Sedevacantism: When You Have Nothing Left To Lose

"Fr." John Zuhlsdorf is a one-time Lutheran minister who converted to the Vatican II sect and is now an invalidly ordained priest. In other words, his status didn't change, except insofar as he had more going for him as a Lutheran heretic, jumping out of the pan and into the fire. Known as "Fr. Z," he writes a blog "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" The title of the blog says it all. It's knee-jerk attempts to explain away every heresy that comes out of Modernist Rome. No matter how outlandishly heterodox the "pope" may act or speak, Fr. Z will perform the most incredible feats of sophistry in order to tell us what he REALLY meant. And, of course, what he really meant was completely orthodox.

 What we have is not a Magisterium, or divinely appointed teaching authority, but rather words and writings that no one save Fr Z can correctly interpret for us. He even talks about "Reading Francis Through Benedict." In the good old days of Roman Catholicism, we didn't need to understand Pope Leo XIII through Pope St. Pius X, because each pope is the Vicar of Christ, and Christ does not contradict Himself, nor does He require mental gymnastics to figure out what He teaches. Nevertheless, we have Fr. Z to assure us that Modernism is really orthodox Catholicism if you spin it just right. Think of him as SSPX General Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay-- minus the charm and valid orders.

Fr. Z likes Ratzinger, who was the very engineer of the Modernist take-over (along with his mentor, the diabolic Joseph Cardinal Frings of Germany) during Vatican II. Antipope Francis, needs much more PR than Ratzinger required from Fr. Z. After all, Ratzinger threw bones at Traditionalists, hoping we would be stupid enough to be engulfed into his One World Cult. Zuhlsdorf could talk about the "Extraordinary Rite" of "mass" given by Ratzinger to be freely used and then tell us how Herr Benedict was a "friend of Tradition." Francis is another story. He's openly and proudly attempting the final overthrow of all things Catholic, and doesn't even pretend to like anything traditional.

Here is a sample of MR. Z's (he's not a valid priest) spin-doctoring:

"The MSM and catholic left and the squishy center is running with Francis’s jump-out quotes (traddies could maybe call them “scare quotes”).  If you look at MSM headlines, you take-away will be that Pope Francis is saying that abortion isn’t a big deal or that homosexuality is okay and that the Church doesn’t have a right to tell anyone what to do.
I don’t think that that is what he thinks or what he is doing or saying.
Let’s take a look at a portion of the interview in which Francis talks about homosexuality.  Pay attention to the vocabulary, even though this is a translation.  I haven’t yet verified the translation against the original.  My emphases and comments:

“We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” [That's the public square.] the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. [Something that needs healing is not a good thing.  Then he leaps immediately into the issue of homosexuality... ] In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. [Which has been made abundantly clear in documents issued during the time of John Paul II from the office guided by Joseph Card. Ratzinger.  The Church does NOT condemn homosexual people!  The Church sees the actions as sinful and the orientation as a wound.  I won't use the word "disease", because that gives absolutely the wrong sense of the wound.  I'll go with Francis' point that it is something that needs "healing".] During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, [Where, Holy Father, where?  On every street corner: the public square.] but God in creation has set us free: [We have FREE WILL.  We can choose to go against God's plan and law.] it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person. [God doesn't use mind control.  The Church doesn't use mind control.  The Church proposes and we either freely embrace it or freely reject it.]"

Got all that folks?  "Traddies" just don't understand what Frankie really meant without using the "Z hermeneutic", i.e. heresy will never be heresy when spoken or written by the occupant of the Vatican. He attempts to explain away Frankie's lack of condemning the sin of homosexuality and supplies it for him in red. Ditto for "not interfering in the life of a person." The Church can and should do all in Her power to make someone realize that they are in sin, and secular laws, like the ones that used to exist against sodomy, should also be there to express societal disapproval for sins against the very nature created by God. Thankfully, we have Mr. Z, who tells us in red that Frankie really meant that God doesn't use mind control!! Reading his blog is kind of like reading a warped Missale Romanum, where instead of "Say the black, do the red" it's "read the black, believe the red."

After Bergoglio's election as antipope, Mr. Z wrote, "Be smart. There will be time in the future for people to sort what Vatican II means and what it doesn't mean," ... "But mark my words: If you gripe about Vatican II right now, in this present environment, you could lose what you have attained."

I see. After almost 48 years after it closed, and with a supposedly Supreme Teacher on the papal throne, we need more time for a place in the future where people can begin to sort out what Vatican II does and doesn't mean! What kind of Magisterium doesn't teach and leaves you in a lurch for almost half a century with no answers? What's the difference between that "Magisterium" and none at all? Griping about Vatican II will make us lose all we attained! And what would that be? Pseudo-traditional "masses" with Modernist additions offered by an invalidly ordained priest? Please. The Vatican II sect has stripped countless souls of the True Faith, True Moral teaching, and True Sacraments, thereby sending them on their way to Hell. There is nothing left to lose that already hasn't been lost.

So when you're tired of having to read an ex-Lutheran's blog explaining why heresy isn't really heresy, perhaps you'll consider losing faith in the Vatican II sect, join the Traditionalist Catholics, and leave the all the rest behind--from A to Mr. Z.

Narrow-Minded Rules Or The Narrow Path That Leads To Heaven?

Antipope Francis rocked the world by giving an interview to a Jesuit periodical wherein he stated that the Church (i.e. his Vatican II sect) is too concerned with "narrow-minded rules" such as abortion, contraception, and homosexuality. His remarks were met with joy by the world (of course). We should focus more on people, he intoned. Excuse me Your Phoniness, but isn't the murder of unborn children something upon which we should focus? Notice that the other two sins expressly deal with the 6th and 9th Commandments. Shouldn't an institution plagued by perverts put more emphasis than ever on purity?  Mr. Bergoglio (Antipope Francis), is ingenious in his plot to get everyone into his Modernist one-world religion. He was even praised by a non-Catholic practicing sodomite who published the following on the Huffington Post blog under the title "Pope Francis Moves Church Beyond Gays and Abortion--To People" (my comments in red):

Pope Francis continues to radically refocus the Catholic Church and, even as a non-Catholic, I am beginning to view him as a personal pastor.

His Uber-Modernist refocusing makes the Vatican II sect so increasingly secular that a non-Catholic pervert sees him as his "personal pastor."

Headlines were splashed on media outlets that reported that the Pope had said in an interview that the Catholic Church was too focused on gays, abortion and contraception.
This is not news to those of us who have been saying that for years. But to hear the head of the Catholic Church say it is like an ecclesial bomb going off that topples much of the edifice that has sustained the more conservative wing of the Catholic Church over the past several decades.

The "conservative wing" are those who have any sense of the Roman Catholic Faith left in them. Will the SSPX and those in the Vatican II sect finally realize that Francis is a heretic and CAN NOT be pope?

Too much of what is done and said in the name of Jesus elevates the blunt and often harmful instrument of tradition or dogma over the actual lives of people who are seeking to know God's love and to feel accepted and respected within the church.

Those people who really want to find God in their actual lives need to come to Jesus Christ on HIS terms, not on their terms! Francis promotes the "topsy-turvydom"  of conversion. You must convert and turn from sin in order to feel love and be accepted in the Church. The Church must conform the world to Christ and not vice-versa!


Here is one example from the article involving the reality of gay people who desire to be included in the church:

"A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: 'Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?' We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy."

The most merciful thing we can do is tell them they're on the road to Hell and must conform to the Will of Christ. Love the sinner but hate the sin? Sure! But Frankie twists it to the point where accepting the sin along with the sinner is "merciful." Replace "gay person" with "anti-Semite." Now read it again and see it as absurd and lacking a call to conversion. Speaking of which, the Modernist Vatican only condemns Traditionalists and politically incorrect sins. Mr. "Who am I to judge" would have no problem damning Bishop Richard Williamson to Hell for (horrors!) disputing the actual number of victims in the Holocaust and how they were killed. But practicing sodomy, one of the four sins that cries to Heaven for vengeance, is OK.

Many on the Catholic right will be quick to point out the interview does not reveal a major break with Catholic teachings. However, in this interview and in his famous 'who am I to judge? moment on the papal plane, you can tell the Pope doesn't really object to gay people living out our God-given sexuality.

Yes, he's perverted in his morals as well as his false "faith." There are so many breaks with Catholic dogma, it's hard to know where to begin. Lastly, God gives you sexuality, but you have responsibility not to pervert it. Sodomy is not a gift of God, it's a sin against the very nature God created.

As the Jesuit James Martin, SJ reflected: "Pope Francis's message to gays and lesbians is simple: mercy, mercy and mercy."

Ironically, it's the unmerciful message of a satanic man telling you "Be complacent in your sins and go to: Hell, Hell, and Hell.

 The Vatican II sect under Mr. Bergoglio is a living contradiction where you must make the judgment that judgments shouldn't be made and the only dogma is that there should be no dogmas. And when the Ten Commandments are seen no longer as the narrow road to Heaven, but "narrow-minded rules," every intelligent person must ask himself, "Doesn't that make God 'narrow-minded too"? Indeed, few people realized that evil man insulted Almighty God Himself.

Will Francis End Clerical Celibacy In His Sect?

A high ranking cleric in the Vatican II sect let it be known that clerical celibacy is not doctrine but merely discipline (true), and hinted that Antipope Francis was "open" to changing it. Dismantling every last vestige of Roman Catholicism is what "Pope" Frankie is all about; and it seems clerical celibacy (a tradition known by everyone) is on the chopping block.

The so-called "conservative" wing of the Vatican II establishment is trying to downplay the report, and is quick to remind us that most of the early Bishops and priests were married (as are some Eastern Rite priests today). They wrongfully think this will end pedophilia scandals and stop the shortage of "priests." While it may boost their numbers, it will do nothing to end pedophilia scandals, and I guess it only makes sense that a invalid "mass" stripped of all notions of sacrifice should be recited ("offered" is a meaningless term here) by a minister devoid of the spirit of sacrifice in the service of the crucified Lord. How many realize that the Eastern Rites only allow married men as priests (who must remain celibate if their wife dies and can never be bishops), but that a single man must remain celibate just as in the Latin Rite? How many are aware that there are excellent reasons the Church mandated celibacy? Very few outside of Traditionalists, as Modernists will never speak of such things.

I came across an article by George Sim Johnson, who wrote a particularly salient part about the call to abolish clerical celibacy in the Vatican II sect, and why it's so wrongheaded. I reproduce it here:

"The other argument against celibacy is that the Church's requirement of continence is a primary cause of the sex scandals. Plying their Freud, "experts" like Richard Sipe argue that a lack of sexual outlets drives priests into pedophilia. But the recent scandals have little to do with pedophilia, a clinical disorder whose incidence among Catholic priests is no greater than among the general population(this assertion I disagree with and Johnson gives no citation for it.The Vatican II clergy is rife with pedophiles due to the number of homosexuals that were let in beginning in the mid-1960s.--Introibo ad Altare Dei).  Rather, the majority of episodes involves homosexual acts with teenagers or young men, and it may be wondered how marriage would solve this particular problem. It is clear that not a few homosexual men have entered the priesthood partly as a "cover" for their condition. Arguably, it would only make matters worse if they had to take on a wife as additional camouflage. In any event, it wouldn't stop some of them from going after teenage boys, as has been amply demonstrated in other clerical milieu.

It should also be pointed out that Freud was wrong about the nature and effects of "sexual repression"—in other words, abstinence. He considered it the taproot of all neuroses, and the sexual revolution has been driven by his idea that such "repression" is a very bad thing. But we all know celibate priests—and laity, for that matter—who are adjusted and well-balanced. We also meet promiscuous individuals who are not. Freud nonetheless taught that the libido is a pressure that builds relentlessly to the point where it demands release, as in a steam engine; and if you don't find a sexual outlet, you become neurotic, or even worse.

But, in fact, our sex drives don't work that way. There is no build-up of pressure in the central nervous system, and the libido doesn't plot revenge if for whatever reason one is continent for a period of time. It largely depends on what "messages" one allows to get through to it, which is why the Church has always taught the necessity of guarding one's eyes and imagination. This is not Puritanism, but self-possession; and all Christians, not just Catholic priests, are called to this heroic struggle. The more likely neurotics are those who separate sex from married love and, in the process, compulsively turn people into objects, into a means to an end. The sexual revolution, which amounted to a willful misreading of human nature, has failed on its own terms, but there are still those who want the Church to buy into it.

In a world that has absolutized sex, a celibate priesthood is a necessary sign of higher things. It's tough, but then so is Christianity. Those who wish to abolish celibacy generally favor other dilutions of Catholic doctrine and discipline. They are pursuing an essentially bourgeois project. They think that Christianity is fine so long as it makes no demands and, as a corollary, that the Church should turn itself into yet another liberal Protestant denomination."

Indeed, the COMPLETION of turning the Vatican II sect to a liberal Protestant denomination was the plan of the Modernists all along. As far back as 1907, Pope St. Pius X condemned this following error of the Modernists in his prescient encyclical Lamentabili Sane:

 65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

The so-called science that tells us it's unhealthy to be celibate and that sodomy is normal is what drives the Vatican II sect, as Frankie tells us "who am I to judge" sodomite clergy.  Who are you indeed, Frankie? Whatever else can be said of you, one thing is for certain---you're not the pope.

Paying The Price

 

This week I received a letter from a group calling itself the Mater Ecclesiae Fund for Vocations (MEFV). An organization using Latin in its name (i.e. "Mother of the Church") and looking--as the name also states--for funds. I really don't know how they got my address, but since I purchased some Traditional Catholic items online, they may share the names and addresses with the Vatican II sect allies.

 Out of curiosity, I read the letter. The president of MEFV is one Mr. Corey F. Huber. Before I read the letter, I thought that this must be a "conservative" Vatican II organization, appealing to those who like the so-called Motu "Mass" and will ask for money to spread advertisements seeking Vatican II "vocations" to stop the dearth of priests and nuns they face. I was only partially correct. They do appeal to the conservative members of the sect, but (so they tell me in the letter), there really is no "vocations crisis." (quotation marks theirs). The problem is NOT:

• the emasculation of the priesthood and the secularization of religious orders
• homosexuals running the roost ("Gay Mafia") keeping young normal people away
• the lack of the spirit of sacrifice in the Vatican II sect
• the exultation of Matrimony over consecrated virginity and celibacy in the sect
• the lack of the True Faith and Sacraments

 

No! The REAL reason is that Catholic seminaries do not accept candidates with substantial unpaid debt! They say that the average college loan debt is $27, 029, and seminaries and religious orders will turn away great candidates because of student loans. The letter goes on to say that 50% of all aspirants to the religious life are stopped solely on account of their student loans, and MEFV further claims that there are 100 men and women in the priesthood and religious life thanks to their "apostolate." It comes complete with a full color two page pull-out featuring six recipients of their  student loan debt relief, who are now nuns and brothers (no "priests" profiled) with the very traditional names sure to appeal to 'conservative Vatican II sect members (Brother John Pio, Sr. Miriam Esther of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Sr. Brigid Ancilla Marie, Sr. Mary Agnes, Brother Jason of the Holy Spirit, and Sr. Veronica Mary of the Transfiguration). Top it all off with a donation card asking for a minimum of $50 up to $27,000!! The organization is praised by Karl Keating of Catholic Answers, and---get this---Raymond "Cardinal" Burke, Prefect of the (Vatican II) Apostolic Signatura in the Modernist Vatican City.

 

What's wrong with this picture? Plenty. There is a plethora of reasons to doubt the veracity of the numbers claimed in the letter; but even if we fully concede that it's accurate, why is some "lay apostolate" asking Vatican II sect members for money to allay the lack of vocations? If true, shouldn't the Vatican II "bishops" and "cardinals" be doing this for the sake of their own organization? The very Modernist heretic creeps who let the sodomites in cost the sect 2.2 BILLION DOLLARS since 2002!! Yet they can't spare even 10% of that to allow good candidates to fill their ranks? Since the 1980s, the sect had to fill once Catholic schools with laymen as teachers because vocations (teaching nuns and brothers) went to Hell that fast since 1962. Yet, they would only pay them enough money to live in a cardboard box and eat cat food because "we don't have the money." In retrospect, we can see the lie. If they used just a small fraction of that 2.2 billion they had hanging around, they could pay for top-notch teachers and give them a decent living wage. Defrauding laborers of their rightful wages is one of the Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance; ironically so is homosexuality. Since they started to ignore the latter, who cares about the former?  In the diocese of Rockville Centre (Long Island, NY) "Bishop" William Murphy used $1 million dollars to build himself a wine cellar. Much more conducive to saving souls than paying off some potential clergyman's debt, right Billy?

 

The Vatican II sect could easily and safely do this task of paying off student loans for potential clergy/religious. Any worthy candidate could be given a contract to sign stating that the hierarchy will pay the monthly debt as long as the candidate's vocation is fulfilled. They have one year to discern, during which time the payments will be made with no obligation to pay them back. After one year, the payments are subject to repayment with interest if they leave the religious life. This will prevent opportunists seeking to relieve their debt with no real intent of joining the ranks of the Vatican II religious/clergy. If they persevere and get ordained/take final vows, by the 10 year anniversary of that day, the Vatican II sect will pay off the loan in full, with no obligation to the person ever again.

 

If what MEFV claims is true, it shows more clearly than ever the loss of Faith in the Vatican II hierarchy. They are completely worldly and self-centered, to the point where they care not one iota for the salvation of souls. And why should they care? All religions are more or less good with the new ecclesiology of Frankenchurch spawned at Vatican II. Novus Ordo Watch (www.novusordowatch.org) has a great expose of how much some of these Vatican II "apologists" are making, even as they plead for money! The above mentioned Karl Keating rakes in approximately $250,000 a year! I wonder if Mr. Keating (who can afford it) gave $27,000 to put someone in the religious life? (I wouldn't bet on it). It also makes me wonder how much of these donations go to "Sr. Mary Holy Picture's" vocation, and how much of it funds Mr. Huber's personal bank account.

 

If you really want to help vocations, donate to a Traditionalist seminary, like Immaculate Heart Seminary of the Society of St. Pius V in Round Top, NY. Their religious order, The Daughters of Mary, is also most deserving. As far as the Vatican II sect is concerned, it's better that they turn people away from their institutions so that maybe they can find the True Faith. Let Karl Keating and Corey Huber get real jobs. After all, why waste dollars on something that makes no sense?