Thursday, October 31, 2013

10,000 Times Zero Is Still Nothing

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), has recently declared that Jorge Bergoglio (i.e. Antipope Francis) is “a genuine modernist” who has made the “disaster” of the Church crisis “10,000 times worse.” Bp. Fellay and the SSPX are not sedevacantists. They believe Frankie is the pope, yet they go so far as to declare him a Modernist. Modernists are heretics, and as all pre-Vatican II theologians teach us: a heretic can't be pope.  But the SSPX will continue to jump through hoops, doing the mental gymnastics necessary to try and delude themselves that someone they call a "genuine Modernist" is still Catholic and the pope.

The SSPX recently published a post entitled, "Pope not Modernist says Modernist." In the post, they lament "Cardinal" Pell of Australia's defense of Frankie. They quote Pell as saying in response to Fellay's charge that Frankie is a Modernist: "To put it politely, I think that’s absolute rubbish! Francis said he’s a loyal son of the Church, and his record shows that. He’s very, very concerned for the day-to-day life of the people, and for those who are suffering, those not well off and those in difficult situations. He’s a completely faithful exponent of Christ’s teaching and the Church’s tradition."

I'm not sure what alternate universe Pell is from-- but here, where the sky is blue, Bergoglio is an apostate. The SSPX then states, "Cardinal Pell’s supportive words for Pope Francis are both interesting and contradictory. For it reveals that His Eminence does not grasp what Modernism truly is, nor recognizes that he is also infected with its errors." Headline: Pot Calls Kettle Black. The SSPX is both supportive of "Pope" Francis being the Vicar of Christ on Earth and contradictory in maintaining that an avowed Modernist can be pope and give evil to the Church in doctrine, morals, and discipline. The SSPX and their "blind-leading the blind" leader, Bp. Fellay don't recognize they are infected with the error of wanting some unity with a heretic. They don't grasp the Church's teaching on heresy and automatic loss of office.

The post goes on to relate what took place at a debate last year when Pell met infamous atheist Richard Dawkins. Pell called Genesis a myth, and then, after the example of Frankie, declared atheists can "certainly" attain Heaven. The SSPX gives citations to prove all this is Modernist heresy. They are correct. But the million dollar question is this: Why can't/don't/won't they cite to some of these authorities:

From a commentary on the 1983 Vatican II sect Code of Canon Law, "
Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope,in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy,or schism. If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicized manner, he would break communion, and according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto. (c. 194 §1, 2º ). Since no one can judge the pope (c.1404), no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election. [J. Corridan et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America (New York:Paulist 1985), c. 333.]
Or this from the great theologian and Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori:
“If ever a pope, as a private person,should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.”Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232

I won't beat the point to death, but if Bergoglio is a heretic, he's not Catholic. How can someone non-Catholic be the Visible Head of the Catholic Church? The teaching of the Church Herself will make it clear the he loses his authority ipso facto by Divine Law. Yet the SSPX will declare Bergoglio both a heretic and pope in the same sentence!

Equally disturbing is Bp. Fellay's remark that their "Modernist Pope" (an oxymoron of the same order as being a "Square Circle") has made the "disaster" "10,000 times worse." The SSPX tells their members not to go to the Vatican II sect because it's so bad. Modernist Rome has indeed abandoned the One True Faith. It was replaced with a false faith, false moral code, and phony sacraments. In a word, they are completely bereft of Catholicism. Vatican II has left zero of the One True Church. Once you get to zero, and multiply by 10,000, how are you any worse off?

The SSPX has all the right figures, but they still can't do the math.


Friday, October 25, 2013

Antipope Francis Is Guilty Of Many Things; But Not Of Being Catholic

The National Catholic (sic) Reporter (NCR) has an article written by one Eugene Cullen Kennedy entitled, "Pope Francis is guilty of being a Christian." Anyone familiar with NCR knows that its the apex of Modernism and the zenith of cheerleading for the Vatican II sect. Their definition of "Christian" is tenuous at best. Note well, that Modernists hate using the word "Catholic" and will substitute "Christian" at every opportunity as their sign of reverence to the god of ecumenism. So why, you may ask, is Frankie "guilty of being a Christian?" The answer should be obvious: Traditionalists reject him and his errors! The article will be reproduced below with my comments in red.

I never did quite believe that the "age of revelation" ended with the death of the last surviving apostle. We experience revelations every day, sometimes when it is both so great and yet so utterly human that we feel caught up in the mysterium tremendum et fascinans, the great and engulfing mystery of everyday faith.

The only "fearful and fascinating mystery" is how someone can write this in a paper containing the word "Catholic" in its title. CONDEMNED:Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.( Pope St. Pius X,  Lamentabili Sane, 1907).

That occurred on 9/11 when, for the first time on a large scale, we learned what people do when they know they are going to die. They do not wail or rend their garments, nor do they recite the creed or sign hurriedly on to any specific teaching they were to hold onto under pain of mortal sin that stamps your visa for eternal punishment.

Nor do those suddenly facing death experience "celestial flights" or other out-of-body phenomena that are sold as indulgences in the great evangelical marketplace, as they once were in St. Peter's Square. Those confronted by imminent death find their minds cleared, as the temple once was by Jesus, of such religious trivia.

And the author knows this---how? Living in New York and having a friend from Church (a NYC Fireman) die on 9/11, as well as knowing other victims and survivors personally, I am unaware of any research, study or first hand information that would support Kennedy's contention that no one held to specific religious doctrines in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Notice too, how he compares the dogmas of the Faith to "trivia" such as the statistics of a person's favorite football team.

9/11 revealed that those about to die do not seem afraid or plead for forgiveness for their sins, if they think about them at all. They all have one thing in mind -- those they love -- and they all do the same thing: They call them up -- spouses, family or friends -- to tell them they love them. This is so obviously the first thing in their lives that they do not think at all about the last things -- death, judgment, heaven or hell -- ballyhooed by generations of preachers as subjects we will be quizzed on in the SATs we must pass before the Last Judgment.

Again, Kennedy assumes as facts unproven assertions. I know one survivor of 9/11 who clearly and continuously had God in mind and prayed for help and forgiveness even as she thought of her son. Let's all pray for the grace of Final Perseverance and the grace of the Last Rites (along with perfect contrition) before we depart this life.

Pope Francis seems to understand all this: He speaks of Christian faith not as a bound volume of dogma but as a "love story"; he rides the bus after the conclave at which he was elected and pays his hotel bill, as the saying so well expresses it, "like any ordinary person."
That Pope Francis understands that the mystery of faith has an ordinary face perplexes some Catholics and, according to reports, moves others to complain about him. Francis irritates them by speaking to the world rather than just to the church as his predecessors did, and those who miss Benedict XVI "desperately," as one of them put it, feel challenged by Francis to view the world in the direct way that he does.

When Ratzinger looks orthodox in comparison to Frankie, what irritates anyone with an iota of Catholicism left, is his utter contempt for the One True Church.

In a Washington Post article, "Conservative Catholics Question Pope Francis's Approach," writers Michelle Boorstein and Elizabeth Tenety explore some of the papal discontents of traditionalist Catholics. Their concern began when the new pope "told non-Catholic and atheist journalists he would bless them silently out of respect." They were also upset when "he eschewed Vatican practice and included women in a foot-washing ceremony."

"traditionalist (sic) Catholics" are not here meant as Sedevacantists who are the True Catholics, but anyone holding some Catholic sensibilities. To "respect" the denial of God Himself is blasphemous.

They have also been alarmed by his urging Catholics not to be obsessed with just a few issues, saying they should see these teachings, including those on certain sexual matters, "in context"; that is, in relationship to the Gospel basics. You could hear their resonations in Francis' telling journalists on the flight home from Rio de Janeiro for World Youth Day that it was not his role to judge gays "if they accept the Lord and have good will."
"Behind the growing skepticism," the article continues, "is the fear in some quarters that Francis's all-embracing style and spontaneous speech ... are undoing decades of church efforts to speak clearly on Catholic teachings."

Indeed, the True Church always spoke clearly. It was the heresy ushered in at Vatican II that caused any "effort" in trying to make the false seem to be True.

Family counselor and radio adviser Gregory Popcak is from Ohio, but he might as well come from New Orleans because of the betrayed lover feeling with which he sings the traditionalist blues. He told the Washington Post he was sent into deep prayer "after several clients used Francis's public words to push back on Popcak when he explained church teachings on sex and love." Did he teach, as do traditionalists who envision the path to salvation as a tightrope walk across the Grand Canyon on a windy day, that failure to renounce the sexual feelings that enter uninvited into people's imaginations are always a mortal sin when in reality, they are homely evidence of our being ordinary, garden-variety humans?

The "Traditionalist blues" lament the departure of Catholicism from our once holy churches. This beats singing "Michael Row The Boat Ashore" while the Vatican II ship is sinking into the abyss. Christ told us that the road to Heaven is "narrow" and many travel the wide path to Hell. (See St. Matthew 7: 13-14). Thoughts that enter "uninvited" are NOT sinful unless and until willfully entertained.  "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (St. Matthew 5:28).

At first, Popcak reacted to Francis by feeling "frustrated, then ashamed," the Post says, but in a separate online essay, he identified himself in the story of the prodigal son as the "good kid who stayed behind, did everything his father told him to do" while "people who left the Church, who hated the Church ... were suddenly realizing that God loved them, that the Church welcomed them, and all I could do is feel bitter about it."
Let's see if we have this straight. Despite Jesus' telling his followers to welcome the lost sheep whose return would bring more joy in heaven than the 99 that did not go astray, Popcak and those for whom he speaks are irritated by a shepherd whose voice is heard and heeded by Catholics who, sometimes feeling fleeced rather than found by other pastors, slipped out of the sheepfold. Francis displeases the Popcak conservative by being the good shepherd whose message of acceptance and welcome would go unheard if he spoke only to those inside the church and not to the world at large.

Popcak is no Traditionalist. He should see that Frankie is a fraud. There's nothing wrong with inviting those outside the fold back in, BUT it must be on Christ's terms not their own. Homosexual? Who am I to judge? Go for it! Abortion? Don't worry! We "obsess" over millions of murdered children. Atheists can go to Heaven too, so don't worry about what you believe or what you do as long as YOU think it's OK. "Have your cake and eat it too" is the motto of Frankie the Fraud, inviting a world of sinners to remain in sin yet have "participation" in Frankenchurch--the Vatican II monster of ecumenism gone wild.

In short, traditionalists who prefer leaders who season their public utterances with a dash of masochism are dismayed to find that Pope Francis is a Christian who sees a suffering world spread out beyond St. Peter's Square and who understands the church not as an exclusive gated community of self-satisfied believers but as a field hospital that does not ask for a believer's ID card but takes in and cares for all those wounded by life.

Traditionalists claim that by such statements, Francis is undermining all the hard work his predecessors did to underline "Catholic identity" in a relativistic, secular world. But perhaps he is the first pope to which that outside world has given its attention for many decades. Perhaps that is why the European Parliament has invited Francis to address its members. The world, more suffering than sinning, turns toward Pope Francis as in a conversation people turn to the person who is making sense of things. Obedience, which that many traditionalists prefer so blind that you need a guide dog to follow it, comes from the Latin ob audire that means "to listen to." In the Scriptures, we read that the lost sheep recognize and respond to the voice of their shepherd. Something like that is occurring in the great world that hears Francis who disarms its nations, so to speak, because they find they do not have to raise their defenses against him. They want to hear what he has to say precisely because he is, as the traditionalists charge, guilty on all counts of being a Christian.

Once again, Frankie tells people what they want to hear, DON'T repent. Stay in sin, and "god" will love you as you are on your terms. Frankie is guilty of being an ecumenist not a "Christian." That appellation rightly belongs exclusively to the True followers of Christ--Traditionalist Catholics. The weight of the credible evidence is manifest to any juror that Jorge Begoglio is not guilty on the charge of being Catholic and acquitted of the charge of holding the office of pope.  

Saturday, October 19, 2013

A Hands-On Application Of Sacramental Theology For The Culpably Ignorant

The blog "Pistrina Liturgica" (PL) is obsessed in their futile attempt to "prove" priestly ordination conferred with one hand to be "doubtful" and requiring conditional re-ordination. What this is really about concerns their near pathological hatred for Bishop Daniel Dolan (whom they insultingly refer to as "One Hand Dan" because of his alleged ordination with only one hand by Archbishop Levebvre) and Father Anthony Cekada (known as "The Blunderer" or "Bonehead" due to his alleged lack of learning and their unproven "erudition"). I have posted on this issue several times as I called them out to refute Fr. Cekada's article "The Validity of Ordination Conferred With One Hand" available at (For the background, please see my posts of 4/22/13, 6/8/13, and 7/14/13).

 They failed miserably to refute Fr. Cekada's contention that one handed ordinations ARE VALID.
Now, after a self-imposed "hiatus" PL is back with an alleged refutation they will publish on-line. They want you, the Traditionalists reading it, to be the judge. Fair enough. This post will be my last word on the subject. I will lay down the points that must be directly proven and/or refuted for PL's case against one-handed ordinations to be successful. The latest post from them tells us nothing, except that the soon to be published "refutation" is going to be translated into French, Spanish, Italian, and German. It should really be made readily available in Braille, because there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. I can hardly wait to see the sophistry on parade. In this post of 10/17/13, PL informs us of an alleged "lively discussion with a very lucid 89-year-old Dominican in Milan, an erstwhile student at the Angelicum, who concurred that one-handed conferral of priestly orders was sufficiently dubious as to call for conditional ordination." Unless his identity is made known, and the citations he used to draw his conclusion fully discussed, this is a fallacious appeal to authority. An elderly Dominican whose identity and scholarship are unknown proves zilch. Also, I must ask, "Is he a Traditionalist?" If not, he's an apostate who clings to the Vatican II sect,  and obviously incapable of seeing pernicious heresy under his nose. Nevertheless, here are the principles and issues that must be addressed, and the principles will be enumerated first :

1. For every valid sacrament there must be:
  •  proper matter (sensible signs, e.g. water for baptism)
  • proper form (words that determine the form, e.g. THIS IS MY BODY over the bread at Mass to become the Holy Eucharist)
  • proper administrator (e.g. priest for Extreme Unction, bishop for Holy Orders)
  • proper intention (the one who administers the sacrament must intend to do what the Church does in the administration of the sacrament e.g., in Penance the priest must intend to absolve the penitent from sin)
  • there must be no obex of the sacrament on the part of the recipient which renders the sacrament null and void (e.g., the female sex renders Holy Orders invalid).
2. For a sacrament to be deemed invalid on the grounds of the matter or the form, there must be a SUBSTANTIAL change.

"A substantial change takes place when in ordinary usage and prudent estimation the matter no longer remains of the same species and name as that determined in the sacrament (e.g. to use milk in baptizing)...A change is accidental when the matter remains the same in usage and name but altered in some accidental quality (e.g. to use leavened bread or a square host)." (See Halligan, Nicholas, The Administration of the Sacraments, (The Mercier Press) 1962, pg.8)

3. 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.)
4. The Church can not change the substance of the sacraments
"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." (See Leeming, Bernard, Principles of Sacramental Theology (The Newman Press:1962), pg. 420).





At his priestly ordination of 1976, it is alleged that Archbishop Levebvre used only one hand to confer the priesthood. Bp. Dolan's orders are now called into question by PL.
A) There is no positive proof that a one handed ordination ever took place.
  • PL supplies no known witnesses who were at the ordination. We have only their word that these anonymous witnesses exist. There are no known signed, sworn declarations by anyone.
  • There is no video or photographs to show a one handed ordination
  • A letter signed by nine priests in 1990, asked Fr. Dolan to stop all priestly functions until he was conditionally re-ordained due to his alleged one handed ordination. These priests were not present and saw nothing. They also had an axe to grind with Dolan for leaving them. One has to wonder what motivates them to write the letter 14 YEARS later! It was never an issue while he was working with them.
  • PL has a serious contradiction with which to contend. PL wrote "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." It is clear that they contend that the ordinations (plural) were done with one hand. Bp. Richard Williamson was a member of that ordination class, yet PL does not impeach his orders or those subsequently ordained by him. In the comments section of the 9/1/13 post, "The Reader" states, "As for Bp. Williamson, we have no asseveration about his orders from the nine priests who signed the 1990 letter to "One Hand Dan," and therefore, what we cannot talk about we will pass over in silence." Really? What about the other alleged witnesses and the "common knowledge" that the ordinations were conferred with one hand? Now you claim your sole evidence is a letter written by priests who were not there?  Which is it? It's contradictory. One priest, Bp. Sanborn, retracted his name.
  • The fact that Bp. Dolan did not publicly denounce the charge proves nothing. Nor does the fact that Fr. Cekada researched the issue. Neither ever claimed it happened. Lefebvre never denounced the assertion that his ordaining bishop was a Freemason, yet that does not prove he was one. This is the fallacious appeal to ignorance, i.e. "You can't prove one hand wasn't used, so it must be so."
It's clear that in the absence of clear and compelling evidence that one hand was used, it must be dismissed as false. (See principle # 3 above). If PL wants to prove its case they MUST:
Bring forth photographic and/or video proof of a one handed ordination, OR have signed sworn testimony by people whose identity is made public that they witnessed same. They must also clear up the confusion as to whether one hand was used on Dolan alone, or on everyone as PL made contradictory assertions. If it was on everyone that one hand was used, when will PL go after Bp. Williamson and those ordained by him, since they are motivated by their zeal for the salvation of souls and the greater glory of God (wink, wink).  If getting ordained with one hand were a crime, no jury in this nation could convict Bishop Dolan.

B) It must be proven that ordination with one hand to the priesthood and episcopacy is a substantial defect.
If the use of one hand is only accidental, the sacrament is valid--period. (See principle # 2 above). Yet "The Reader" at PL writes in the comments of the 7/17/13 post:"Besides, we have scrupulously avoided saying the defect is substantial, so your premise is wrong to begin with." Well if it's not substantial (or "essential" in the non-technical terminology they employ) WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM? You must think it MIGHT be substantial or there is no question of doubt.
Looking at the words Pope Pius XII used in Sacramentum Ordinis, defining the matter and form of Holy Orders: In paragraph #4 we read: "Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands;.."(plural)
Pope Pius XII knew full well that ordination to the diaconate is given by the imposition of one HAND. Yet, he clearly places ordination to the diaconate alongside with ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy which employ both HANDS. This unambiguously shows that the phrase "imposition of HANDS" may refer to one OR two hands.
Theology manuals written by great pre-Vatican II theologians of the highest erudition and orthodoxy (and which were used by the Church to train Her priests) use "imposition of hands" to mean one or two hands. These theologians knew that the diaconate is conferred with one hand only, yet refer to it as an imposition of HANDS.
Examples: According to theologian Henry Davis, "The diaconate is more probably conferred by the imposition of HANDS of the ordaining bishop together with the Preface which is the form..." (See Davis, Henry Moral and Pastoral Theology, Volume IV (1935), pg. 15 Emphasis mine).

According to theologian Pohle, "The ordination rite for the diaconate contains only one imposition of HANDS..." and later, "According to all extant rituals the Holy Ghost is communicated when the bishop lays his HANDS upon a candidate to make him a deacon." (See Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments Volume IV (1924), pg 70, 104 Emphasis mine).
If PL is claiming a substantial difference between the use of one handed and two handed ordinations (and they MUST or their argument collapses), they must explain why Pope Pius XII put the diaconate in the same plural category as the priesthood and episcopacy. They must explain why theologians did the same. They must show that ordination as a DEACON would be dubious if two hands were employed (if there is a substantial difference, then using two hands for a deacon must be as dubious as a one handed ordination for a priest). They must cite to pre-Vatican II theologians who unequivocally declare one handed ordinations to the priesthood as dubious or invalid. Good luck, you'll be needing it.
C) It must be proven that one handed ordinations are valid in the Eastern Rites exclusively.

The Syrians, Copts, and Maronites all employ one hand to ordain priests and/or consecrate bishops. That means that one hand alone is the substance of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Remember principle # 4 above: the Church can not change the substance of the Sacraments. Pope Pius XII can define the matter, but he can't alter it so that one hand remains valid for the Eastern Rites, but two hands are necessary for the Latin Rite. Using one hand may be illicit (like using leavened bread for Mass), but never invalid. If there is a substantial difference between one and two handed ordinations, PL must answer (with citations) these queries:

If an Eastern Rite bishop ordained a Latin Rite candidate to the priesthood using the one-handed Eastern Rite of ordination, would it be invalid? Why?
Is it the subject (Latin Rite) who somehow possesses an obex due to Sacramentum Ordinis?
What if a Latin Rite bishop ordains according to the Eastern Rite using one hand? Is it invalid because he is a Latin Rite Bishop, or would it be valid only on a candidate of the Eastern Rite because he wouldn't have an obex?
How does Pope Pius have the authority to change the substance of the sacraments which Pope St. Pius X and Pope Leo XIII decreed can not be done?
Since Pope Pius XII defined the form of Holy Orders, does the use of a different form by the Eastern Rites make them invalid if employed by the Latin Rite? Why? Why not?


If PL can't refute and respond to everything above, their case is lost. You be the judge. I really can't wait for PL's refutation of Fr. Cekada's article to come out. I want to get a hard copy and put it in its rightful place---in between the latest issue of the National Enquirer and the Charmin.


Friday, October 11, 2013

Would You Like Fries With That Blasphemy?

The days of moral outrage are truly over and done. That righteous indignation has become a thing of the past was never brought home to me so clearly as when an article from the Chicago area came to my attention.  Kuma' Corner, a restaurant that caters to a heavy-metal music crowd, has introduced the blasphemous "Ghost Burger." It is so named after the rock group  Ghost B.C., a Swedish band whose lead singer dresses for performances as a Traditional Roman Catholic cardinal with skull-face makeup.

The 10-ounce beef burger comes with braised goat shoulder (goats are used in Satanic services), white cheddar cheese, and Ghost chili aioli. It also comes topped with a wine reduction sauce and an unconsecrated host--a traditional one with the scene of the Crucifixion on it. Only 30 years ago, there would have been such an outcry that the place would have been picketed, denounced, boycotted and ultimately put out of business. Fifty-one years of Vatican II has changed all that. With the Novus Bogus bread and wine service, people no longer see the host (thankfully unconsecrated due to the invalidity of both the Vatican II service and its ersatz "priesthood') as sacred. Receive the "host" standing and in your filthy unconsecrated hands while dressed immodestly and without having gone to confession in years (mortal sin is an outdated pre-Vatican II idea, after all). You can eat up to 15 minutes before you chew it up like cud and swallow while singing a secular rock song as the "communion hymn." Some polls have belief in the Real Presence down to 24%. This is what the so-called Reformers of the 16th century did to destroy faith in the Eucharist. It works real well.

 The few Vatican II sect members who had enough sense of the sacred to complain, got nowhere. The place donated $1,500 to the Archdiocese of Chicago as "reparation." What did the archdiocese do? Accept the money of course! You never know when they'll need it for bail. There were no organized demonstrations' from the Vatican II clergy demanding that they close their doors forever. No Rosaries in reparation for blasphemy (Frankie says the Rosary is "Pelagian", you know).

The hosts are not consecrated, so they really are not holy but are "more or less a cracker with a cross on it," Luke Tobias, Kuma's director of operations, told CNN. Kuma's bought them online on an auction style website. (in other words its Vatican II "communion"--a cracker with a cross on it).

The restaurant was honoring a band it liked, not trying to make a religious statement, he said, adding:
"If there is a God, I'm sure he has a sense of humor." (Well, I suppose He does; He made you--and Bergoglio).

Can you imagine the screams of horror if they put out "Mohammed Meatballs"? Expect a jihad. But the Vatican II sect couldn't care less. The burgers are selling well and if "Pope" Frankie hears about this, he might incorporate it into his invalid service to bring more people into his empty churches. As a matter of fact, he could charge people for eating one, so they have more money to pay off the pedophile lawsuits. What would Frankie charge? Probably $6.66.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

What Part Of "Until Death Do You Part" Didn't You Understand?

 In all the hubbub about Antipope Francis' recent interviews, a real Modernist agenda item has largely slipped past the public unnoticed--giving the Vatican II "sacraments" to adulterers (i.e. divorced and remarried).

 In his plane ride home from World Jailbait Day (aka "World Youth Day"), Frankie stated:
"Times have changed and the Church faces many problems,.. I think the time for mercy has come as John Paul II predicted by introducing the Feast of Divine Mercy. Divorced people can take communion, it is those who have divorced and remarried that cannot. Here I must add that the orthodox follow the theology of economics and allow second marriages. When the commission of eight cardinals meets at the beginning of October we will discuss how to proceed. The Church is taking a very close look at pastoral initiatives for marriage. My predecessor in Buenos Aires, Cardinal Quarracino always used to say: 'I consider half of today’s marriages to be invalid because people get married without realizing it means forever. They do it out of social convenience, etc...' The issue of invalidity needs to be looked into as well.

  Frankie wants to cook up a new reason for a phony annulment, "I was stupid." Given the average IQ of most of today's Oprah-watching drones, this would probably be sufficient to declare 99% of all marriages null and void. "Sorry Father, I didn't know that marriage was until one of the spouses dies, I just thought all that 'for as long as you both shall live' type stuff was for dramatic purposes. I didn't think you were asking us to be serious and literal with those vows!" To which the "punk priest" (see my post of 6/28/10) can say, "Hey, no problem, dude. Those gnarly vows sound like something someone would say before Vatican II. You can't be expected to know that 'death' means one of you needs to die before the marriage is over! I'll ask our pedophile hider, eh, I mean "bishop" to get you a totally cool annulment!"

Seriously, speaking of "bodacious" Vatican II "bishops", according to Reuters (with my comments in red):

"The Vatican warned bishops on Tuesday not to reform faster than Pope Francis, after a German diocese said that some divorced and remarried Catholics would now be allowed to receive communion and other sacraments. Vatican spokesman Rev Federico Lombardi, announcing the pope would hold a special synod of bishops in October 2014 to discuss issues facing the family, said local churches that come up with their own reforms in the meantime could create confusion.
Pope Francis has indicated he could consider exceptions to a Church law that bars remarried Catholics from the sacraments because Rome considers marriage to be inviolable. Many bishops have mentioned this as a growing problem in their dioceses.The archdiocese of Freiburg in Germany issued a guidebook on Monday for priests ministering to remarried Catholics that spelled out a way for them to express remorse for their failed first marriage and receive communion and other sacraments."

How does expressing "remorse for a failed first marriage" dissolve the bonds of marriage? The Church teaches that a marriage, once ratified and consummated (ratum et consummatum)  the ONLY way the bond can be broken is through the death of a spouse. It's obvious from the context that these "remorseful" members of the Vatican II sect are sexually active (i.e. committing adultery), because if some person's marriage fails and their partner leaves them, they can still receive the sacraments as long as they remain celibate.

Reuters continues: " Speaking at the Vatican, Lombardi did not mention the Freiburg guidebook but stressed that Francis was working with his bishops on a reform of family issues.
"In this context, offering special pastoral solutions by individuals or local offices can risk causing confusion," he said in a statement, stressing the importance of "conducting a journey in full communion with the Church community."

Notice the Vatican II-speak of "full communion" as opposed to "partial communion." This is the ecclesiological heresy of "Frankenchurch"; there is an entity known as the Church of Christ which subsists in it's fullness in the Catholic Church, but is not identical to it. This Church of Christ is present in "degrees of participation" in other places depending on how many "elements" that sect has, and of course, to have all the elements is best but having just some is just swell too.

Reuters:"The unexpected initiative from Freiburg, whose Archbishop Robert Zollitsch is head of the national bishops conference, received a mixed reception in Germany, where this is a major issue.
"This is showing ways how people who take their faith seriously can again have access to full participation in the life of the Church," said Alois Glueck, president of the Central Committee of German Catholics.

A spokesman for Munich Cardinal Reinhard Marx, one of the eight cardinals chosen as special advisors to the pope, called the guidebook "a contribution to an unfinished discussion" and stressed the issue must be solved by the worldwide Church.

German bishops have regularly asked the Vatican about readmitting divorced and remarried Catholics to the sacraments in recent years and heard until recently that these faithful could attend Mass but not receive communion.

The guidebook stressed that Catholics seeking readmission to the sacraments should discuss their failed marriage with a priest and show they take their faith seriously but decided a second marriage was right for them and any family they have.

"Such a marriage also has a spiritual dimension because it is based on the personal belief of the partners and their participation in the life of the Church," it said.

How can you "take your faith seriously" and ignore an unchanging truth regarding the indissolubility of marriage? In Modernism, personal belief takes precedence over revealed Truth. Religion has to do with feelings and introspection. Therefore, if you heretically believes that living in sin is OK, who am I to judge? You can still participate in the life of the "church" as an infamous adulterer because you still have some elements of truth. This line of reasoning can be used to justify ANY moral aberration such as sodomite "marriages."

If you're ever in England and hear a loud grinding noise, please don't be alarmed. It's just St. Thomas Moore and St. John Fisher rolling over in their graves.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

The Deist And The Modernist

To show how far Antipope Francis is removed from the Roman Catholic Faith, there is an article claiming (with good reason) that the anti-clerical Deist and former US President Thomas Jefferson would have liked Frankie. And why shouldn't he? They have much in common, including their hatred of the True Catholic Church. Jefferson is rumored to have had Masonic connections, and it wouldn't surprise me if Bergoglio did as well. The article appears below with my comments in red.

According to authors Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg: "One way to put it, is that Pope Francis is a Jeffersonian. He spoke recently of those fellow human beings who stood about as far from Catholic doctrine as one could, the world’s nonbelievers, and he said he felt a close kinship to them: “Although not identifying themselves as followers of any religious tradition, [they] are nonetheless searching for truth, goodness and beauty, the truth, goodness and beauty of God. They are our valued allies in the commitment to defending human dignity, in building peaceful coexistence between peoples and in safeguarding and caring for creation.” In his Notes on Virginia, in the 1780s, Thomas Jefferson conspicuously wrote that there was no harm in anyone proclaiming that “there are twenty gods, or no god.”

 Yep, as Frankie just said in his recent interview, "There is no Catholic God." (which is OK because God knows there's no Pope since Frankie is not Catholic!)

Ultimately, it’s about Jesus. In his love for the downtrodden, in his openness toward those who think differently, Francis has returned to the Jesus of the Gospels, particularly the Book of Luke. Which is where Thomas Jefferson largely found the Jesus he liked, too, when, for his own personal amusement as a retired ex-president, he cut-and-pasted the four Gospels so as to translate the good book into a fairly rational, morally conscious, miracle-free zone. All the Jesus fit to print, Jefferson-style: He pasted everything back together in parallel columns, in the four languages of English, French, Latin and Greek.

 Ultimately, it's about apostacy. Jefferson's book, which wanted to connect with the "historical Jesus," is itself a lie which divests the Bible and Our Lord of anything miraculous or Divine. Modernists teach that the "historical Christ" is different from the "Christ of Faith." CONDEMNED Proposition #29 on the Errors of the Modernists states, " It is permissible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ Who is the object of faith." (See Lamentabili Sane, Pope St. Pius X, July 3, 1907).

Ultimately, it’s about Jesus. In his love for the downtrodden, in his openness toward those who think differently, Francis has returned to the Jesus of the Gospels, particularly the Book of Luke. Which is where Thomas Jefferson largely found the Jesus he liked, too, when, for his own personal amusement as a retired ex-president, he cut-and-pasted the four Gospels so as to translate the good book into a fairly rational, morally conscious, miracle-free zone. All the Jesus fit to print, Jefferson-style: He pasted everything back together in parallel columns, in the four languages of English, French, Latin and Greek.

11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.

12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.

13. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generation, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews.

14. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers.

15. Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ (Ibid)

Jefferson tinkers, mixes and matches, and rearranges the text of his reframed Gospels, titling the whole, “The Life and Morals of Jesus.” Relying largely on the Books of Matthew and Luke, he emphasizes the ethical. Like Pope Francis, who refuses to disparage atheists, Jefferson preserved most of Luke 12 in his compilation, but notably deleted line 46, which threatens “unbelievers.” When he ran for president, he was hounded by conservatives for having written those words about “twenty gods, or no god,” and the even more “in your face” conclusion: “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Both Jefferson and Francis acknowledged that just believing something doesn’t make it right. Religion without humility is, to use another Jeffersonian turn of phrase, “tyranny over the mind.”

Frankie "refuses to disparage atheists" because Modernism leads to that very conclusion--atheism. After all, what's left when you've thrown out the Faith and replaced it with the mundane? Antipope Francis recently declared unemployment and loneliness to be the greatest evils! Not disbelief, not mortal sin; because this world is all there is and we must concern ourselves with the things of this world. I'd be more worried about the "damnation of the soul" than any "tyranny over the mind."

While Jefferson (surprise, surprise) had no position on LGBT activity, there is a larger point to be made about tolerance. Recently, Pope Francis told a Jesuit magazine – following up on his headline-grabbing embrace of homosexuals “of good will” –  that “religion has the right to express its opinion … but God in creation has set us free.” For his part, Jefferson, America’s premier champion of the rights of conscience, wrote: “Bigotry is the disease of ignorance.”

 To be opposed to certain sexual activity which goes against nature and God,  is no more bigotry than opposition to murder. "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." (Thomas Mann)

Let’s get even more overtly political. When Jefferson lived, science was respected and multiculturalism was not seen – even by those politicians who protected the rich – as the polar opposite of that other litmus-test religion: American exceptionalism. Jefferson considered young America “the world’s best hope,” but he also imported the majority of his books from abroad. To respect those who aren’t exactly “like us,” to promote a sense of human community, is another of Francis’ Jeffersonian qualities. Yet before proceeding any further, we must underscore that Jefferson opposed religious hierarchy and identified most strongly with the liberal message of the Unitarians. More to the point, he decried those he called “pseudo-followers” of Jesus, rejecting all “vulgar ignorance of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms, & fabrications.”

36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts.( Lamentabili Sane) Modernism, like Masonry and Deism, denounces the supernatural, and eschews anything miraculous, deeming it "fanaticism and fabrication."

“Christianity is primarily a religion of invitation, and not simply an invitation to adhere to certain beliefs,” reminds Father Jim Martin of America magazine, in reflecting on his periodical’s exclusive interview with Francis. Embracing historical progress, Pope Francis says: “Let us think of when slavery was accepted or the death penalty was allowed without any problem. So we grow in the understanding of the truth.” Francis wants to find a way forward. “In pastoral ministry, we must accompany people and we must heal their wounds.” Jefferson – while ignominiously far from progressive on slavery – applied a compatible vocabulary whenever he addressed the “moral sympathies” as an instrument of policy in a democratic republic. In the age of sensibility, the soul found its fulfillment in commitment to a moral cause outside the self. By the way, in making it a priority to “heal wounds” and lift spirits at once, isn’t the pope talking about Obamacare? Try reading the parable of the Good Samaritan, in Luke 10.

53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.

Obamacare? Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno taught: “[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”  (Emphasis mine)

“Woe unto you that are rich!” reads Luke 6:25, after proclaiming that the poor are blessed. “Ye cannot serve God and mammon”; and, we might add, ye cannot serve both God and the Koch brothers – the fattest of fat cats, who speak for today’s robber barons. Luke constantly attacks the greedy and self-indulgent, while Fox News is hard-pressed not to interpret Jesus’ message as class warfare. Francis chides “the cult of money,” as he calls it, and those who see economics in abstract terms, banishing the nameless, faceless poor from their thoughts. He’s talking to you, putative Catholic Paul Ryan, adorer of the atheist Ayn Rand. In the last publicly directed letter of his life, Jefferson wrote: “The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.” And all the while, our money says: In God We Trust.

I see, Paul Ryan is a "putative Catholic" but abortion loving, pro-sodomite Joe Biden is a paragon of Catholic Faith and Morals? Please. (Although the Vatican II sect does give him the "communion" cracker in his hand each week. And why denounce Ayn Rand because of atheism? Doesn't Frankie tell us not to disparage atheists, and that they can go to Heaven?

As House Republicans, with callous indifference, cut food stamp benefits and conspire to defund Obamacare to deny the sick, are they doing God’s work? “We have failed to introduce the blessing of work to able-bodied people,” pronounces Florida congressman Steve Southerland, a mortician by profession. “Work works” is his childishly simple motto, and he believes he is doing the right thing by going after food stamp recipients. “God created Adam, and placed him in the garden to work it,” he said recently. Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi responded: “You can’t just come to church and pray on Sunday, and go out and prey on people the rest of the week.”

Southerland may soon have to bury our American freedom under Chief Communist Obama. Pelosi? Doesn't she prey on the unborn?  She's another "good member" of the Vatican II sect who was given the invalid communion cracker (along with Biden) by Frankie himself!

The pope drives around in his 1984 Renault, and demonstrates an unbanishable commitment to the poor. For his part, rather than sit in a lordly way in a chauffeured carriage, Jefferson rode to the Capitol astride his horse, unaccompanied, tying his steed to a post. As president, he famously dressed down, wearing old clothes while entertaining distinguished visitors at the president’s house in his bedroom slippers. We’re waiting for Pope Francis to deliver mass in jeans.

"Mass" in jeans? Sorry Frankie, the "punk priest" beat you to it (as did most of your "priests" who performed more outlandish things)! Christ told us that "The poor thou shalt always have with thee; but Me thou hast not always" (Matt. 26:11). With the destruction of the priesthood, True Mass and valid Communion, Christ's Real Presence has indeed been circumscribed and made unavailable in most of the world. With Him gone, exclusive preoccupation with things of this earth are all Frankie has left.

 Thomas Jefferson and Jorge Begoglio (Francis) are indeed ideologically closer than most could ever imagine. Jefferson gave us separation of Church and State. Obama will destroy the latter, even as Bergoglio tries to let the gates of Hell prevail over the former. Christ will not permit this, as a small remnant shall ever remain. The Lord is faithful in His promises. Let us remain ever faithful to Him and reject completely the satanic sect of Antipope Francis.