid of "clericalism"? You mean married "deacons," laymen and laywomen handing out the cracker at the Novus Bogus "Mass," reading the from the book, and basically running the entire parish isn't getting rid of the former priesthood? Mundane? That word comes from the Latin "mundus" or "world," meaning "of this earth" rather than Heavenly. The Novus Bogus is a masterpiece of the mundane, as is the Modernist theology behind it.

Kenneth C. Jones wrote a commendable piece in the Latin Mass magazine; too bad he doesn't reach the logical conclusion of sedevacatism, but it is worth repeating some of his words:

"Expected was a great step forward, instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church."  

• Since Cardinal Ratzinger made these remarks in 1984, the crisis in the Church has accelerated. In every area that is statistically verifiable — for example, the number of priests, seminarians, priestless parishes, nuns, Mass attendance, converts and annulments — the "process of decadence" is apparent.

• Priests: After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. And remember that in all of these statistics, the per capita decline has been even worse, because the number of Catholics has continued to increase since 1965. In 1965 there were 12.l85 priests for every 10,000 Catholics, in 2002 there were 7.l0 — a decline of 46 percent. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests — and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests age 80 to 84 than there are age 30 to 34.

 

• Ordinations: In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.

• Priestless parishes: About 3 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

• Seminarians: Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700 — a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2000.

• Sisters: 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000 — and of these, only 21,000 will be age 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers. From 1965 to 2002, per capita, the number of sisters fell from 39.43 per 10,000 to 11.56 — a decline of 71 percent.

• Brothers: The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 predicted for 2020.

• High Schools: Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.

• Parochial Grade Schools: There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.

• Sacramental life: In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms, in 2002 there were 1 million. (In 1965 there were 287 infant baptisms for every 10,000 Catholics, in 2002 there were 154 — a decline of 46 percent.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1968 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.

• Mass attendance: A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.

• The decline in Mass attendance highlights another significant fact — fewer and fewer people who call themselves Catholic actually follow Church rules or accept Church doctrine. For example, a 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing.

•  Only 10 percent of lay religion teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control, according to a 2000 University of Notre Dame poll. And a New York Times poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.

• Religious orders: I'm not being chicken little here, but the religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 389 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.

• If this is renewal, I don't want to be around when the decline sets in."

Well said! He even answers the objection that when people cite these statistics, it's an invalid inference of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.  He writes:

"The final myth I want to discuss is the idea that the crisis we now face was not caused by the Council or the changes imposed in its name. These people would object to Mel Gibson's recent statement in Time magazine, when he was asked about the effects of Vatican II on the Church: "Look at the main fruits; dwindling numbers and pedophilia."  I have a several responses to the post hoc objection, which comes mainly from conservative Catholics.  First, the correlation in time between the holding of the Council and the subsequent decline is just so startling it's beyond reason to deny the link. I won't go through the numbers again, but in every area the numbers flipped almost immediately with the Council — numbers that were on a steep increase immediately before began a precipitous slide.  Second, the most serious declines came in exactly those areas that were most affected by the changes — for example, reform of seminaries and convents led to an immediate decline in vocations; the de-emphasis of the distinction between priest and laity was followed by a dearth of priests; the change of the Mass resulted in plummeting Mass attendance; and the emphasis on ecumenism brought about a decline in conversions and missionary activity. The list is endless.  Third, I think the burden is on those who make the post hoc argument to offer a better reason. If the changes made after Vatican II did not cause the crisis, what did? They offer no other reason. In response to the post hoc objection, I submit another Latin slogan — res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. " Well said once again, and even agreeing with Traditionalist  Mel Gibson!!

Unfortunately, Mr. Jones makes one serious error. He sees the bad fruits that Our Lord tells us can not come from a good tree, yet he writes:

"I have to submit that one of the greatest obstacles to facing the reality of the disaster after Vatican II — and to working toward reversing the decline — is that many think erroneously that you can't criticize the Council or its aftermath because it imposed infallible dogma. Again, as Michael Davies says, a council can do so, but this Council, as acknowledged by popes and bishops, did not. Another obstacle is a misunderstanding of the nature of infallibility — some people don't understand that the protection provided by the Holy Spirit is a negative protection — that a Council together with the pope will not teach error in matters of faith and morals that it proposes for acceptance by the universal Church.  This is not a guaranty that the calling of a Council is divinely inspired or that every word of every line contained in the documents is inspired or even beneficial.  As Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1988: "The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

Sorry, Mr. Miller, you're totally wrong on this one, and that's why you won't escape that Vatican II sect. Davies, and other "conservative" or pseudo-traditionalists who recognize the post-Vatican II "popes" usually quote from Paul VI's January 12, 1966 audience: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility."

     This proves nothing. "Extraordinary" refers to solemn

dogmatic definitions, which everyone agrees Vatican II did not make. They leave out the rest of his remark, well brought out by Traditionalist priest and author Fr. Anthony Cekada, ""but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents."

Ahem!

If you accept Paul VI as a true pope, therefore, Vatican II is part of the universal ordinary magisterium. As a Catholic, you are then bound to adhere to it. And that was my point.

Still not convinced? Here is the typical formula at the end of each Vatican II document: "Each and every matter declared in this Dogmatic Constitution the Fathers of this Sacred Council have approved. And We by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve, decree and establish these things; and all things thus synodally established, We order to be promulgated unto the glory of God...I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church. There follow the signatures of the rest of the Fathers." (AAS 57 [1965], 71)

What part of "Apostolic Authority," "Holy Ghost" and "rest of the Fathers" don't you understand?

Bottom line: The doctrinal buffet is now closed. If Paul VI was a true pope, there's only one dish on your menu: Vatican II."

Yes, indeed! And a dish that will make you sick if you eat it.

Moral of this post: Vatican II made a mess of everything in the Church and in the world. The last thing we need is Bergoglio telling the youth to go and make things more of a mess by spreading the Vatican II poison of Modernism. We need to clean up the mess, and to do that we must (a) recognize the evil fruits of Vatican II, (b) realize that they can not be from the One True Church, and (c) unlike Mr. Miller and Michael Davies, realize that Ratzinger speaks out of both sides of his mouth (like all Modernists do) and Vatican II must not be merely criticized ,it must be forthrightly and entirely rejected along with the post-Vatican II antipopes. As a recent bumper sticker I saw put it, we must, UNDO VATICAN II.

•  

World Jailbait Day

Someone in the blogosphere has suggested that "World Youth Day" should be renamed "World Jailbait Day." Not a bad idea considering that Mr. Bergoglio and his clerical henchmen do nothing to stop clerical child abuse once and for all, and the Modernist Vatican is controlled by a so-called "gay mafia." Every couple of years the Vatican II sect conducts these "World Youth Days" (WYD) as a "rah-rah" exhibition to make the children trust the perverts whom they should fear. Not only are they a danger to a young person's body, but---more importantly--they are a danger to the soul.

"Catechesis" will be taught most probably exclusively using Youcat the "Youth Catechism" that is heretical to the core. The "instruction" given at the beginning of Youcat says the following:

"Instructions for Use

 The Youth Catechism, which is written in Language suitable for young people, deals with the entire Catholic faith as it was presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC of 1997), without aiming, however at the completeness provided in that volume. The work is structured in Question-and-Answer format, and numbers after each answer refer the reader to the more extensive and in-depth treatments of the CCC. A commentary following the answer is meant to give the young person additional help in understanding the questions that are discussed and their significance in his life. Furthermore, the Youth Catechism offers in the margin a continuous series of supplementary elements, such as pictures, summary definitions, citations from Sacred Scripture, quotations from saints, and reliable teachers of the faith but also from non-religious authors. At the conclusion of the book, there is an index of subjects and persons to facilitate finding specific topics."

Forgetting the fact it's "abridged heresy" taking after the "Catechism of the (Modernist) Catholic Church," it  claims to use (1) citations from Sacred Scripture, (2)quotations from saints, (3) quotations from reliable teachers of the faith, and (4) quotations from non-religious authors.
Query: Into which of the above referenced categories does heretic Martin Luther belong? He's quoted no less than three times (See Youcat pgs. 93, 200, 201). To say the quotations are inane would be to understate the situation. On page 201, which concerns keeping holy the Sabbath, Luther is quoted
   "That is the difference between animals and man: the latter has a Sunday outfit, too." Profound.

Then, on page 139 the topics covered are priests and the forgiveness of sin. Next to that text there are quotes in the sidebar which supplement the text. One of them is a quote by the British actor Peter Sellers which reads, "The closest thing to a father confessor is probably a bartender." (In the Vatican II sect, I would've thought a convicted pederast would be closer, but it's now tautological anyway.)

 Youcat also contains quotes from:

• Roger Schutz, Protestant clergyman
• Atheist philosopher Ludwig Fuerbach
• Atheist philosopher Friederich Nietzche
• Atheist philosopher Erich Fromm
• Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer
• Protestant existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard

These are "reliable teachers of the faith"? Some are "non-religious authors" but none are quoted with the intent to condemn---they are quoted with approval. One could point out that even a broken clock is right twice each day, and a non-Catholic may say something sage. Perhaps, but if Jeffery Dahmer said something sagacious, I still don't think it belongs in a catechism.

 Its sexual teaching is just as disturbing. On page 222 we read, "The Church does not demonize masturbation, but she warns against trivializing it. In fact many young people and adults are in danger of becoming isolated in their consumption of lewd pictures, films, and Internet services instead of finding love in a personal relationship. Loneliness can lead to a blind alley in which masturbation becomes an addiction. Living by the motto ‘“For sex I do not need anyone; I will have it myself, however and whenever I need it” makes nobody happy." (Emphasis mine).

The Church (sic) does not "demonize" masturbation? St. Thomas Aquinas lists it as a sin against nature. But Youcat tells us it's wrong because of loneliness and it makes nobody happy. So the morality of an act is dependent on whether or not someone is made happy? When the youth are so brainwashed with heresy in Faith and morals, they will lose the former (if they ever had it!) and will give up the latter---perhaps to a predatory cleric of the Vatican II sect roaming about World Youth Day, seeking whom they may deflower. God save our youth.

Anthony, Eliot, and The Loss of All Sense Of Sin

 New York is the poster child for what's wrong with the world. Currently, we have two men running for public office who, only a few short years ago, resigned from another public office in disgrace. What's more sad is that polls have them both winning their respective races. Eliot Spitzer was elected governor in 2006. He was mentioned as Vice-President material. In 2008, he had to resign after he was found to be using a high priced call girl service, and the girl was only a couple of years older than his eldest daughter. His wife was publicly humiliated. He now has out a book on (get this) capitalism and how good morals (!) are needed. He never mentions his scandal and the damage to his family, except to glance over it in a few sentences in vague terms. He is leading in the polls to become NYC Comptroller.

Anthony Weiner never held a real job outside of politics. At 49, all he's done is hold elected office since graduating with his bachelors degree at age 22 (except working for a Congressman for about two years). In 2011, the married Weiner tweeted pictures of his genitals to woman around the country. When he accidentally tweeted the pictures elsewhere and they became public, he lied and lied until he had to admit to it and resign. He's now in the lead running for NYC Mayor.

 As recently as 1988, Senator Gary Hart had to drop out of the presidential race when it was discovered he was having an affair aboard his boat named the "Monkey Business." In 1987, after the failed nomination of Robert Bork to the US Supreme Court, President Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsberg, who withdrew his own nominations shortly thereafter when it was discovered he smoked marijuana in college. Then came Bill Clinton. "I never had sex with that woman Ms. Lewinski." He was impeached but not convicted. He said he didn't lie because the matter hinged on the meaning of the word "is."

I had an argument with a colleague at the time who defended Clinton by saying, "He only lied about sex. I wouldn't want my wife to find out." I pointed out there would be nothing to find out if he did nothing wrong in the first place. Second, what if he had molested a child? That's sex and he wouldn't want his wife (or authorities) to find out. "That's different, sex with minors is illegal." So, you're saying it's OK to lie about LEGAL sex, not all sex! I then pointed out that adultery is still on the books as a crime in New York State, but no one prosecutes it or the jails would be overflowing. I asked if he was against illegal sex, or only illegal sex for which you can be prosecuted. I think he got the idea. It's wrong to lie regardless of the subject matter.

When you divorce Church from State, morals go from public to private matters.  As Pope Pius XII once said, "The greatest sin of our age is that we've lost all sense of sin." When Vatican II clerics commit crimes against children, they are protected (and even promoted) by lies and cover-ups. They should be held to a higher standard of morality for the position of authority they hold, but they are not. Public officials are also beneficiaries of the collapse of morality in the wake and expansion of the errors of Vatican II. A poll released today showed that people didn't really care about the sexual wrongdoings of Spitzer and Weiner, but they would be concerned if it involved fiscal mismanagement. What makes them think men who lack character in positions of authority, and should be held to a higher standard, wouldn't try to steal if given the chance?

Neither Weiner nor Spitzer asked forgiveness of GOD. No one acknowledges SIN. No one does PENANCE. No one declares themselves no longer fit for public service because their sin made them unworthy. Yes, all can be forgiven by God, but that doesn't mean things can go back exactly as they were before in regards to the responsibilities you had been given. Now everyone has an "illness." Adulterers are "sex addicts" who need group therapy and couldn't help themselves. People made "mistakes in judgment" but never sin. When the "new springtime" of Vatican II eliminated sin and its temporal and eternal consequences from the public---when they began excusing and covering for the inexcusable---the public decline of morals began in earnest, getting progressively worse with each passing year.

 As a result we may have  two perverts in high positions of authority after having left such positions in disgrace only a short time ago. We have only the heretics and sodomites of the Vatican II sect (and those who follow their Modernist errors in morals) to blame.

Giving Clerics and Arguments Even-Handed Treatment

 The uncharitable, puerile, name-calling boors at the blog "Pistrina Liturgica" (PL) are still at it: desperately trying to "prove" ordination with one hand to be doubtful. (See my previous posts of 4/22/13 and 6/8/13). Calling Bishop Daniel Dolan "One Hand Dan" and Fr. Cekada "Tony Baloney" are but some of the insults they routinely throw around to besmirch the reputations of two good clerics. (For the record, one need not agree with every theological argument/position taken by a Traditionalist priest or bishop--especially during this unprecedented time of sedevacante--in order for them to be good clerics). Such sustained vitriol makes me want to send a few names their way but (a) I will never stoop to such a level and (b) my mother (God rest her soul) taught me never to insult the mentally challenged, so I decline to do so now.

 In their latest post of  July 14, 2013, PL is now publishing "The third in a series of our reactions to e-mail comments received as a result of our crusade to rescue the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's priestly orders from a lifetime of wrenching doubt." The alleged doubt of the deacon's soon to come ordination arises due to the (also alleged) doubt of the (also alleged) one handed priestly ordination of Bishop Dolan.
 "
The post begins by quoting an email that specifically names me: "Funny how all the Cekada backstoppers like Introibo Ad Altare are completely ignoring the fact that he mistranslated Pius XII. You gave 5 examples to show how no one else ever translated it as "one and the same" and no one added extra words either [See our May 11 post]. I respectfully submit a SIXTH. Weird how everybody but Cekada including the "Novus Ordo" can get it right. Sede priests are idiots."

First, I'm not a "backstopper" for anyone. I follow the evidence and arguments where they lead. I disagree with Fr. Cekada on the Schiavo case. I also disagree with attendance at "una cum" Masses where no sedevacantist priest can be found. I disagree that Frs. Baumberger and Greenwell were invalidly ordained by Bishop Mendez. I also disagree with the SSPV that Thuc orders are per se invalid, and that you can deny those who attend such Masses Holy Communion. I also had theological disagreements with my spiritual Father, the late, great Fr. Gommar A. De Pauw.

Let's see what arguments PL actually employ:

1. The Correct Translation of Sacramentum Ordinis  (SO)

Fully conceding that Fr. Cekada mistranslated SO, it doesn't do one iota to help PL's assertion that one handed ordinations are dubious. As I've explained in previous posts, the phrase "imposition of HANDS" has been used in theology manuals to refer to both one handed deacon ordinations as well as two handed priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations. I also pointed out that if this were not the case, Pope Pius XII was in ERROR when he wrote "the matter, and the only matter, of the sacred orders of the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopacy is the imposition of hands." He should have written, "the matter, and the only matter of the sacred order of the diaconate is the imposition of the one hand. The matter, and the only matter of the sacred orders of the priesthood and the episcopacy is the imposition of both hands." Remember, PL thinks that there may be an essential (i.e. substantial) difference in the matter of the sacrament depending on whether one or two hands are used. This being the case, a two handed ordination of a deacon must be held dubious, and Pope Pius' poorly worded phrase makes it seem like both hands are needed for the diaconate. True, he later specifies one hand for the ordination of a deacon, but that doesn't vitiate the fact that what he wrote prior would be (according to the principles laid down by PL) incorrect--the matter and the only matter of the sacred order of diaconate is not the imposition of HANDS, but the imposition of a HAND. Two hands may be substantially different from one hand, and render the deacon's ordination "dubious."

Fr. Cekada got it wrong on one point, but right on the overall conclusion. As I do not wish to be guilty of rash judgment against a priest, I will not ascribe bad motives, but priests are all too human. Hence, the correct translation of SO is inapposite as to whether one handed ordinations are dubious--as a matter of fact, the correct translation actually serves to vindicate the conclusion that such one handed ordinations ARE valid! I'm not ignoring the fact, I'm pointing out that it doesn't help PL's case one bit.

   2. Attempting to "Prove" a One Handed Ordination With Hearsay

PL wrote in a prior post 6/22/13: Today we will lay out four overarching reasons for believing that at least one 1976 one-handed priestly ordination is not the stuff of urban legend but is highly plausible. Be advised that the following are private reasons, and therefore we shall not disclose the identities of the reporters and witnesses. We know who they are, and we are personally satisfied as to their rectitude and veracity. Our object is not to persuade anyone else to adopt our position, but solely to let the unbiased observer know that our belief in at least one one-handed ordination is founded on clear-and-convincing evidence.

We will see that the evidence is far from "clear and convincing."

They write:In 1990, nine Roman Catholic Priests affixed their signatures to a letter addressed to the Rev. Daniel Dolan. The letter declared, in part, "... your ordination was done with one hand." Admittedly, some of these clergymen may not have checked the texts of the references cited in the letter, but they could scarcely have missed the hard, categorical assertion that the addressee had been ordained with one hand. They surely were morally certain of the allegation or their consciences would not have permitted them to sign their names. This sanguine inference must be true, because a priest has reported that many American clergy at the time were aware of the report of the archbishop's conferring one-handed priestly orders in 1976. (Apparently little was made of the event at first, owing to the great esteem in which the archbishop was held: Amost everyone then thought he could do no wrong.)  

Let's see:

• None of the nine claim to have witnessed the one handed ordination.
• The fact that NINE signed it does nothing to prove they were eyewitnesses to the event. Without such EYEWITNESS testimony, the number is meaningless--you have nine people who saw nothing.
• "They (i.e. the nine who signed the letter) surely were morally certain of  the allegation or their consciences would not permit them to sign it." I see, if "Tony Baloney" or "One Hand Dan" were to sign a letter or write an article we must ascribe to them every evil motive in the book because everyone knows they are liars and uneducated buffoons. However, when priests who agree with a position taken by PL sign something they are paragons of virtue whose motives are as pure as the driven snow. The fact that the letter was written years later and after he left the SSPV couldn't possibly go to show a motive to "get him" for leaving Clarence Kelly, right?
• A priest (whoever he is) has reported that many (quantify "many") American clergy at the time were aware of the report (reported by whom? being aware of a report of something is not the same of being aware that what is reported is accurate and true) of the Archbishop's conferring one-handed priestly orders in 1976. (Oh, please God, I can only hope none of those at PL are lawyers who have to present real EVIDENCE on behalf of their clients!!)

Next:

First-hand reports from former seminarians at Écône and Winona relate it was common knowledge that the '76 ordinations had been performed with one hand. At least one of these men, who later received his own priestly orders from one of the '76 ordinati, underwent conditional ordination as a safeguard against any future impeachment of his orders.
 What does this prove?

• If these "first-hand" reports are true wouldn't their consciences (to which PL gives great deference) compel them to speak out against all those so ordained and demand they stop administering the Sacraments until they are conditionally re-ordained? This obviously was not done.
• One priest, who heard the allegation, went to get conditionally re-ordained. This proves nothing other than (a) he erroneously believed one-handed ordinations to be dubious (if it even took place) and (b) he didn't want to endure the indignity of having himself called names by uncharitable cretins in their blog. 
• Suppose there's someone who wanted to get conditionally baptized, because he was a baby and was afraid the priest might have done something wrong. How does this prove anything, except perhaps for paranoia?

 Next:

A witness present at the '76 ordination confirmed in writing that the one-handed ordination happened, and he confided his irritation with the senior clergy in the sanctuary who did not intervene at the moment the defect occurred. Another individual, who was not present at the 1976 ordination, heard from others who were present that the archbishop had been "in a panic" following the ceremony but later composed himself after another party "explained" the validity of one-handed priestly orders. 

 

What does this show? Not much:

• If true, wouldn't the "panic-stricken" Archbishop check out the matter himself? If it's so evident that one-handed ordinations are dubious, wouldn't he demand re-ordination? After all he was trained pre-Vatican II and should know better, not like the so-called "Traddie" clergy with their "inferior" training as PL claims.
• Bishop Richard Williamson was in that ordination class. Has anyone asked HIM about the matter? Why isn't he known as "One Hand Dick"? (Sounds like a porno star). Why isn't everyone trying to "save" the countless SSPX priests who were ordained by Williamson?

Next:

If Daniel Dolan affirmatively knew he had been ordained with two hands, then by natural right and in natural justice he had a moral duty to deny immediately, vigorously, and unequivocally the nine priests' allegation that his "ordination was done with one hand." (A lofty refusal to "dignify a charge with an answer," as every wise man now knows, is an ethical failing as well as a public-relations miscalculation.)  However, no one seems to have a written record showing that Daniel Dolan, not a surrogate, emphatically controverted the priests' declaration in 1990. On the contrary, with Fr. Cekada's aid, Daniel Dolan in fact complied with the nine priests who urged him "diligently to research the problem and, to let us know any findings which shed light on this issue."

Where to begin?

• Whenever a priest or bishop sets out to confect a sacrament, validity is to be presumed, unless and until the contrary is shown.
• Principle and proof:
  Sacraments conferred by a Catholic minister, including Holy Orders, must be presumed valid until invalidity is proved.
   
  This is “the queen of presumptions, which holds the act or contract as valid, until invalidity is proved.” (F. Wanenmacher, Canonical Evidence in Marriage Cases, [Philadelphia: Dolphin 1935], 408.)
   
  “When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed.” (W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.)
• Bishop Dolan has no "moral duty" to comply with rank calumny or to give credence to an incorrect presupposition, i.e., one-handed ordinations are dubious. PL puts the burden of proof on the wrong party. Merely stating something without solid evidence proves NOTHING.
• Bishop Dolan's compliance to research the matter is not an admission it happened. It's along the lines of "even if what you say is true, it makes no difference, and here's the reasons why."

    3. The Nail In PL's Coffin: Eastern Orders

I will now reproduce what I wrote in a previous post, because it is a defeater for PL's position.

The most absurd "rebuttal" to Fr. Cekada's work, occurs when PL attempts to refute his arguments that one handed ordinations are routinely used in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. They do not claim his translation is wrong and that two hands are used. They do not claim he simply made stuff up. Their "argument" (I'm being kind in referring to it as such) is as ridiculous as it seems:
"SO WHAT!" (sic)

Remember, PL thinks that the plain meaning of SO is all that counts, so they go on to declare:
"Therefore, it seems to us very simple: after April 28, 1948, the only valid matter for priestly ordination in the Roman rite is the imposition of the bishop's (two) hands. Nothing else matters, so to speak. All this business about Byzantine, Coptic, or Maronite rites is not germane. If you're going to be an undoubted priest of the Roman rite in the wake of the promulgation of Sacramentum Ordinis, you must receive the imposition of (both) the bishop's hands. In light of the explicit definition found in Pius's apostolic constitution, one-handed conferral of priestly orders can only be viewed as a defect in the Roman rite of ordination. Whether one-handed conferral is an essential defect or not must wait until the Church decides the question, an event that may not happen for quite some time. In the meanwhile, a deeply solicitous regard for the salvation of souls demands that one-handed priestly orders be considered, for safety's sake, an essential defect. "

This is sheer ignorance at its worst. The underlying assumption PL makes is that it is possible for the Roman Pontiff to subtantially (i.e. "essentially") change the matter of a sacrament, so that what is valid in one rite might become invalid in another. Pope Pius XII could not declare that use of leavened bread for the Eucharist is an "essential" or "substantial" defect in the Latin/Roman Rite, so that a properly trained and validly ordained priest of the Roman Rite using it at Mass would not confect the Eucharist but an Eastern Rite priest would do so. Illicit, yes. Invalid, no. Likewise, to say that one handed ordination might be illicit is one thing, but not invalid.

Proof:

"It is well-known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments" Pope St. Pius X, Ex quo nono, 1910

"The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or "ceremonial" parts to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns, before or after the actual words of the form are recited..." Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896

 Theologian John de Torquemada declared (1) that the Church had no power over the matter and form of the sacraments and (2) that the sacraments must be the same in the whole Church, since 'the unity of the Church is necessarily founded in the unity of faith and the unity of sacraments, in what concerns the substance of the sacraments.' Pope Eugene IV immediately approved this language. Further, the substance of a sacrament must at the very least convey Christ's meaning, so it would seem fully within the power of the Church to say that this or that form does or does not sufficiently express the meaning....In Extreme Unction, the Church never doubted the validity of the sacrament in the Orthodox Church, although the words of the form are various (See Leeming, Bernard Principles of Sacramental Theology (1962), pgs 420, 430).

It's clear that Pope Pius XII, could NOT have changed the substance (essence) of the sacrament so as to make the matter for the Latin Rite differ in validity from the Eastern Rites. It would result in this absurdity: A Latin/Roman Rite Bishop attempts to ordain a man to the priesthood using one of the Eastern Rites. Is it invalid? If the pope allows him to become a Bishop in the Eastern Rite, is it now valid? Or is it the subject (Roman or Eastern) whom determines what matter must be employed for validity? Bottom line: If it's valid in one Rite, it is valid matter for all Rites and can not be substantially different.

  4. Conclusion
 When it comes to theological matters, PL should keep their hands off. They cause strife and doubt where none should exist. Their "arguments" are based on their personal prejudices and they sift "evidence" to fit these same prejudices. There's an old aphorism that one should not speak or write about matters that one doesn't understand. In the case of PL, it would seem to dictate perpetual silence and no more postings.     

Vatican II Uber Alles

Jorge Bergoglio, aka "Pope" Francis is (literally) hell-bent on proving the alleged truth, goodness and beauty of Vatican Council II, which chased the True Church underground and set up a false Modernist sect in the once holy dwellings of Catholicism. This year Bergoglio will "waive" any further requirements to "canonize" Antipope John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli) and Antipope John Paul II (Karol Wotyla). His reason is evident: Anyone who promotes the Modernist heresy of the Council must become a "saint." From 1563-1958, the True Church canonized two popes (Pius V and Pius X), and beatified one pope (Innocent XI). Since its beginning in 1958, the Vatican II sect has six antipopes, two of whom (Benedict XVI and Francis) are alive. Of the remaining four, two will be "saints" and one (Paul VI) is close to "beatification." Can Antipope John Paul I be far behind?

  In a previous post, I railed against the idea of Wotyla (JPII) being a "saint" and I will now present the objections to Roncalli (John XXIII). Canonizations are infallible decrees:

Assertion 5: The Church's infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.

Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.
Proof:
1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”

2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult.
(Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ's Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957], pp. 117-118.)
 
 After you consider the fact about Roncalli ask yourself, "Could the True Church infallibly declare such a man a saint"? If your answer is in the negative, then "Pope" Francis is not the infallible head of the One True Church, but the heretical antipope of a false sect.

Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII):

• Born in 1881 and ordained in 1904, he became involved with socialist societies as early as 1913 and signed a petition urging civil violence against civil authority and members of the Catholic Church (see Arade, Zsolt Pope John XXIII, Pgs. 38-40)

• Relieved of a teaching post in 1924 being suspected of Modernism

• The Magazine 30 Days also held an interview several years ago with the head of the Italian Freemasons. The Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy stated:  “As for that, it seems that John XXIII was initiated (into a Masonic Lodge) in Paris and participated in the work of the Istanbul Workshops.”

• When John XXIII was later “elevated” to the College of Cardinals, he insisted upon receiving the red hat from the atheist and notoriously anti-clerical socialist Vincent Auriol, President of the country of France, whom he had described as "an honest socialist."Roncalli knelt before Auriol, and Auriol placed the cardinal’s biretta on Roncalli’s head.  Auriol then hung a “broad red ribbon around the cardinal’s neck embracing him on each cheek with a little bear-hug that imparted personal warmth to formal protocol.” Auriol had to wipe away his tears with a handkerchief when Roncalli left to assume his new dignity as “cardinal.” At social functions in Paris, Roncalli (John XXIII) was also frequently seen socializing with the Soviet ambassador, M. Bogomolov, even though Bogomolov's government had resumed its pre­war policy of brutal extermination of Catholics in Russia.

• He gave a Moslem a "blessing" in which he suppressed the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity so as not to "offend" the infidel

• On July 18, 1959, John XXIII suppressed the following prayer: "Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or Islam." In his Apostolic Brief on October 17, 1925, Pope Pius XI ordered that this prayer be publicly recited on the feast of Christ the King. John XXIII removed from the Calendar of Saints the Fourteen Holy Helpers and a number of other saints, including St. Philomena.

• John XXIII also changed the rubrics for the Breviary and Missal.  He ordered the suppression of the Leonine Prayers, the prayers prescribed by Pope Leo XIII to be recited after Mass.  These prayers were also prescribed by Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XI. This included the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, a prayer that specifically makes mention of the battle that the Church wages against the Devil.  John XXIII removed the Psalm Judica me from the Mass. John XXIII then suppressed the Last Gospel, the Gospel of St. John.  This Gospel is also used in exorcisms. Next, John XXIII eliminated the second Confiteor in the Mass.  Only after all these changes did he introduce a change into the Canon of the Mass by inserting the name of St. Joseph. The request to have St. Joseph’s name placed in the canon was officially rejected by Pope Pius VII on September 16, 1815,and by Pope Leo XIII on August 15, 1892. 

• John XXIII, Pacem in terris #14, April 11, 1963: “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.” Compare with Pope Gregory XVI encyclical Mirari Vos:

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate." Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

• When he died, Roncalli was praised by Freemasons thus:

THE MEXICAN WESTERN GRAND LODGE
of free and accepted Masons,
at the death of
POPE JOHN XXIII

Publicly expresses its sorrow for the loss of this great man, who made a revolution in the ideas, thoughts and forms of the Roman Catholic liturgy.

THE ENCYCLICALS "MOTHER AND TEACHER" and "PEACE ON EARTH"
Made a revolution in concepts favoring
THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND HIS LIBERTY

Mankind has lost a great man, and we
the Freemasons recognize his elevated principles, his humanitarianism and his condition as a GRAND LIBERAL.

Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, June 3, 1963
THE MEXICAN WESTERN GRAND LODGE
Jose Guadalupe Zuno Hernandez, Esquire 

• He convoked Vatican II in 1959, to begin in 1962 and was the biggest boost the Modernists had helping them against the orthodox Catholic prelates led by the truly saintly Cardinal Ottavianni.

And this last reason is why Bergoglio will make him a "saint" of Modernism--everyone who fights against the Truth must be sainted and the Council "vindicated." Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear must flee the Vatican II sect with its "Satanic saints." Vatican II CAN'T EVEN BE QUESTIONED. How long before the assembly at the so-called "mass" will be asked to hold the arm outstretched and say "HEIL VATICAN II"!

When "The Light of Faith" Is Caused By The Flames Of Hell

"Pope" Francis put out his first "encyclical" (co-authored by now retired Ratzinger) entitled, Lumen Fidei, i.e., "The Light of Faith." I can only wonder what "faith" he's referring to since it's not the One True Faith of Jesus Christ as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. Further proof that the Vatican II sect is Modernist heresy and not the Roman Catholic Church (as if any more proof was needed), can be found merely by looking at the notorious figures mentioned without anathemas and, in some cases even approvingly, in what pretends to be papal teaching.

Lets take a look: Lumen Fidei (LF) paragraph #2: The young Nietzsche encouraged his sister Elisabeth to take risks, to tread "new paths… with all the uncertainty of one who must find his own way", adding that "this is where humanity’s paths part: if you want peace of soul and happiness, then believe, but if you want to be a follower of truth, then seek". Belief would be incompatible with seeking. From this starting point Nietzsche was to develop his critique of Christianity for diminishing the full meaning of human existence and stripping life of novelty and adventure. Faith would thus be the illusion of light, an illusion which blocks the path of a liberated humanity to its future.

Frederich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was the philosopher who proclaimed the "Death of God", was a hero to the Nazis, and died from an STD he got from a brothel. He is also thought to have been a homosexual by some historians.

In LF paragraph #16: "In Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, Prince Myskin sees a painting by Hans Holbein the Younger depicting Christ dead in the tomb and says: "Looking at that painting might cause one to lose his faith".The painting is a gruesome portrayal of the destructive effects of death on Christ’s body. Yet it is precisely in contemplating Jesus’ death that faith grows stronger and receives a dazzling light; then it is revealed as faith in Christ’s steadfast love for us, a love capable of embracing death to bring us salvation. This love, which did not recoil before death in order to show its depth, is something I can believe in; Christ’s total self-gift overcomes every suspicion and enables me to entrust myself to him completely."

Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1861) A Russian novelist of whom it is written, "From an analysis of religious perspectives in Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, Demons, and The Brothers Karamazov, James Townsend concludes that Dostoyevsky held orthodox Christian beliefs except for his view of salvation from sin. According to Townsend, "Dostoevsky almost seemed to embrace an in-this-life purgatory", in which people suffer to atone from their sins, in contrast with the Christian doctrine of salvation through Christ. Malcolm V. Jones has found elements of Islam and Buddhism in Dostoyevsky's religious convictions"

In LF paragraph #22: "This explains why, apart from this body, outside this unity of the Church in Christ, outside this Church which — in the words of Romano Guardini — "is the bearer within history of the plenary gaze of Christ on the world"  — faith loses its "measure"; it no longer finds its equilibrium, the space needed to sustain itself."

Fr. Romano Guardini (1885-1968) A thorough Modernist.  His first major work, Vom Geist der Liturgie (The Spirit of the Liturgy), published during the First World War, was a major influence on the Liturgical Movement in Germany, and so ultimately on the "liturgical reforms" of the Second Vatican Council.

LF quotes Martin Buber’s definition of idolatry as “when a faces addresses a face which is not a face.”   

Martin Buber (1878-1965) Jewish existentialist philosopher whose teachings reject Christ and the sound philosophical principles of Scholasticism.

Not exactly the roll call of Church Fathers, Doctors and Saints. But what more could we expect from Bergoglio and Ratzinger?  Having rejected the True Faith, all we can get is a hodge-podge of heresy which heaps praise upon the greatest disaster in  human history---Vatican II. This is not the light of Faith; it is the glow of the once brightest angel...Lucifer.

Slavery and Abortion



Texas State Senator Wendy Davis (D), has become the secular media darling for staging an 11 hour filibuster against a bill that would restrict late term abortions and make abortuaries (what an abortion mill should be called) "safe" for women (actually since half the babies murdered are female, it could never be safe for them). Seems pretty reasonable, not like those "fanatics" who want to take away a woman's "right to choose" altogether, right?

  I recently visited a web site www.catholicvote.org. They had posted an article entitled, "Five Questions the Media Should Have Asked Wendy Davis." It is a Vatican II site, and the author, who has his heart in the right place, did not really hit the nail on the head. One of the five questions he would have posed was this one:

"2. If you don’t believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins and at what point does an unborn child acquire human rights?"

 Someone tried to answer this question for State Senator Davis in a comment as follows:

"2. I honestly don’t know the answer to this question, many struggle with it. But I do know for a fact that any abortion restrictions would limit a woman’s right to her own body at any term of the pregnancy. When does the fetus’s right to life trump this right to her own body? You think at conception, many disagree."

The Modernist mindset truly has taken hold thanks to Vatican II. I responded to that comment as follows:

In reply to your response of the second question, I think the absurdity can be brought out by comparing abortion to slavery. In 1857 the US Supreme Court ruled that African-Americans (“Negros”) were 3/5 of a human being and can be property. If you think about it, the Confederacy was not pro-slavery, they were pro-choice. They didn’t force white people to own slaves; it was a matter of choice. The problem is that in order to be given the chance to make such a choice, you must deny the humanity of the object chosen. A Confederate politician could answer in similar fashion, “I don’t know if blacks are human. It’s above my pay grade. Many people struggle with it. But I do know for a fact that any restrictions on slavery would limit a white man’s right to own property and make a living. Many people think blacks are fully human, just like white people, but many disagree.”

Kind of like an 1850s version of Wendy or Barack, slavery can be justified because we "don't know" the answer to a "difficult question" on which many people disagree. The pro-aborts beg the question as to whether or not the fetus (Latin for "little person") is human and assume that it's part of a woman's body. From the first moment of fertilization, the zygote has a complete genetic code that is totally human and completely distinct from both mother and father. The fact that it depends on the mother for life no more robs him/her of humanity than someone who depends on an iron lung for life ceases to be human and becomes part of the machine because he/she can't live without it.

Every zygote becomes a fetus, and every fetus becomes a human baby--always human. Now even if I were to concede (and I'm not) that we don't know when the zygote "becomes human" that is enough to stop abortion. Think about it. If you go deer hunting and you see something move in the bushes that could be a deer or could be a fellow hunter, what do you do?  You can shoot and hope it's a deer, or you can refrain from shooting because it might be human. The innate moral law tells us that only the latter course is acceptable, even if it means a prize deer gets away. When in doubt, you must choose the side that favors the preservation of innocent human life.

 Texas Gov. Rick Perry called the legislature back into a special session for 30 days to pass the bill Davis killed. While pro-lifers peacefully gathered and sang "Amazing Grace" orange shirted pro-aborts were screaming "Hail Satan!"  A fitting slogan for the cheerleaders of death. Then again, the way things are going, they might want to substitute "Wendy" or "Obama" for "Satan." When you get right down to it, they all stand for the same thing anyway.

The Society of St. Pius X: A False Solution to a Real Problem

 I finished reading a small book by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) entitled, Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem published by the Society's Angelus Press. It's rife with truths, half-truths and outright falsehoods, all nicely interwoven to give an aura of dogmatic certitude to the Society's position that sedevacantism is an "error."

I will now focus on some of the major points which misrepresent sedevacantism, and attempt to reinforce the SSPX's theological errors.

• The book categorizes sedevacantists as either “Rigerous,  “Conclavist” or followers of the Cassiciacum thesis. Let us first of all consider the latter, which can be superficially characterized as holding that we have a pope who has no authority, but whose authority would return if he returned to the faith. Now while this latter position is advocated by some highly intelligent individuals – Guerard des Lauriers, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Sanborn--just to name a few--the average "garden variety" sedevacantist does not know about this thesis or adhere to it. All they know is the theological truth that a heretic can't be pope. How we get a pope back; divine intervention, an imperfect general council, or the material/formal pope of the Cassiciacum thesis is up for grabs at this point. Technically speaking, the Cassiciacum thesis is known as sedeprivationism, meaning that the seat of Peter is deprived of it's power and the "pope" is a material pope, not a formal one. It's like the President of the United States who declares himself temporarily incapable of performing the authority of his office. Pursuant to the 25th Amendment, he retains the office, but with none of its powers which will be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President until the disability is removed. (This happened on July 15, 1985 when President Reagan needed surgery. For four hours, VP Bush was Acting President Bush until Reagan came out of anesthesia.) In sedeprivationism, the "pope" holds the office, but with none of its power unless and until he publicly abjures the heresy of Modernism as contained in the documents of Vatican II.

• .While it is true that there are a moderate number of  “conclavists” and a veritable host of  “popes,” (either self elected or followed by relatively small groups of people), the fact remains that the sedevacantist position is in no way tied to such groups. While it is regrettable that we do not have a true pope able to direct the activities of the Church, it should be clear that there is nothing that prevents any Catholic from being Catholic. Such has always been the case during periods characterized as being “inter-regnum.” As Catherine Emerick said, if there is only one Catholic in whom the faith exists, the Church resides in him.

• To call sedevacantists "rigorous" implies a kind of fanaticism, when in fact it's founded on very sane theological principles taught by all pre-Vatican II theologians.

• The sedevacantists are accused of holding that the "teaching Church no longer exists." This is false. The Church can exist without a live pope to sit on the throne. We may have to wait for the Restoration of the Visible Head of the Church, but the alternative is heretical; namely the Ordinary Universal Magisterium can teach error which contradicts the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church. Ironically, the author accuses sedevacantists (i.e. Traditionalists) of denying the Indefectibility of the Church since he confuses the Church proper with indefectibility of the teaching hierarchy; the latter of which CAN happen.

•  The author casts doubts on the validity of the Thuc consecrations on the grounds that he consecrated some individuals who were in one way or another unqualified. This is a red herring. First, it has nothing to do with disproving sedevacantism. Second, plenty of bishops have ordained/ consecrated unworthy individuals. As long as they applied due diligence, you can't blame them for the bad actions of others. Third, validity and worthiness are two separate issues. The proper principles of sacramental theology were not applied. A worthy candidate can be invalidly ordained/consecrated, and an unworthy candidate can be validly ordained/consecrated.

• In conclusion, the book never lets us face the reality that to follow the post-Conciliar “popes” requires that we become apostates as they have. The choice is clear. Either we obey the post-Conciliar  "popes", or we declare that the current pseudo-pope and the bishops in union with him are themselves not in the One True Church.  The SSPX gives a false solution to a real problem. If they do not soon adopt the true Traditionalist position of sedevacantism, they have no solutions to offer and, in effect, become part of the problem itself.