Sinful Habits

Antipope Francis is praising American nuns, after a two year investigation came to a close. According to Seattle Pi,
Pope Francis has praised the role of women in Catholic theology, extolling what he called their “feminine genius,” describing them as “strawberries on the cake” and talking about a “specific contribution of women to the intelligence of the faith.”

The report, issued on December 16, was resoundingly positive and was well received by the "Leadership Conference of Women Religious" (LCWR). Anyone who hasn't had their head buried like an ostrich knows that what passes for a "nun" in the Vatican II sect these days is a radical feminist who is religiously humanistic, sociologically Marxist, and politically socialist (at best). 

 Prior to Vatican II there were approximately 180,000 nuns in the U.S. Today, there are roughly 57,000, a decrease of over 67%. When Ratzinger was Antipope, there were stern criticisms of nuns in this country. He wouldn't actually DO anything, but he did like to keep a façade of some sort of Catholicism. Not so Mr. Bergoglio. He praises the most vile elements in his sect. 

What's wrong with the Vatican II nuns? I'll spell it out since the report chose to cover it up:

1. Support of abortion, homosexuality, and the Democratic party in the name of "social justice"

The so-called "Nuns on the Bus" traveled around in 2012 to ostensibly raise awareness of the needs of the poor. They condemned then Vice-Presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, for making budget cuts to social programs. Ryan strongly identifies himself with the Catholic (Vatican II sect) religion. However, they had no criticism of Vice-President Joe Biden, who also receives the invalid Vatican II "communion" while vigorously promoting a budget with money to kill unborn babies by abortion. Biden also supports sodomite "marriage."

The National Coalition of Nuns (NCAN) has gone on record supporting the abortion/contraceptive mandate in Obamacide. NCAN's leader, Catholic Nun Donna Quinn, has openly stated she has taken women for abortions in the past, but exclaimed in 2012 that she leads a “very, very holy” life. The group claims to have “over 2,000 members” and says “a woman cannot have full autonomy unless she has Reproductive Autonomy.”

2. Alignment with heretical doctrines, "theologians," and Wicca

According to Robert Eady:

Straightforward Wicca or the similar but theologically more ambiguous WomanChurch have moved into many areas of the Catholic Church through feminist "theologians," feminist-inspired local activists and disgruntled nuns. 

 If there were any doubts .... that religious feminists had run amok in the Church, they were dispelled when faithful Catholic women found items in the (liturgy) kit's bibliography written by pro-abortion feminist nuns. Today almost every conservative Catholic publication has featured a horror story of some form of witchcraft or earth-goddess-inspired liturgy being performed in some Catholic Church in some large North American city.

Two of the most influential "Catholic" Wiccan, or WomanChurch figures to be found opposing the Church today are Mary Daly and Rosemary Radford Ruether.

Ex-nun Mary Daly teaches lesbian witchcraft. She has written several books, including the anti-male and anti-Catholic Beyond God the Father and. Wickedary, a dictionary of sorts for witches. In Wickedary Daly defines the Beatific Vision as: "the 'face to face' vision of god in patriarchal heaven promised as a reward to good Christians; an afterlife of perpetual Boredom: union/ copulation with the 'Divine Essence'; the final consummate union of the Happy Dead Ones with the Supreme Dead One."

Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether, an influential speaker and writer who authored Sexism and God-Talk, was named to the overtly pro-abortion Catholics for Free Choice board back in 1985.

In true gnostic style, Reuther has described the "patriarchal" Church as an "idol of masculinity" to be broken up and ground into powder.

Typical of most WomanChurch feminists, Ruether has no problem defying Church teaching on homosexuality. In 1985, when promoting her soon-to-be-released Women-Church: Theology and Practice of Feminist Liturgical Communities, Ruether promised a feminist largely "Catholic" audience that one chapter would contain "liturgies for healing" from painful experiences "such as coming out as a lesbian. Not that being a lesbian is unnatural, but that the way we've been repressed by homophobia is unnatural." At this same gathering she urged participants to establish female "base communities," "Women-Church groups," or "covens." (See http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=611) Mr.Eady unfortunately believes the Vatican II sect to be the Catholic Church, but his analysis of the sect's nuns is right on target---Introibo. 

This is what received praise from the antipope. The "strawberries" are really nuts; the icing on a Devil's Food Cake full of spiritual poison for those involved. It doesn't take a genius (feminine or otherwise) to see that, Francis. 

Brainwashed Into Modernism

"Bishop" Nicholas DiMarzio, is the Vatican II sect leader of the formerly Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn since 2003. Like "Pope" Francis, he is neither a validly ordained priest, nor validly consecrated bishop. He is, however, a Modernist through and through. The diocese ( the only one in the U.S. entirely within the political confines of one city) was known for its large, beautiful and elaborate Churches that inspired many people and produced numerous vocations.

 Originally comprised of the boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn, as well as Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island, Pope Pius XII erected the Diocese of Rockville Centre in 1957. This new diocese took away Nassau and Suffolk from the Brooklyn Diocese which was now completely within the confines of NYC. In 1968, Brooklyn got its first invalidly consecrated  "bishop" in the person of Fr. Francis Mugavero. He was "gay friendly" as was the second "bishop" of Rockville Centre, the also invalidly consecrated (1971) John McGann.

 The two dioceses shared one seminary out on Long Island, Immaculate Conception Seminary, which was loaded with young men studying for the priesthood. By the late 1970s, Immaculate Conception was known as the "pink palace" due to the few men left, almost all of whom were sodomites. The seminarians were compelled to attend the services of Jews, Protestants, and Hindus to see the "goodness" they possess in the name of ecumenism. The seminary library was renamed in honor of Fr. George Tyrrell, a Modernist expelled from the Jesuits in 1906 for his heretical ideas and teachings. Tyrell was excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X in 1908, after he published two letters in the newspapers condemning St. Pius' great encyclical Pascendi. He died unrepentant in 1909 at age 48.

 McGann and Muguvero waged war on anything and anyone who retained the Catholic Faith. Both men threatened expulsion to any seminarian who would dare to attend Mass at the Ave Maria Chapel on Long Island led by the founder of the Traditionalist Movement, the late, great Fr. Gommar DePauw, who converted me to the Faith at age 16. Bp. Clarence Kelly, Superior General of the Society of St Pius V (SSPV) left Immaculate Conception Seminary in the late 1960s as the Modernism came in, and would be ordained a priest in 1973 by Abp. Lefebvre. In sum, if you were a sodomite that liked "Hindu spirituality" and believed in reincarnation, you'd make a great "priest."

 A couple of years ago, due to almost no seminarians left, the new Modernists in charge (William Murphy in Rockville Centre, and the aforementioned Nicholas DiMarzio) merged the few left with the seminary of the Archdiocese of New York, led by "Cardinal" Dolan. The former seminary is now used for formation of "permanent deacons" and "lay ministers." The laity and future  "deacons" are exposed to the same things that the seminarians had to endure. One diabolic method of destroying whatever faith may be left, is by means of a retreat known as a "Cursillo."

 The Movement began in Spain in 1944 and it was mostly propagated by a layman, Eduardo Bonnin. It seemed to "fly under the radar" for a while, as its propensity for Modernism was not readily perceived until after Vatican II when it was embraced. The Cursillo movement was forcefully condemned in 1972 by Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil. It was Bp. de Castro Mayer who would join Abp. Lefebvre in 1988 as co-consecrator to produce four bishops for the continuation the work of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

 According to the National Cursillo Center website(www.cursillo.org), it defines the three day retreat as "a movement within the church that, through a method of its own tries to, and through God's grace manages to; enable the essential realities of the Christian to come to life in the uniqueness, originality, and creativity of each person."

 If you don't understand what that means, don't feel badly. Jabberwocky is the hallmark of Modernism. Although originally Roman Catholic, the techniques of the Cursillo have been used by multiple denominations, and have received scathing criticism. According to one Brian V. Jansenn, who has written for the Protestant magazine Christian Renewal, there are many and serious reasons to avoid a Cursillo. He attacks the Cursillo based on its techniques and effects.


I) Techniques


 According to Jansenn, "A sense of anticipation is created in the candidates as an aura of mystery surrounds the approaching weekend due to the enforced secrecy.  During the weekend itself candidates are exposed to emotional washing as they are run through a series of sudden and dramatic emotional shifts (the “surprises”).  The technique of love bombing is used as candidates are continually applauded, flattered, and pampered.  Strong peer pressure is exerted on them as the group direction, dominated by the numerous leaders present, is carefully steered toward the climax.  And there is a reversion to childhood:  candidates sit in table groups and draw posters with markers or crayons just like they did in elementary school, as a continual, silly, playful mood is fostered during the weekend. 

            We should mention also the unavoidable sleep deprivation, the withdrawal of familiar comforts and supports (no cell phones, only strangers in your table group, etc.), the loss of time consciousness (windows are covered, watches are confiscated, and no schedule is published), sensory over-stimulation (hugging, back rubs, close physical contact with strangers), and sometimes even dietary modifications resulting in a sugar high.   

            The purpose of these techniques is to keep the candidate disoriented and to break down their resistance and defense mechanisms.  And the goal of this disorientation and wearing down is to precipitate a cathartic experience.  A catharsis is a sudden discharge of pent-up emotions. 
For many, the weekend begins with a sense of dreading the unknown.  This is enhanced by the strange format and many surprises, by darkness and silence, and by moving and dramatic lectures and testimonies.  Eventually such emotion seeks release, and when the dam breaks and the feelings flow, usually through weeping, the resultant discharge often creates a strong sense of relief and euphoria, a “breakthrough.”  This is quickly redirected into exuberant joy, and the candidate is assured that they have had a powerful, religious experience.  Most often this translates into a new commitment to the Cursillo agenda, a close bonding with similarly-affected, fellow candidates, and a loyalty to and affection for the leaders."

II) Effects

 Again Jansenn reports, "The first long-term effect is that the experience tends to wear off.  Some will quickly dismiss it, but for others, this begins the quest for more and more emotional, weekend experiences:  usually a new pattern of attending frequent Cursillo weekends as a part of the team.  But this quest falls prey to the law of diminishing returns.  Subsequent experiences are not nearly so powerful, and eventually they have little or no emotional impact. 

            The weekend also tends to “spoil” the candidate.  Such a powerful experience is unlike anything else in life, and so normal life tends to lose its luster and seems flat and dissatisfying.  When this perspective is brought to the local church, the church is found wanting.  Church services cannot match the emotional high achieved during the weekend, and so the result is often a growing disaffection with and drifting away from the local church—a transfer of loyalty to the Cursillo community. 

            The weekend can also create a sense of spiritual superiority.  “If my local church never provided this deep, religious experience, and if my elders, pastor, or fellow church members have not been enriched as I have, then I must have advanced beyond them.”  This sense of superiority is exacerbated by the fact that candidates are sworn to secrecy.  They have become a part of the in-group, possessing special knowledge and experiences beyond those of the uninitiated.  And the inevitable result is a cliquishness, an affinity toward fellow Cursillo participants which transcends church membership and even family ties." (Underlined Emphasis mine).

 III) Use By Modernists

  Both DiMarzio and Murphy required a Cursillo of their seminarians, and priests deemed "too rigid" (read: retain some Catholic Faith and Morals). The late Traditionalist priest, Fr. Paul Wickens, confided in me that he had a brother in the priesthood who left. In these types of "reprogramming," he was made to feel that there was something wrong with him if he wasn't married, and he left his vocation with permission of  the Modernist hierarchy (which was only too happy to see him leave).

 Bp. de Castro Mayer warned in his 1972 Pastoral Letter condemning the Cursillo movement that "many compare the Cursillo triduum to brainwashing." And, " 'Brainwashing is a very wide notion. If by manipulating an overexcited sensibility, it cannot be denied that there is a very important fundamental element common to brainwashing and to the method of the Cursillos."

 Seminarians who are predisposed to anything truly Catholic are made to feel that they were wrong, and should fully embrace the Modernism of Vatican II; that there is something "wrong" with them if they do not like the idea of women "priestesses," ecumenical services, and fail to see the "deficiencies" in the "Extraordinary Form" of (so-called) "Mass."

  The Vatican II sect wants you to love it for the "Ecumenical Big Brother" it is--and they will go to any lengths in order to secure compliance. So don't be surprised that their "priests" are sodomites, perverts, heretics, and despise the very thought of Traditionalist Catholicism. Their "deacons" and "lay ministers" feel the same.  If they weren't like that at the beginning, Frankie and his hierarchy will transform them into supporters of the One World Ecumenical Church. They are brainwashed (Orwellian-style) into doublethink about pre- and post-Vatican II theology: “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” Maybe SSPX has been using Cursillo too.

In Their Satanic Majesty's Service

 Antipope Francis, has found the best way of killing off what remnants of Catholic Faith and Morals remain in his Vatican II sect: death by integration---find ways to make the most horrible sins and errors seem OK.  Even the antipopes who came before Francis were careful to issue "condemnations" of sorts, to keep the appearance of Catholicism. True, the "condemnations" were merely words on paper and never enforced, but it allowed people to stay in the sect and blame any harm on "disobedient" so-called "priests" and "bishops." Case in point; abortion. Wotyla (John Paul II) condemned it many times, but Vatican II politicians who supported it received no sanctions.

 Now, Francis is on to a better ploy. According to Catholic News Service (CNS), He wants to find ways to "integrate" adulterers (i.e., those divorced and "remarried") "not merely allowing them to receive Communion (sic), but letting them serve as Eucharistic ministers (sic) and godparents---and to make it easier for Catholic (sic, again) families to accept their homosexual members."  Wow. Adulterers being allowed to do anything in Church without giving up their sin. Families called upon to "accept" sodomites without them giving up one of the Four Sins that Scream to Heaven for Vengeance. According to the report: "Pope Francis said, 'Communion alone is no solution. The solution is integration."

 In reference to adulterers acting as godparents, Francis dismissed the objection that they would set a bad example. He said, "It's the testimony of a man and a woman saying 'My dear, I made a mistake, I was wrong here, but I believe the Lord loves me, I want to follow God, I was not defeated by sin, I want to move on.' Is anything more Christian than that?" Yes! Giving up the sin, and amending your life for a start. Then you won't be "defeated by sin." Then make many acts of penance and reparation for your sin. Realize your choice to sin like that makes you unworthy of being a godparent, and in so doing you become a good example without the role of godparent. Remember Who told the adulteress, "Go and sin no more."

 An even more insidious form of "integration" is taking place with the Vatican II "nun" Sr. Cristina. The twenty-five year old won a secular competition on the show The Voice of Italy. (See my post of 5/10/14). Now she has released an eponymous debut album, wherein she does a cover of the song "Like a Virgin" by the blasphemous pop star named Madonna. Just as Frankie received the praise of the sodomite rocker Elton John, Madonna has heaped praise upon Sr. Cristina, sending out two tweets calling them "sisters for life" and juxtaposing pictures of herself with Cristina (the video for the original song and the cover version were both shot in the same place 30 years apart). On December 10, Sr. Cristina gave a copy of her album to an approving Francis.

 To see exactly who Sr. Cristina is emulating, and what perversions to both faith and morals comes along, I will expose the evil singer named "Madonna." (She makes Elton John look almost harmless in comparison).

 Born in 1958 as Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone, the singer started out like most entertainers, broke, unknown, and in New York. She found her break when she landed a job going on tour in 1979 as a dancer behind French disco artist Patrick Hernandez. A year later, she formed a band called Emmy, which played in dance clubs. She became a hit in Manhattan, and the local attention she received was enough to land her a record deal with Warner Records. Her 1983 debut album, Madonna, featured her first big hit song called Holiday.

 Not only did she become a smash hit in the 1980s and beyond for her music, she spawned a fashion trend among teenage girls in the mid-80s with lace tops, gaudy jewelry (featuring crosses and crucifixes), frazzled hair, heavy bracelets, fishnet gloves and tops, and skirts over Capri leggings.

 Madonna is well known for her forays into expressions of virtually every sexual perversity while connecting it to the Blessed Mother(!):

• Besides her name, she calls her first mega-hit song Like a Virgin. While on the Blonde Ambition tour, she mimed masturbation to the song while while topless men in foot-long point brassieres danced around her. According to People magazine she said, "As long as I'm riding high on the charts, I don't care if they call me trashy or a slut. I'm proud of my image." Other references to the Blessed Mother include two albums entitled True Blue (the color associated with the Mother of God) and a compilation The Immaculate Collection. In 1996, she named her daughter "Lourdes" and said she would be a "healing experience." (A reference to the Blessed Mother's apparition in Lourdes, France, and the miraculous healing that many have received there).

• She doesn't believe she's more obsessed with sex than anyone else. She will often claim Like a Virgin is not about losing your virginity, but feeling "fresh and new." Her actions, both on and off stage, prove that statement a lie.

• She claims that her critics are against her because "powerful women are a threat to society." She told Q Magazine in December 1994 that "women are not allowed to empower themselves without being labeled heretical and perverse." Along those lines she claimed to have "empowered" herself by having several abortions.

• Madonna seeks to uncover sexuality in everything. She told Spin magazine in June 1985 that she views Catholicism as "kinky," and sports crucifixes because "crucifixes are sexy, ... they have a naked man (sic) on them."

•  She believes and follows the anti-Christian Kabbalah which is occult and syncretic.

• In a 1995 interview with New Music Express, she said, "I think we all have the same God... God is in all of us and we are all capable of being gods and goddesses. That's my brand of Catholic mysticism. Throw in some Buddhism and you've got my religion."

• She published a book entitled Sex in 1992. It is a coffee table book of pornographic pictures, including portrayals of sadomasochism and rape. Ironically, Madonna claims to have been raped when she was young. There's a picture in the book of her apparently being raped by Catholic schoolboys as she wears a Catholic schoolgirl's uniform. She said it was a fantasy of hers and, "I have a smile on my face because I'm having a good time." The book was released at the same time as her 5th album, aptly titled Erotica.

• Madonna is a strong supporter of sodomites. She experiments with lesbianism and stated, "Straight men need to be emasculated....Every straight guy should have a man's tongue in his mouth at least once." (See New Music Express, May 1991).

• On March 31, 1994, she appeared on the Late Show with David Letterman. She asked Letterman to smell her panties (she came out on stage holding them in her hand) and used the f-word 14 times. It was the most censored episode in talk show history.

• Madonna claims she is misunderstood and will one day be vindicated. In the December 1995 issue of New Music Express, she asserts, "My comfort is that all the great artists since the beginning of time have always been completely misunderstood and never fully appreciated until they were dead. They didn't understand Van Gogh, and they crucified Jesus Christ."

 Are you sufficiently disgusted yet? She compares her brazen perversity and wickedness to the art of Van Gogh, and the life of Christ? Yet this is what Sr Cristina and Francis welcome into the Vatican II sect.

 To those who object that Sr. Cristina can use Madonna's music to "evangelize" here are some considerations:



1. Frankie has said "Proselytism is nonsense."



2. Madonna praises Sr. Cristina. Do you think she would do that if the effect of her music was good and wholesome?



3. It's a bad influence on kids. It will lead them to believe Madonna's music, and that of other rotten pop/rock singers, is acceptable. The lyrics are evil. As Proverbs 23:7 tells us, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he." The thoughts and ideas we have affect us. If we listen to, meditate upon, and repeat words that are evil, our thoughts will become evil. Thoughts lead to words, and words to actions. Would you want your seven year old daughter singing, "like a virgin, touched for the very first time."?



 Secular rock has been a breeding ground for evil. The Rolling Stones have a song, Sympathy for the Devil. Mick Jagger, the leader of the band allowed the late Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan and author of the Satanic Bible, to use it as the official song of Satanism. The Rolling Stones also put out an album entitled, Their Satanic Majesties Request.

 Now, with Francis integrating adultery and sodomy into his sect as forces for good, and helped by Sr. Cristina leading the young to emulate the likes of Madonna, I can only wonder if , indeed, they are following their master Satan's  personal request.

The "Beautiful Side" Of Evil

 Lionsgate film studios has confirmed that they will be releasing more Twilight saga movies beginning next year. Like the Harry Potter series of books and movies, Twilight seeks to ensnare unsuspecting youth into believing that there is good in evil. You will not see any condemnations coming from the Vatican II cult, as this is exactly what they believe---"elements" of truth and goodness can be found in what is false and wicked.

 It's important to understand the demonic forces that are behind these seemingly innocent works and alert any friends and family with children/grandchildren of the danger. The Twilight series revolves around the dark romance between Edward (a 108 yr old vampire) and Bella (a teenage girl). Edward doesn't age so he appears young, but there remains an underlying pedophile problem never addressed. Edward belongs to a good "coven" of vampires who don't kill humans, drinking animal blood instead. He protects Bella from the bad vampires, even as he fights against his own perverse urges to drink her blood. Hence, Edward is portrayed as a "noble" vampire. The series is seeped in occult themes.

  Similarly, Harry Potter tells us there are "good witches" and bad ones, when all forms of witchcraft (or "Wicca"), are condemned by God. (See Deuteronomy 18:10-13) Portraying evil as good, or having good potential, has never been so rampant as today. The first depiction of good and bad witches actually started with the film The Wizard of Oz (1939). The book of the same name, and upon which both a play and the movie were based, was written by one Frank Baum, an occultist (1851-1919). 

Baum belonged to Helena Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society (an occult sect wherein Blavatsky claimed that Satan was good), and used his writings to promote Theosophical views of magic and the occult.  Baum claimed that he had channeled the Wizard of Oz, “It was pure inspiration.... It came to me right out of the blue. I think that sometimes the Great Author has a message to get across and He has to use the instrument at hand. I happened to be that medium, and I believe the magic key was given me to open the doors to sympathy and understanding, joy, peace and happiness.” ( See Michael Patrick Hearn edition; The Annotated Wizard of Oz, New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1973)


 Interestingly, Glinda, the "good witch" tells the protagonist Dorothy that it is not necessary to look for answers anywhere but within herself, i.e., you've always had the power to go home; it's within you. This is the same occult message given by Twilight and Harry Potter, where God is never mentioned and all we need to do is look within ourselves for answers and tap into our inner power/strength through incantations, meditation, etc. It's not surprising that New Agers, who also teach the same thing, like such movies.


  We are now besieged by TV shows, movies, and books that carry this idea that there is good within evil. Bewitched, Forever Knight, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, The Craft, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Practical Magic, and Charmed are but a few examples of "benevolent" evil characters. Even more frightening, is the little known fact that both Stephanie Meyer (who wrote the Twilight series) and J.K. Rowling (who wrote the Harry Potter series) both claimed to have gotten their ideas from an "outside source" that "revealed it to them."


 For Rowling, during a train ride in 1990, she claimed, "I was staring out the window and the idea of Harry Potter just came. He appeared in my mind's eye fully formed." (See Reuters, "Harry Potter Just Strolled into My Head" 7/17/00) She also claims to hear in her head the conversations she writes:  "Dialogue just comes to me as if I'm overhearing a conversation." (See http://www.januarymagazine.com/profiles/jkrowling.html)


 As for Stephanie Meyer, a member of the Mormon sect, she claims that the story of Twilight was revealed to her in a dream:
"I woke up (on that June 2nd) from a very vivid dream. In my dream, two people were having an intense conversation in a meadow in the woods. One of these people was just your average girl. The other person was fantastically beautiful, sparkly, and a vampire. They were discussing the difficulties inherent in the facts that A) they were falling in love with each other while B) the vampire was particularly attracted to the scent of her blood, and was having a difficult time restraining himself from killing her immediately. For what is essentially a transcript of my dream, please see Chapter 13 ("Confessions") of the book." (See http://stepheniemeyer.com/twilight.html).


She further relates that after her dream, she began to hear voices that would not stop until she wrote what she heard:
"All this time, Bella and Edward were, quite literally, voices in my head. They simply wouldn't shut up. I'd stay up as late as I could stand trying to get all the stuff in my mind typed out, and then crawl, exhausted, into bed (my baby still wasn't sleeping through the night, yet) only to have another conversation start in my head. I hated to lose anything by forgetting, so I'd get up and head back down to the computer. Eventually, I got a pen and notebook for beside my bed to jot notes down so I could get some freakin' sleep. It was always an exciting challenge in the morning to try to decipher the stuff I'd scrawled across the page in the dark." (Ibid--Emphasis in original)


 After she wrote her books, Meyers relates that "Edward" came to her in a dream to let her know he wasn't good. She told Entertainment Weekly, "(Edward told me) I had gotten it wrong, and he did drink blood like every other vampire and you couldn't live on animals the way I'd written it. We had this conversation and it was terrifying." (Emphasis mine). Could both women simply have active imaginations? When you consider both claim that the characters came to them out of the blue, both claimed they could literally hear what they had to write as from an external source, and all dealt with showing evil as good, I think a good case can be made these books and movies were demonically inspired.


 There is no "good" in the practices condemned by God. Any and every form of occult practice is condemned by the True Church. The Vatican II sect at first came out against such films, but then praised them:

"The Vatican's official newspaper lauded Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince for its "clear" depiction of the eternal battle between good and evil represented by the struggle between Harry and his nemesis, the evil sorcerer Lord Voldemort.

L'Osservatore Romano said the movie was the best adaptation yet of the JK Rowling books, describing it as "a mixture of supernatural suspense and romance which reaches the right balance".

"There is a clear line of demarcation between good and evil and [the film] makes clear that good is right. One understands as well that sometimes this requires hard work and sacrifice," the newspaper judged.

The broadsheet paper also praised the film's clear message that "the search for immortality epitomised by Lord Voldemort" was wrong. It even approved of the film's treatment of adolescent romance amid the halls and corridors of Hogwart's, saying that it achieved the "correct balance" and made the teenage stars more credible.The favourable review is an apparent change of heart from the Vatican's previous assessment of the best-selling series.

Last year an article in L'Osservatore Romano condemned the books for encouraging an interest in the occult among children.The newspaper wrote: "Despite the values that we come across in the narration, at the base of this story, witchcraft is proposed as a positive ideal."The characterisation of common men who do not know magic as 'Muggles' who know nothing other than bad and wicked things is a truly diabolical attitude."The newspaper called the teenage boy wizard "the wrong kind of hero", comparing the books unfavourably with two other British children's classics, the Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings.


The Vatican's attitude to the books has taken a harder line under the papacy of Benedict XVI in comparison with that of his predecessor John Paul II.Two years before he was elected Pope, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, as he then was, wrote a letter to a German critic of the books calling the series "a subtle seduction, which has deeply unnoticed and direct effects in undermining the soul of Christianity before it can really grow properly".


Earlier this year an ultraconservative Austrian priest, the Rev. Gerhard Maria Wagner, accused the Harry Potter novels of encouraging Satanism" Emphasis mine. (See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/5826251/Harry-Potter-and-the-Half-Blood-Prince-praised-by-Vatican.html)

  "Pope" Francis will do and say nothing against any of this Satanic garbage, and Ratzinger reversed himself by finding "elements of good" in encouraging the occult. Finding good in Twilight is like finding orthodoxy in Francis. The façade of goodness, truth and being "nice" is to lure you into a cesspool of evil and lies---all in the hopes of claiming your soul.

Partially Bad And Completely Insane

  In the Traditionalist movement, there are two groups that have emerged with faulty solutions in response to the heresy of Vatican II. There are those who, while fully acknowledging Vatican II and the "popes" whom followed taught error, nevertheless refuse to accept the state of sedevacante (i.e. "recognize and resisters"). At the opposite end, we have those who realize the See of Peter is vacant, but erroneously believe that we can just go out and elect a new "pope" (the so-called "conclavists" with "Pope" Michael, among other strange and self-anointed "pontiffs.")

 I felt the need to write this post in light of some recent developments and warn my readers to steer clear of both these groups.

I. Recognize and Resist

 These individuals, mostly associated with the Society of St. Pius X, have found a rabid partisan of their position from a former SSPX bishop, Richard Williamson. Bp. Williamson had been expelled from the Society and founded the Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance (SSPX-SO). In his e-mail newsletter, Eleison Comments, we find His Excellency ranting about alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary in his attempt to save the "papacy" of Francis. (See my post of 11/3/14)

 Now Bp. Williamson has come up with a theological novelty--- partial Indefectibility! What is this, you ask?  First, he takes a quote from Pope Pius XII without citation about how if material Rome should crumble".....even then the Church would be in no way demolished or split. Christ’s promise to Peter would still hold true, the Papacy would last for ever, like the Church, one and indestructible, being founded on the Pope then living .” (Emphasis his) Then, he intones that sedevacantists can only see their way through the problems of Vatican II by denying that the "Concilliar Popes" are really popes. (I thought popes were Catholic by definition. The very fact  he claims they are somehow other than Catholic should make him think again). Finally, he quotes Our Lord, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit and an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit (St. Matt. 7:18). However, a tree that is part good and part bad, can bring forth good and bad fruit!! (Seems like Williamson is buying into the whole Vatican II ecclesiology---there are elements of a good tree in one which is half-bad!)

 Therefore, since no one is all good or all bad, the Vatican II "popes" are not entirely bad. Williamson tells us Paul VI wept for a lack of vocations. (He caused them with the Council, and probably wanted more sodomites to join) Ratzinger "hankered" after Tradition (he wanted to ensnare Traditionalists and destroy the remnant of the True Church). Frankie wants to "bring men to God" while "dragging God down to men" (Sure. That's why he tells us "There is no Catholic God," atheists can go to Heaven and "proselytism is nonsense.") Hence, they will not be able to kill off the Church, but we must "resist their Liberalism." Bp. Williamson denies the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church. She CAN NOT give partial truth and partial error. A pope CAN NOT give that which is evil to the Church. The fact that the "Concilliar Popes" have done so, is evidence that they have defected from the Faith and lost their authority as the unanimous consent of the theologians clearly teaches. He denies that the Church can never be without the papacy, but can be without a living pope for years. As theologian Dorsch teaches:
  

“The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

      “Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

      “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

      “These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7). 

 At this point, I feel as if Bp. Williamson has stepped over a line into heresy. A "partially good" Church is simply untenable in Catholic theology. Personally, I could not in good conscience receive the sacraments or attend Mass with Bp. Williamson, unless and until he recants this novel and heretical idea. "Secret apparitions" are looney. Public profession of a partially good/partially bad Church which can give evil, is just plain un-Catholic. Speaking of looney......

II. Conclavists

 I've had a follower of "Pope" Michael adding comments to my post on Sedeprivationism (see my post of 11/10/14).  I think he is a man in good faith searching for the truth, but has been lead astray by a man who is non compose mentis. He thought I was name-calling and being uncharitable. So, I will reprint my response to his comments with some additions to his attempted rebuttal.

So let's look at David Bawden's (aka "Pope" Michael's) claims.

1. "Pope Michael and his group of Catholics informed the world they were going to hold an election, but only a few showed up."

In 1990, I was a 25 year old science teacher in NYC and a Traditionalist for nine years. I never received any "invitation" to a so-called "conclave." Nor did Fr. DePauw, or any of the approximately 100 Traditionalists I knew at the time. In a time before modern computers and the social media, how did he (a) determine exactly who were and were not qualified for this conclave, and then (b) send them an invitation? Was there a full page ad in the NY Times or Washington Post that I missed? You claim a "mob" made Boniface VI pope. I would hardly call six people in Kansas, with no link to Rome (as was the case in those days), a "mob" that can make a pope.

2."Numbers do not determine the validity of an election."

 What does determine its validity? Theologians spoke of an imperfect general council with specific rules, but no pre-Vatican 2 theologian ever taught that some Catholic in Kansas can just decide to invite some "real Catholics" to his house next to the barn and whoever shows up constitutes the electors. Moreover, I would like ANY citation from a reputable pre-Vatican 2 theologian who teaches that women can participate in a conclave. Bawden's mother, a neighbor's wife, and one Theresa Benns,(who is the "theologian" that engineered the whole concept of a farmhouse conclave) were "electors". All this makes his "election" a farce. Furthermore, Benns does not argue that Traditionalist orders are invalid but illicit. She makes the same discredited arguments about "rightly ordained and sent" clergy, which "Home Aloners" always make. See Fr. Cekada's excellent refutation "Home Alone?" available at traditionalmass.org. 

3. "If you believe the SSPX are schismatic as a sedevacantist, hence they would not be called to elect a pope as they are outside the Church."

I do NOT believe the SSPX are schismatic and outside the Church. They refuse to accept the obvious--we have no pope. They are schismatic in the PRACTICAL order, i.e., if Francis is pope they can not refuse communion with him and decide what they will and will not obey. However, you can't be schismatic in reality if there is no pope to whom you refuse obedience. As long as they are not in actual communion with apostate Rome (they are not) and reject the errors of Francis and Vatican 2 (they do) they are not outside the Church.Your assertion that "to adhere to a false Bishop of Rome is to be out of communion with the Church" only holds true if you actually submit to Francis, or wrongly believe Bawden to be "pope." 

4. Bawden has dubious orders. After much investigation, I was able to dig up the name of "Bp" Bob Biarnesen as his ordaining and consecrating prelate. Why would a "bishop" who is in communion with Michael remain such an enigma? Why hasn't he been appointed "cardinal"? He allegedly received his orders in the Duarte Costa line which is rife with problems. Like Thuc, Duarte Costa and his lineage conferred orders on unfit candidates. In regards to Archbishop Thuc, any orders deriving from "Pope Gregory XVII" (an illiterate chicken farmer) must be considered null and void, since he did not possess the minimum theological training to have a presumption of validity in conferring the sacraments. They same can be said of "Bp" Bob. There is no proof he ever was ordained and consecrated, or what comprises his own theological training (if any). The fact that he is kept in virtual secret by Bawden tells me he's got something to hide.

5. Interestingly, Ms. Benns, to whom you post a link in another comment, is back to being a Home Aloner after denying the validity of Michael--the very "conclave" she set up. Her article is prolix. I suggest you have several hours to kill before attempting to read it. After claiming to be an expert at research and writing, she fails to tell us why we should believe her after her vaunted skills set up an antipope, placing his followers outside the Church and leading them to Hell. Since she was a follower of Bawden she publicly placed herself outside the Church. As all Traditionalists (she claims) have illicit orders and no jurisdiction at all, there is no one who can receive her abjuration and grant her absolution, thereby virtually ensuring her damnation--at least according to her own whacky "theology."

 6. "Additionally, what gives the sedevacantists the right to delay electing a pope?"

How about the lack of all things necessary to do so validly? An imperfect general council is much more complex than inviting your parents and next door neighbors to the farmhouse. Before a new claimant can be recognized, the errors of Vatican 2 must be substantially recognized as non-Catholic. We are seeing that now with those claiming that Ratzinger is still "pope" and even others toying with the idea. Next October, we may see widespread rejection of Frankie, with the his probable permission for adulterers to receive the Novus Bogus cracker ("communion"). You deny this principle but supply no proof. In the case of Protestants, they KNEW they were outside the Church. In the case of the Vatican II sect, many believe themselves as authentically Catholic. It's a unique situation. 

7. "Pope Michael is not seriously disturbed. If he is incorrect, he is merely in error. A sedeprivationist or sedevacantist "priest" ordained under "Bp." Sanborn claimed that one who would even consider Michael as pope is mentally ill. However, the same charge could be brought against sedevacantists - it is really a distraction from the issues and logically arguing them."

Anyone who thinks mommy and daddy can elect you pope in the farmhouse has issues. (To be charitable). The SSPV, CMRI, and other independents who base their rejection of Vatican II and the current papal claimant on strong theological principles, and have sound seminaries with great theological formation, can hardly be said to have mental problems. Furthermore, you impugn the orders of Traditionalists without ANY theological justification.

8."I am not aware of many, or any sedevacantists addressing the conclavist issue - which is probably because once they study it they become conclavists."

I am a sedevacantist. I have studied conclavism. I'm well-educated (teacher and lawyer). Now you know one such case! Come to NY, and I'll introduce you to many others like myself!

9. "I hope this was helpful!"

It helped reinforce my conviction that conclavism is a dead end. It will also help my readers to see likewise. I hope Mr. Bawden gets the help he needs. Charles Manson doesn't think he has problems and he has explanations for why he's sane as well. You ask me:

 "What help does he need? Who is to provide it? I think if anyone reads his books, especially the “Will the Catholic Church Survive the 20th Century”, they wouldn’t allege he is insane but merely in error if they disagree with him. He writes cogently and has thought these things out more than any other “traditionalist” I have seen (with Benns). Give him a chance by focusing on your particular problems you have with his position. Don’t you want him to save his soul? Therefore, if you see that he is in error, don’t you just want to help him to know the truth and save his soul? I want ALL of us to get to heaven. We must find the truth and help others to find the truth. At present I think he’s got the correct position. All of the various positions should be collected together and evaluated. We are at present working at that."

I don't know who "we" are, unless you're working on the "pope's" farm. What help does he need? Psychological. Who is to provide it? A psychiatrist in Kansas I suppose would be a good start. I read "Mein Kampf" but I still think Hitler was both evil and disturbed. Yes, I want him to go to Heaven, so let's get him some help, and maybe he can do so. I want you to save your soul as well. That's why I'm urging you and all my readers to stay away from the "recognize and resist" crowd, as well as self-anointed "popes" whose knowledge of theology would actually be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and carried such dire consequences.  

In sum, we are in a state of sedevacantism, and God will show us a way out in His good time. Don't believe in a half-good Church or a half-sane wannabe "pope."

When It All Began

This past Friday, November 21, 2014, marked the 50th anniversary of the date on which the defection of the hierarchy became morally certain and the Vatican II sect was born. This was brought to my attention by a fellow Traditionalist. He had come across the writings of a man who had written an article stating that the day on which Lumen Gentium was signed by Paul VI was the first clear, notorious, and unequivocal statement of heresy produced by the Vatican. After reading a copy of the article, which was sent to me, I am convinced that the author is correct.

 The pope cannot promulgate error, but Lumen Gentium contains the heresy that the Church of Christ "subsists in" the Catholic Church; clearly implying that it subsists elsewhere. This heresy has been coined by Fr. Cekada as "Frankenchurch." Many sects "stitched together" to make the "Church of Christ." A closer look at this document from robber council Vatican II is in order as the sect it spawned lauds and defends it. The National Catholic (sic) Reporter just published an article entitled "Lumen Gentium at 50:Is Anyone Listening?" The author, "Fr." Brian Mullady, tries to spin Lumen Gentium in an orthodox and sanitized way. After telling us Vatican II was a "self-examination" by the Church, he writes the following:




"Though the Church’s self-examination was hailed by many, what is actually taught in Lumen Gentium has not always been made clear to the faithful. To understand the true nature of the renewal sought by Pope John XXIII, a celebration of this document requires a fresh examination of what it actually teaches — not what the subsequently dubbed “spirit of the Council” held it should have taught."


This admission proves the exact opposite of what Mullady proposes: the Magisterium must teach clearly or it ceases to teach at all. The false dichotomy between the "true teaching" and the false "spirit of the Council" is manifest. In attempting to demonstrate that Vatican II teachings on ecclesiology don't contradict previous teachings of the Magisterium, it implies (at face value), that they do. Catholics are obliged to adhere to a dogma, as the Anti-Modernist Oath professes, "always and in the same sense and with the same interpretatation" (eodum sensu eadumque semper sententia).

Yet here we are a half century later with Mullady jumping through flaming hermeneutical hoops trying to prove Vatican II and the post-concilliar "popes" haven't changed anything. Nothing like this ever occurred at a True Council, such as Trent and Vatican I. He continues,


"The Church constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.” (Lumen Gentium, 8) Much was made of the expression that the Church “subsists in” the Catholic Church, as if the Catholic Church was just one religious expression which enjoyed equal truth with others. The Holy See sought to clarify the meaning of this expression in the document Dominus Iesus."

There is no such thing as "full communion" or "partial communion" with the True Roman Catholic Church. You'll see this Modernist talk a little later in his article. The Modernists don't claim that Truth is equal in all sects; merely that "some truth" is just as good and salvific as "full truth." How much "truth" you have is determined by how many "elements" of truth you possess in common with the Catholic Church. The greater the elements, the greater the "partial communion." The True Church has always condemned this idea:



Pope Pius IX: "None [of these religious societies differing among themselves and separated from the Catholic Church], not even taken as a whole, constitutes in any way and are not that one, Catholic Church founded and made by Our Lord and which He wished to create.  Further, one cannot say in any way that these societies are either members or parts of that same Church, because they are visibly separated from Catholic Unity." (Iam Vos Omnes--emphasis mine)

Pope Leo XIII: "Jesus Christ never conceived of nor instituted a Church formed of many communities which were brought together by certain general traits - but which would be distinct one from another and not bound together among themselves by ties which make the Church one and indivisible - since we clearly profess in the Creed of our Faith: " 'I believe in one...Church.' "(Statis Cognitum--emphasis mine)


Pope Pius XI: "It is absurd and ridiculous to say that the Mystical Body can be formed out of separated and disjunct members."(Mortialum Animos--emphasis mine)



Pope Pius XI: "It is to depart from divine truth to imagine a Church which one can neither see nor touch, which would be nothing more than spiritual in which numerous Christian communities would be united by an invisible bond, even though they are divided in faith."(Ibid--emphasis mine)




Furthermore, it takes 34 years to "clarify" what the document meant? Heretic Fr. Yves Conger knew quite well what it meant when he wrote:


"The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute "Roman" missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body. Thus they are telling us (in Gaudium et Spes) that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that is exclusive, between the Church of Christ and the "Roman" Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic Christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it." Le Concile de Vatican II, (Paris: Beauchesne) p. 160. (Emphasis mine.)

Mallady presses on:

"The Church also clarifies that full communion in the society of the Church is characterized by “visible bonds of communion,” which include “profession of one faith received from the apostles; common celebration of divine worship, especially the sacraments; apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family” (Catechism, 815; also in The Code of Canon Law, 205)"

More clarification! Mullady's Magisterium is one that no longer exists--it was replaced by a hodgepodge of clarifications. No longer can you trust a single document. You must have it "clarified" numerous times by Wotyla's 1992 Catechism, the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and Ratzinger's declaration in 2000. You'd be better off being a Protestant and relying on sola scriptura; it's just as heretical, but so much less confusing!


In sum, Mr. Mullady, you are correct, Vatican II does NOT teach that all religions are equal, but rather,"all religions are more or less good." Furthermore, the Protestants are members of the Church of Christ. This is asserted about all these sects, even though they all adhere to heresy.



Vatican II ecclesiology teaches this: that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth and of the means of salvation, whereas the others have only a partial serving of these things. Their lack does not prevent them, however, from being members of the Church of Christ and attaining salvation as heretics! This is not the same as Baptism of Desire which is on an individual basis. Vatican II claims that Protestant sects, as such, are corporate bodies that can lead souls to Heaven. (See Unitatis Redintegratio #3)

Mr. Mullady asks us in his article if "anyone is listening" to Lumen Gentium, and the teachings of Vatican II. The unfortunate answer is yes; and they're headed for perdition. 

Snuffing Out Faith And Morals---Like A Candle In The Wind

"I don't want everyone to like me. If certain people I knew liked me, I'd think less of myself because of it."--Attributed to Winston Churchill

"Woe to thee when everyone speaks well of thee, for so their fathers did of the false prophets." -- Our Lord Jesus Christ (St. Luke 6:26)

 Antipope Francis has an admirer in the person of rock music icon Elton John (b. 1947 as Reginald Dwight). John is a practicing sodomite, and "married" his lover David Furnish. They have two children, both boys, born of the same surrogate mother; one in 2010, the other in 2013.

 Elton John has said Frankie is a "saint" and should be "canonized" now. (With all the requirements of canonization trashed, why limit it to those who have died, right?)  Keep in mind that John has no intention of amending his life, rather he likes the fact that Bergoglio is joining him in the quest to completely eradicate true Faith and Morals. Frankie wants to conform to the world and not have the world conform to Christ.

 Mr. Mark Shea, a Vatican II sect apologist, sees John's praise of Frankie as something wonderful (of course). According to Shea, Frankie is causing John to "revisit what the Gospel has to say." Furthermore, John doesn't need a set of moral precepts, but an "encounter with a person." This is Modernist drivel, pure and simple.

 I would like to alert my readers to the depravity of Elton John, and the evil he perpetrates upon the world. Then you can better appreciate both the "Francis Effect" and the "Shea Delusion." Consider the following:

1. Blaspheming Christ in the name of perversion.

• In 2010, John described Jesus as a"compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems." (See The Guardian, 2/19/10, "Sir Elton John Claims Jesus was Gay" by Adam Gabbatt)

• According to the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, John had previously made the public claim that, "From my point of view, I would ban religion completely." 

• This year, John stated Christ would've backed "gay marriage." He said, "If Jesus Christ was alive today, I can not see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen." His cited authority for this comment was..."Pope" Francis! According to Elton John, Frankie has"... stripped (the Vatican II sect) down to the bare bones and said it's all basically about love..and inclusiveness." (See The Telegraph, 6/30/14, "Elton John says Jesus would've backed gay marriage. Millions will presume he's right" by Tim Stanley)

2. Music from Hell.

• Elton John has collaborated for years with one Bernie Taupin, who writes most of the lyrics for John's music. In an interview for US magazine, Taupin stated that John's "home is laden with trinkets and books relating to Satanism and witchcraft." (7/22/80, pg. 42)

• Earlier that year, Taupin told People magazine that he too decorates his walls with "Satanic art," and said, "the occult fascinates me." (6/23/80 issue)

• Many of John's songs are blasphemous, and promote social rebellion, as well as drug abuse. 

• In the song "The Bitch is Back," John sings, "Eat meat on a Friday that's alright"; "Raising Caine I spit in your eye"; and "I get high in the evening sniffing pots of glue." 

• In the song "Tiny Dancer," we hear Christians called "freaks": "Jesus freaks, out in the street, handing tickets out for God"

• John is noted for his outlandish costumes on stage, most of which portray him as feminine or androgynous. Although once married to a woman, John divorced her and declared himself a bisexual. Later, he said he had enthusiastically embraced homosexuality. 

• John performed a duet with the foulmouthed rapper Eminem (birth name Marshall Mathers). John received much criticism for this as Eminem has been known to speak against homosexuals. Why would John befriend this man? They take their marching orders from the same place--and it's not Heaven. Eminem told Spin magazine in a cover story entitled "The Devil and Mr. Mather's," that he met a spirit in his bathroom who identified itself as "Slim Shady." This spirit began to channel the music and lyrics to his songs and propelled him to super-stardom. Eminem's rap music is saturated with violence and hatred. In the song "I'm Back," he praises the Columbine killers. He actually tried to defend the song because "no one ever looks at it from the point of view of the kids who were bullied." Yeah. And maybe we should look at WWII sympathetically from Hitler's point of view? However, Elton John, who would not befriend anyone who spoke against sodomites, nevertheless will overlook such speech when the speaker also promotes the occult and other vices; homosexuality isn't the only sin that takes you to Hell. 

 Mark Shea wants us to believe Elton John has revisited the Gospel. No, Mark, he's revising it to justify his perversity---even citing to Francis himself-----in order to make people believe the unnatural is acceptable. Does Francis condemn any of this, you ask? Why no! Elton is having an "encounter," don't you see? (Hopefully, not the kind of encounters wherein you get AIDS). 

 When a man such as Elton John lauds Francis (as he continues unabated on his evil ways corrupting Faith and Morals), what does this say about the so-called "pope"? Mark Shea and Frankie will condemn me as a "self-absorbed, Promethean, neo-Pelagian." Ironically, the same duo will look at Elton John and declare, "Who am I to judge?" 

Sedeprivationism

 In all my posts, I've never discussed the form of sedevacantism known as sedeprivationism (the thesis advanced by the late theologian Bp. Guerard Des Lauriers that the "seat is deprived" of a valid pope).

 The most vocal and erudite proponent of the thesis is Bishop Donald Sanborn, who wrote a magnificent article about it. I just recently had the good fortune of reading it and was very impressed. As the article is a good ten pages long, I thought I would try to condense it down as concisely as possible and omit the theological jargon where feasible. In this way, I hope my readers will be better acquainted with Sedeprivationism which may very well prove to be the state the Church is in since the Great Apostasy of Vatican II.

 1. The Roman Catholic Church is Indefectible.

 This is a dogma of the Faith taught by all pre-Vatican II theologians. It means that the visible Church will endure until the end of the world, and that, right until the end of time, it will keep Christ's religion incorrupt. (See Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 3:25).

2. A Heretic Can't Be Pope.

 This is the universal teaching of the theologians as well as Pope Paul IV in Cum ex apostolatus. Public heresy automatically severs the heretic from membership in the Church, and if you are not a member of Christ's Mystical Body on earth, you cannot be the visible head of that Church. (See Fr. Cekada, Traditionalists, Infallibility, and the Pope for a complete explanation and list of citations. Available at www.traditional mass.org)

3. Vatican II and The Post-V2 "Popes" Teach Heresy.

 The list here is endless. We could begin with Lumen Gentium claiming that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Roman Catholic Church, rather than "is identical with," and continue right up to the present with Francis claiming, "There is no Catholic God," and atheists can go to Heaven. Those who wish to "recognize and resist" Frankie as pope, like the Society of St. Pius X, will often say that the pope has "no authority to change" the basic constitution of the Church. They have it backwards. The fact of the change means they had no authority. It was lost through heresy.

4. There Must Be Perpetual Successors To Saint Peter In The Primacy Given By Christ.

 This was infallibly defined in 1870 by the Vatican Council. However, it does NOT mean there always has to be someone in the office. Theologians, such as Dorch, have clearly taught that there could be an interregnum of many, many years between popes. Having no pope does not mean we have no papacy.

Up to this point, sedevacantists, who hold that Francis is in no way the pope, agree with the sedeprivationists (hereinafter SP). The only difference between the two positions is how and why Francis is not the pope. Differing with the sedevacantists, SP hold Francis is a material, but not a formal pope. Read on to find out what this means.

5. There Is Such A Thing As Material Succession.

 The Greek Orthodox have valid sacraments, which includes valid bishops. However, they do not have formal apostolic succession, only material secession. That is, they occupy the place of bishops(material)but lack all jurisdiction and authority (formal).
They have no legitimate right to the authority of the office of bishop, since they were designated by those who were legally excluded from the Church.

6. Vatican II "Popes" Have Material Succession.

 Sedevacantists put the V2 "popes" in the same boat as the Greek Orthodox, they succeed materially and without formal, legitimate designation. SP say they also succeed materially, but they DO have legitimate designation. Both sides agree they lack all authority and jurisdiction and are, therefore, false popes.

7. Power To Designate VS. Power To Rule

 Designation to power is different from the power to rule. The Electoral College elects the president, but the electors do not rule. The purpose of designation is to select someone to hold authority. However, someone merely designated holds no power to rule. The president-elect has been designated, but cannot make any presidential acts, like using the veto, until he takes the oath of office and assumes the mantle of authority to which he was lawfully designated. The president-elect is recognized as having the potential to rule, but he is not the president and not to be obeyed.

8. De Facto VS. De Jure

Someone can have a legal status (de jure) different from their actual status (de facto). A person can murder someone and be in fact a murderer, but if and until convicted, he does not have legal recognition as such. The converse is also true. Someone my be wrongly convicted of murder and have the legal status of a convicted killer, even though he remains innocent de facto.

 9. Application To The Vatican II Sect.

The power to rule the Church comes directly from God. The power to designate the ruler is ecclesiastical; it comes from the Church. There was a time when Cardinals were not the method of choosing the next pope. The Church changed the manner of designation several times in history.

 Since the profession of heresy by the hierarchy during Vatican II, the clerics lost all power to rule, but they retain the right to designate the ruler, since the Church never took that right away from the cardinals before the Great Apostasy. By Divine Law, heresy removes all power to rule, but not the power to designate the ruler.

 The chosen heretic is pope-elect, but not the pope, because his profession of heresy prevents the authority from vesting. He has material succession, not formal, and holds the office of pope de jure, not de facto. In like manner, the president-elect can not receive the power to rule unless and until he takes the oath of office.

 The false pope retains the ability to designate men who will, in turn, designate a material pope. In this way the succession of St. Peter continues materially. How does this thesis impact the Church?

 There is a simple, but far from easy, solution to get back a True Pope. If Bergoglio were to publicly abjure his heresy and embrace the Catholic Faith by swearing to the Profession of Faith and the Anti-Modernist Oath, he would remove the obstacle to the reception of his designation to rule. He would become a formal pope de facto. Bergoglio must then receive a valid ordination and consecration from a Traditionalist Bishop, and the interregnum of decades is finally over.

This, in a nutshell, is sedeprivationism. Only time will tell if it's the real solution to the apostate times in which we live.

A False And Lying Devotion

 "Well, there you go again." This memorable phrase was used by the late former President Ronald Reagan when he was the Republican presidential candidate against then-President Jimmy Carter during their famous debate in 1980. The upshot was that Carter had purposely and repeatedly distorted Reagan's record for his own political gain. Reagan's catchphrase turned it back on Carter by calling everyone's attention to the deceit. Reagan, as those of us old enough to remember will recall, trounced Carter in a landslide.

 Bishop Richard Williamson, formerly of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and currently of the Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance (SSPX-SO), consistently and repeatedly distorts Church teaching to uphold a false papacy and a false sect in the name of Catholicism. The two latest issues of his e-mail letter entitled "Eleison Comments" show the extreme to which he is willing to go in ignoring the theological facts.

 Bp. Williamson is now telling a multi-part "inside story" wherein the Blessed Virgin Mary is allegedly sending Heavenly messages to SSPX General Superior Bernard Fellay, that the SSPX then  proceeds to ignore. Don't believe anyone who never cites Church teaching and substitutes private revelations, none of which any Traditionalist Catholic is bound to believe.

 For the record, I believe that Our Lady of Fatima is a true apparition, but I refuse to jeopardize my soul by getting caught up in all the various interpretations of what She said or didn't say, and the ever present wild-eyed conspiracy theories advanced to "prove" the "correct message." One need only look at the Vatican II sect "priest," Nicholas Gruner who makes his living by telling us the sky will fall unless the "pope" consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as directed by Our Lady of Fatima. He has been derided as the "CEO of the Fatima Industry" and in June of this year, came to NYC to promote the entirely discredited "apparitions" of "Our Lady of the Roses" in Bayside, Queens.

 For those of you not acquainted with the alleged Bayside messages, one Veronica Leuken, now deceased, claimed to have visions of the Blessed Virgin beginning  in 1970. Leuken was "told by Mary" many wacky things, such as Paul VI was a saint, but he had been drugged and tied up in a closet at the Vatican by agents of Satan and then was replaced with an evil double who had undergone plastic surgery to look like him. Did Leuken offer any proof for this fantastical story? Why, YES! If you look closely at pictures of Paul VI right after his election in 1963, and then compare it to pictures a couple of years later, you'll notice that his evil double had crooked ears as the result of an imperfect plastic surgery! That makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

 So now we have Bp. Williamson informing us that in 2006, the idea for a "Rosary Crusade" for the Consecration of Russia was given to Bp. Fellay by a messenger from the Blessed Virgin Mary, but whoever this mysterious seer was, he was "too shy" to tell him it was a directive from the Blessed Mother! As Bp. Williamson never cites to any sources, it's hard to figure out exactly what it is he's trying to say, and equally hard to tell if this is some strange metaphor, or if he's really lost his mind.

 Nevertheless, Bp. Fellay then used the Crusade for the "liberation of the Tridentine Mass" which was "accomplished" by Ratzinger's Motu Proprio in 2007. Then, finding out that Our Lady was behind the request, instead of using a second Crusade for the Consecration, Fellay used it to try and reconcile with "Concilliar Rome." Our Lady used Bp. Fellay because the SSPX was the "last bastion" of Catholicism. Got all that?

 So Bp. Williamson, who recognizes Francis as pope, nevertheless talks about Rome as apostate. The city and religion are apostate, but their leader is "Catholic" and his "bishops" have Ordinary Jurisdiction? The SSPX is on the outs with the Vatican II sect, having (by their own admission) no Ordinary Jurisdiction, yet they are the "last bastion" of Catholicism? Over the man they consider the "pope"? The answer to all the world's woes is not the return of Faith, Morals and Sacraments which have been replaced by the Modernists with heresy, evil, and empty rituals---it's the Consecration of Russia which will miraculously procure everything we need for the Church to be great again.

 The Rosary Crusade of the SSPX was meant to be used for obtaining this panacea, and we know this because an unknown man had apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary who gave him the information, so we better believe it!

 Pope St. Pius X once warned that there would come a time near the end when there would be "a false and lying devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary" that would lead many astray. The Rosary has a crucifix on it to remind us that it (like all devotions) derives its efficacy from the Sacrifice of the Cross. That Sacrifice is renewed in an unbloody manner each time a True Priest offers the True Mass. Anyone who uses the Rosary to uphold the Modernist destruction of the Faith and the Holy Sacrifice, is perpetrating a false and lying devotion to Mary, who abhors such insults and attacks on Her Divine Son and His One True Church.

 Please don't waste your time, effort, or money in trying to understand or support apparitions, whether real or imagined. Learn the True Faith by good spiritual books, and by reading the Catechism of The Council of Trent as well as the writings of the pre-Vatican II theologians. If you want to have a true Rosary Crusade, offer it for the vanquishing of heresy and the return, in all it's glory, of the True Faith. And if you're feeling extra charitable, maybe offer a second one for the extirpation of stupidity, and the return of Bp. Williamson to sanity.

Politically Incorrect And Intellectually Void

There's no polite way to say this---Bill Maher is a bigoted idiot. The stand-up "comic" and host of the left wing show "Politically Incorrect" has turned his vitriolic criticism, (usually reserved for conservative politicians), to those who believe in God. Maher made a 2008 documentary ("mock-u-mentary" might be a more appropriate appellation) entitled "Religulous" the premise of which is that unless the "enlightened" agnostics and atheists unite against raving religious fanatics, civilization will be brought to ultimate ruin. The very name of the movie is coined from combining "religious" and "ridiculous." The film panders to secularists like Maher, and portrays everyone who believes  in God, especially Christians, as either uneducated buffoons or dangerous lunatics.

 Now, Maher has been seen parading around with Dr. Sam Harris (b. 1967), one of the so-called "Four Horsemen of the New Atheism" (the other three being the late Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins). During one of his tirades with Harris as his guest, Maher had this to say:

 "I don't know what happens when you die. I'm honest. These religious people not only can tell us what happens, they know with great certainty and detail. You get 72 virgins, not 71, not 70, exactly 72."(This is a reference to Islam--Introibo) 

 Maher then goes on to excoriate the evils of Islam (along with Harris) to the consternation of actor Ben Affleck, who said they were being intolerant. Harris said he had studied Islam and it was evil, per se, and Maher ended the conversation by telling Affleck, "We'll have to disagree on this one Ben." Well, I'll have to agree and disagree with Harris and Maher.

 I have two bones of contention to pick, one is epistemological (the study of how we know), and the other is ethical.

1. Absolute certainty
 When Maher claims that no one can know what happens when we die, I have to ask, "What do any of us know with apodictic (absolute) certainty? Not much. We can be certain that we exist, because if we think or say "I don't exist" we must first exist in order to make the claim. To say otherwise violates the logical law of non-contradiction, and it is self-refuting. We also can know our immediate sense impressions must be true. I know what I'm sensing even if I'm hallucinating or dreaming. Everything else is simply a matter of probability. I'm morally certain that other people exist and the world is not an invention of my mind. I have good reasons for holding this as true. Mr. Maher can do no better. Therefore, when he tells us exactly how many people are in his studio (e.g. 235, not 234 or some other number), he's acting on moral, not apodictic, certainty.

 His second error is to confuse natural theology (things which can be known about God from reason) with supernatural revelation (things which we believe based on God revealing it). The Moslem who claims he gets 72 virgins from Allah, does so based on his acceptance of the Koran as divinely revealed. The error of the Moslem is his error in accepting the Koran against the manifest weight of the credible evidence. On the other hand, if it can be shown that the Bible is morally certain to be true, and the Traditionalist Catholic Faith is the custodian of the Bible, then we are rational in accepting what it reveals about the afterlife.

2. Islam is evil.
 As any reader of my posts knows, I'm in full agreement with Maher and Harris on this point. Ironically, neither has any reason for saying so, but I'm fully justified. How so you may ask?

Atheists can be good without BELIEF in God, but no one can be good without God's existence. If God exists then so do objective moral values.  By objective morals, I mean something is right or wrong whether or not anyone else believes it to be the case. Murdering an infant for fun is evil even if everyone disagrees. The genocide of Hitler was wrong even if he won the war and made everyone think what he did was just.

Our moral duties flow forth from the moral nature of God. He made the Ten Commandments because they are good; they flow from His divine nature. Furthermore, God holds us accountable for our actions. The moral choices we make are infused with eternal significance. Compare this to atheism.

On the atheistic viewpoint, what is the foundation for moral values? If God does not exist, then there is no reason to think humans are special in any way. As a result of social-biological pressures, there evolved among homo sapiens a sort of "herd morality" that may be advantageous for perpetuating our species, but nothing that makes it objectively right or wrong. That's not to say atheists can't work out a system of ethics with which a theist would mostly agree, nor does it mean that they don't believe in objective moral values. However, they are without any foundation in reality; no ontological anchor.

So when Maher and Harris denounce Islam's jihad bombing of innocent people, they merely don't like it because it's not biologically or socially advantageous, but it can't be deemed wrong in an absolute sense. Furthermore, Harris is a materialist who believes that there is no mind distinct from the brain. Everything we think and do is determined by our environment and genes, i.e., there is no free will, and Harris admits as much. How then can we be held accountable for our actions? They have no moral significance. The Islamic men who attacked the Twin Towers had no choice, so why do Harris and Maher condemn them?

Harris and Maher are fools. What has the Vatican II sect done? Antipope Francis tells us, "Atheists can go to Heaven." So not only has Frankie given up on converting them, he has thrown away the metaphysical underpinning of objective moral values. He leads millions to Hell under the very Theistic guise he seeks to eliminate.