Monday, February 23, 2015

Education That's Rotten To The Core

 "Suffice it to say that there will always be a chasm dividing those who believe in God as the ultimate norm of morality for man created for a supernatural end, and those who look upon man as another temporary worker experimenting on this globe in order to get the best and the most out of this short existence."--Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, leader of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (founded 1964), in The Educational Rights Of The Church And Elementary Schools In Belgium his dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Canon Law, Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. (1953)

 There was a time when you could get a moral education from public schools and a really moral, Faith-based education from Catholic Schools whose hallways were filled with young nuns in full habits teaching the most important lesson of all: How to get to Heaven. Then came Vatican II. The nuns abandoned their vocations in droves, and most of the ones who remained (and the few who entered), dressed like laywomen and became little more than social workers who were concerned about promoting socialism. Modernist laymen and women replaced almost all of them, as they had "more important" things to do than help children grow to know, love, and serve God in this life and be eternally happy with him in the next life.

As if that were not bad enough, "Common Core" has been recently pushed on America by the governors of the United States, and the Obama administration. Forty-six (46) states have adopted these standards, ostensibly to raise and keep a rigorous and uniform curriculum in the country. However, the Common Core (also used in most Vatican II sect schools), is fraught with the ideals of Modernism and paganism. I was a NYC teacher before going to law school, so I'm no stranger to teaching--and I'm not overstating the danger.

 There are many disturbing aspects of Common Core, but I will focus on just two: "Death Education" and "Values Clarification." You will not find any mention of them in the Common Core Learning Standards. They will be embedded in courses and programs such as civics, character education, social justice, self-esteem, and anti-bullying.

1. Death Education. According to one "deathspert,"  Ethel King-McKenzie:

"Teachers and parents need to find ways to expose children to the reality of death, as it will
be better for them. I understand that children should not be robbed of their innocence but
telling them about death will empower them. A curriculum that fails to address a topic as
important as death and dying is in itself dead. Society changes and our schools and
curriculum must adapt to these changes." (See "Death and Dying In the Curriculum of the Public Schools: Is There a Place", Journal of Emerging Knowledge on Emerging Markets, Vol. 3 [2011], Art. 29). Emphasis mine

In public school, this means telling kids "your going to die" without any reference to God and the afterlife. In Modernist Vatican II sect schools it means "we're going to die but we're all going to Heaven so don't worry." According to one source," ...Tara Becker describes how she was traumatized by class discussions on death during her junior year in high school in Littleton, Colo.
Standing in her parents' neat and polished kitchen, Becker says that her creative-writing teacher was preoccupied not with prose, but death, and encouraged her to believe it was something natural that she should look forward to. Becker recalls her teacher saying that "death was just escaping this body. . . . When we die we go back to the oversoul."

Becker, a fundamentalist Christian, says she became more and more suicidal and told her parents she was going to drive off a cliff. She collapsed, she says, and spent several weeks in a hospital, diagnosed with severe depression. Ed Garvey wishes he knew for certain if it was death education, or some other problem, that caused his 15-year-old son, Scott, to shoot himself in March 1989. At Schaumburg (Ill.) High School, Scott "was a good student, on the honor roll, played sports, had no problem with drugs and alcohol and the autopsy showed that," Garvey said.Three days before he shot himself, Scott began taking a nine-day unit on death, as part of a required health course. He also wrote an essay on reincarnation in his English class in which he promised, "I'll be back.

After neighbors found Scott's body, his mother, Sandy, entered his bedroom and on the floor, between the bed and the desk, was a school-issued book called Coping With Death and Dying.
Reading it, the Garveys were stopped by some of its language, particularly a sentence on the right-to-die movement: "Committing suicide may represent a last attempt to make an independent personal decision."
"I don't know if I could ever say with 100 percent certainty that there's a direct link," said Ed Garvey. "There's no way of getting inside his mind and (knowing his) thought processes. . . . However, I think there is a definite correlation." (See

This sick preoccupation with death began after the 1969 publication of the book On Death and Dying by Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. Dr. Kübler-Ross lectured widely, spreading her credo that “dying can be one of the most beautiful, incredible experiences of life if it is shared with loved ones.” Joyful acceptance of death became the central theme of her work. This runs directly contrary to the teaching of the Church that death is punishment for sin, and we must work out our salvation, made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, "in fear and trembling."

Kübler-Ross herself became the charismatic leader of a New Age death cult. According to Omega, The Journal of Death and Dying (Vol. 16, No. 2, 1985-86):

"Kübler-Ross’ religion is a new form of an old tradition of religious thought and practice, namely the tradition of the mystery religions, which thrived in pre-Christian antiquity. The womb and the grave have been equated in mystery religions. ... This is precisely the significance of Kübler-Ross’ choice of death and dying as her primary consideration as a charismatic leader." This wicked woman's teachings have been promoted in both public and Vatican II schools. I know from personal experience.

 I was a junior in a Vatican II sect high school when I converted to Traditionalism. The Marianist brother who taught Modernism as "Catholicism" subjected us to four months of listening to tapes of Kubler-Ross discussing different people she observed dying in a hospice. Many in the class (myself included) experienced depression and nightmares. The brother told us that through "discussing and experiencing death in our lives, we will come to know God exists." (!) I guess the Five Ways of Aquinas just didn't cut it. This was spiritual and mental abuse.  Parents didn't complain because  he was a brother--and unfortunate result of the "clergy/religious can't be wrong" attitude from the 1950s. This same attitude was one of the reasons the Vatican II sect was able to take over so effectively. 

2. Values Clarification

 I don't know how many of you are aware of the insidious simulation called "Lifeboat." In this (and similar scenarios) there are more people on the boat than food to survive. You're given a list of people with "pros" (a scientist) and "cons" (the scientist is also a paraplegic). You must then decide (individually or as a class) who will live and who gets thrown into the ocean to drown. What's the purpose of doing something so hideous? It has nothing to do with critical thinking and everything to do with the evil idea that some people have a fundamental right to choose life or death for others.

 The values clarification movement was developed primarily by philosopher John Dewey, an atheist. Accordingly, behavior should be the result of free, uninfluenced, autonomous choice, based on personal analysis of a given situation coupled with the moment's emotions and desires. Rather than adherence to an external moral code, Dewey pushed something he called "valuation" in which a given situation is explored and various "solutions" discussed. This directly contradicts Church teaching on making choices based on a rightly formed conscience.

 Hence, choices are good or foolish, never right and wrong. Sin and repentance are never mentioned.

Human sexuality programs attempt to inculcate an appreciation for "waiting for marriage" by cultivating fear of bad consequences: pregnancy, disease, and heartbreak. They never state that premarital sex is sinful and they do not urge sinners to repent. Therefore, the dilemma posed to youth by their teachers is no longer a question of morality--- it is a health issue. And, yes, I'm talking about programs in Vatican II schools, not just public schools!

3. Warning to Parents

 A Traditionalist should never send their child to a Vatican II sect school. It's as non-Catholic as sending them to a Yeshiva school (and with lower moral standards). When sending them to public schools, be very aware of everything they are being taught. Ask to see all materials and attend school board meetings. Don't assume that you don't need to inquire about something like an anti-bullying program; it could be a way of inducing acceptance of the sodomite lifestyle. Not to harm homosexuals is one thing, to demand you accept their unnatural practices and so-called "marriages" is another.

 Send your child to a Traditionalist school, if you're lucky enough to have one nearby. Teach them the One True Faith at home, as well as in Traditionalist Sunday school. When they reach middle school age, let them know why so-called "death education" and "values clarification" are wrong. Remind them that the only standards that really matter are God's standards as expressed by the Ten Commandments and the teaching of the Magisterium.

In this way, if they are ever asked to decide who to throw off a lifeboat, they can (correctly) use a Bergoglian saying: "Hey, who am I to judge?"




Monday, February 16, 2015

It's Black And White: There Is No "Pope In Red"

In last week's post, I discussed the so-called "Siri Thesis," the claim by some that Giuseppe Cardinal Siri, not Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, was elected pope at the 1958 conclave to succeed Pope Pius XII.
What troubled me greatly was a website, "" which is long on appeals to private revelations and short on citations to approved pre-Vatican II theologians. We are to anticipate "Three Days of Darkness," a chastisement from God revealed to several holy souls (Anna-Maria Taigi, among others), after which Christ will appoint the pope to succeed Siri (who was allegedly "Pope Gregory XVII"). Please beware of anyone who equates or exalts private revelations, even ones approved by the Church (e.g. Fatima), over the Church's Teachings expounded by Her approved pre-Vatican II theologians. No one is bound to accept any private revelation, no matter how many times competent Church authorities approve it. We are bound to accept the teachings of the Magisterium.

  The site links to some even more disturbing sites, especially  "" and ""  There they call Abp. Levebvre "non-priest and non-bishop." If true, this would render invalid most Traditionalist priests or bishops who derive their priestly and/or episcopal orders through Abp. Lefebvre. Fortunately, they are wrong, and as Our Lord said, "By their fruits thou shalt know them." (St. Matt. 7:16). Anyone claiming to be of God, and yet would keep people away from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and sacraments, can not come from Christ. The so-called "hierarchy in exile"--which seems to consist of one priest, Fr. Peter Kohat Van Tran--- also (for reasons I could not find) consider the orders of Abp. Thuc "dubious." and its links bring to surface an old canard that Abp. Lefebvre was neither a priest nor a bishop because his ordaining and consecrating bishop, Archille Cardinal Lienart was a Freemason. The famous Traditionalist writer, Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy, wrote a great article "Cracks in the Masonry," which deals with the issue. However, I believe an even stronger rebuttal is needed at this time.

 1. Was Lienart a Freemason?
 Despite unsubstantiated claims of a "deathbed confession," there is simply no proof Lienart was a Mason. He was a Modernist, to be certain, but claims of "Masonry" go back to one highly dubious source. According to Dr. Coomaraswamy:

"The most specific source is a book entitled Papal Infallibility (L'lnfaillibilité Pontificale) by the French writer Marquis de la Franquerie. This individual is said to be "a papal Secret Chamberlain who lives in Lucon, Vendée, France," and "a learned historian with special knowledge in the field of penetration of the Catholic hierarchy by Freemasonry in France." He is said to be a traditionalist, and a friend of Archbishop Lefebevre.

On page 80 of his book, during the course of a discussion of the modernist maneuverings in prepraration for Vatican II, the Marquis mentions, almost in passing, that Cardinal Liénart was a “luciferian” who attended "black Masses." Toward the end of a lengthy footnote on another topic that continues onto the following page, the Marquis adds:“This attitude of the Cardinal could not sur­prise those who knew his membership in the Freemasonic and Luciferian lodges. This was the reason why the author of this study [i.e., the Marquis de la Franquerie] always had refused to accompany Cardinal Liénart in the official ceremonies as Secret Chamberlain.
      “The Cardinal had been initiated in a lodge in Cambrai whose Venerable was Brother Debierre. He frequented a lodge in Cambrai, three at Lille, one in Valenciennes, and two in Paris, of which one was in a special way com­posed of parliamentarians. In the year 1919, he is designated as ‘Visitor’ (18th Degree), then, in 1924, as 30th degree. The future Car­dinal met in the lodges Brother Debierre and Roger Solengro. Debierre was one of the in­formers of Cardinal Gasparri who had been initiated in America, and of Cardinal Hartmann. Archbishop of Cologne, a Rosicrucian.
      “The Cardinal belonged to the International League against Anti-Semitism, where he met up again with Marc Sangnier and Father Violet.“It was given to us to meet in Lourdes a former Freemason who, on July 19, 1932, had been miraculously cured of a wound suppurating on his left foot for fourteen years — a cure recognized by the Verification Bureau on July 18, 1933. This miraculously-healed gentleman, Mr. B..., told us that, at the time when he frequented a Luciferian lodge, he met there the cardinal whom he recognized and was dumbfounded.”
      Another source cited is Archbishop Lefebvre himself. In a talk given in Montreal, Canada on May 27, 1976, he stated:“Two months ago in Rome, the traditionalist periodical Chiesa Viva, published — I have seen it in Rome with my own eyes — on the back side of the cover, the photograph of Cardinal Liénart with all his Masonic paraphernalia, the day of the date of his in­scription in Masonry..., then the date at which he rose to the 20th, then to the 30th degree of Masonry, attached to this lodge, to that lodge, at this place, at that place. Mean­while, about two or three months after this publication was made, I heard nothing about any reaction, or any contradiction. Now, un­fortunately, I must say to you that this Cardinal Liénart is my bishop, it is he who or­dained me a priest, it is he who consecrated me a bishop. I cannot help it... Fortunately, the orders are valid... But, in spite of it, it was very painful for me to be informed of it.”
      The issue of Chiesa Viva was No. 51, March, 1976. In it there is an article entitled "Il Cardinale Achille Liénart era Massone."
However, the Archbishop's memory was faulty, for the photograph involved was a picture of Cardinal Liénart in ordinary ecclesiastical attire, and below this a drawing which shows a monumental entrance door to a building around which Freemasonic sym­bols are grouped. This second picture carried the designation: "Entrance door to a Freemasonic temple."
The article, whose author is not named, says that the source of his information is pages 80 and 81 of Papal Infalibility, the book quoted above. Another Italian journal, Si Si, No, No, also informs us that Cardinal Liénart was a Freemason. Its source, however, also turns out to be the Marquis de la Franquerie’s Papal Infalibility. Now, gentle reader, this is the sum total of the "evidence" brought forth for Cardinal Liénart be­ing a Freemason! And it all goes back to the asser­tions of the Marquis de la Franquerie......The Marquis provides a similar paucity of evidence — a "Mr. B..." who knew of this matter in 1932, but, despite his gratitude to the Blessed Virgin for a miraculous cure, and despite the fact that he knew Achille Liénart was teaching in the Seminary of Lille, ordaining priests and con­secrating bishops, decided not to share his precious secret. Nothing like an "irrefutable anonymous source”!......Now, I find it extremely strange that the Marquis, who received this high papal honor of being named a Secret Chamberlain, did nothing to expose this terrible situation when he had access to Church authorities prior to Vatican II. Why did he also wait until the mid-seventies to provide the world with this informa­tion? It seems, then, that we cannot really take any of the evidence seriously. It is sensationalist tittle-tattle that proves nothing.
We are therefore morally obliged to find the "defendant," Cardinal Liénart, not guilty of the charge."

2. What if Lienart HAD been a Mason? Does this fact render the ability to receive and confect sacraments invalid or dubious?

No. The websites contend that (a) Masons are heretics and their elevation as bishops are rendered null and void by Ex Cum Apostalatus of Pope Paul IV, and (b) Masonic membership equals invalid sacraments because they withhold their intention to receive and confect sacraments. The website states:
 Ex Cum Apostalatus says, "...if at ANY TIME it will be found (discovered) that some bishop, BEFORE his promotion or assumption had deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy (i.e. Occult Freemasonry), ...that promotion or assumption ("consecration") concerning him... is null, void and worthless (FOREVER) ... and ... [no] length of whatever time in the future, can be said to have recovered power or to be able to recover power, nor can (the assumption or promotion) ["consecration"] be considered as legitimate in any part of it, ... for those who are promoted (FALSELY/INVALIDLY) as bishops... ."

This means that they would have no JURISDICTIONAL authority, not an absence of  sacramental power as valid bishops. Since the papacy is only an office of jurisdiction, and not a sacrament, a heretic can never be a valid pope. As to point (b), here's what canonists and the pre-Vatican II theologians have taught:

Principle: Sacraments conferred by a Catholic minister, including Holy Orders, must be presumed valid until invalidity is proved.

"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.)

"Now, if a person has seriously and duly used the proper matter and form for performing or administering a sacrament, he is by that very fact presumed to have intended to do what the Church does." (Bull Apostolicae Curae, 13 September 1896.)The theologian Leeming says this passage recapitulates the teachings of previous theologians who "all agreed that the outward decorous performance of the rites sets up a presumption that the right intention exists.… The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means… This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash." (B. Leeming, Principles of Sacramental Theology [Westminster MD: Newman 1956], 476, 482.)

4. Does heresy, or even apostasy, nullify an ordaining/consecrating bishop's intention?


"Error in faith, or even total disbelief, does not harm this intention; for concepts of the intellect have nothing in common with an act of the will." (S. Many, Praelectiones de Sacra Ordinatione [Paris: Letouzey 1905], 586.)

5.  What would be necessary to have a "defect of intention"?

"An ordination is invalid if the minister… as he confers it on someone, makes an act of the will not to ordain that person, because by that very fact he does not have at least the intention of doing what the Church does —indeed, he has a contrary intention." (P. Gasparri, Tractatus de Sacra Ordinatione [Paris: Delhomme 1893], 1:970.)

6.  Is a bishop, even one who belongs to Masonry, presumed to have such a "contrary positive intention"?


"In performing an ordination the minister is never presumed to have such an intention of not ordaining, as long as the contrary would not be proved. For no one is presumed evil unless he is proven as such, and an act — especially one as solemn as an ordination — must be regarded as valid, as long as invalidity would not be clearly demonstrated." (Gasparri, 1:970.)

However, would have us set up a presumption opposite of what the Church teaches. "Masonic" prelates are, according to the, to be presumed guilty until proven innocent! The runs contrary to the principles of equity taught by both ecclesiastical law and U.S. civil law.

7.  Do the Siri theorists at (and the related links) cite to any pre-Vatican II theologians, or canonists to prove their contention that a Masonic bishop confers invalid or dubious sacraments?


They cite no pre-Vatican II canonist, moral theologian or dogmatic theologian who proposes or defends their contention about Masonic membership and invalid/dubious sacraments.

Instead, all they offer are the standard quotes about Masonry — it conspires to destroy the Church, is condemned by popes, promotes Naturalism, is a cause for excommunication, etc. This merely proves what no one disputes: Masonry is evil.

However, wicked men and even unbelievers can confer valid sacraments, so it gets you no closer to proving the principle they have invented: "Masonic membership results in producing invalid/doubtful sacraments."

If such a general principle were true, popes, canonists and theologians would have told us so, and these websites would be able provide quotes and citations.

8. What are the logical--and ridiculous--conclusions of the invented principles of these websites?

During the French Revolution, you have a notorious Mason, Bishop Talleyrand, consecrating as a Bishop for the so-called "Constitutional Church" Bishop Jean-Baptiste Suarine. Bp. Saurine belonged to the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge of Paris. Of all the Masonic lodges in the world, the Grand Orient of Paris in which Saurine was a governing member has always been considered the most powerful and the most anti-Catholic. Despite this, Pope Pius VII appointed Mgr. Saurine Bishop of Strasbourg in 1802, a post that this Masonic bishop retained until his death in 1813.

So in France we find Masonic bishops consecrating other Masons bishops, whom the pope then appoints to head Catholic dioceses, where they confirm children, bless holy oils used to anoint the dying, ordain priests and consecrate other bishops. Yet, the Church NEVER considered such consecrations invalid (in either conferral or reception) on the basis of Masonic membership--and in this case, unlike Lienart, it is a proven fact! Consider also that much of the lower clergy were Masons.

"One fact is inescapable: the lodges contained a large number of ecclesiastics… At Caudebec fifteen out of eighty members of the lodge were priests; at Sens, twenty-five out of fifty. Canons and parish priests sat in the Venerable Assembly, while the Cistercians of Clairvaux had a Lodge within the very walls of their monastery! Saurine, a future bishop of Strasbourg under Napoleon, was a governing member of the Grand Orient. We cannot be far from the truth in suggesting that towards the year 1789 a quarter of French freemasons were churchmen… [In 1789 there were] seven atheists and three deists out of one hundred and thirty-five French bishops." (H. Daniel-Rops, The Church in the Eighteenth Century [London: Dent 1960] 63, 73. See also J. McManners, Church and Society in Eighteenth-Century France [Oxford: University Press 1998] 1:354, 356, 420, 509.)
What about all the baptisms given by Masonic priests? They would be considered invalid, which would in turn render invalid all the ordinations of any boys who grew up to be priests (you need to be baptized to be ordained). Any of these invalid priests who might have been consecrated bishops would also be invalid bishops. There's no end to the lunacy.

Would God permit a "hierarchy in exile" to teach such manifest nonsense? There is no incontrovertible proof that Siri was pope, and no proof he appointed a successor or has a "hierarchy." Forget the "pope in red." Worry about the "phony in white" at the Modernist Vatican.




Monday, February 9, 2015

One Question Siri Can't Answer

 In this day and age of modern technology, Siri is an application for Apple's iOS which works as a personal assistant and knowledge navigator. Ask a question, and Siri will answer in English with a female voice. Ask it "Who was elected pope in 1958?" and it will respond by mentioning an enigma in Traditionalist circles--the "Siri Theory." This theory proclaims as fact that in the 1958 conclave to succeed Pope Pius XII, it was actually Giuseppe Cardinal Siri who was elected as Pope Gregory XVII, but was forced under grave duress to step aside for Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII).  What significance does this theory hold for Traditionalists? What are the practical consequences? It is these questions I will now explore.

1. What evidence is there that Siri was elected pope and not Roncalli?

On October 26, 1958, white smoke appeared from the conclave to succeed Pope Pius XII signaling the election of a new Vicar of Christ. Black smoke came out about two hours later, and the white smoke was claimed to be a mistake. On October 28, 1958, Antipope John XXIII was declared the new pontiff. It is claimed that Cardinal Siri, of Genoa, had been elected and taken the name of Pope Gregory XVII. Siri, a staunch anti-Communist and anti-Modernist was (according to proponents of the theory) blackmailed into stepping aside. Some say it was threats against his life and his family, others say it was threats from Communist Russia that they would launch nuclear missiles at Rome. There is also a credible report from one FBI source that suggests Siri was elected. (See The Vatican Exposed: Money, Murder, and the Mafia by Paul L. Williams, 2003, Prometheus Books).

 Canon 185 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states, "Resignation is invalid by law if it was made out of grave fear unjustly inflicted, fraud, substantial error, or simony."  Had such an occurrence taken place, Siri would have indeed remained pope, and Roncalli an antipope. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, was a peritus (expert) at Vatican II and fought against the Modernists. He told me, based on his personal knowledge of many Cardinals who were involved in the 1958 conclave, that the real fight was between Cardinals Ottaviani and Siri. Ottaviani was so confident of his election, he had already picked out his papal name---Pius XIII. When he and Siri locked for votes and neither could muster 2/3 plus one for election, a small band of Cardinals came up with a plan for a "transitional" pope---and Roncalli was elected. The white smoke could have been an error, and there is evidence for this as well. The explanation by Fr. DePauw and human error could account for the white smoke.

 2.  If Siri had been elected Pope, would he have remained such until his death in 1989?

 Siri certainly didn't act like a pope. He signed all of the documents at Vatican II, especially Lumen Gentium, the damnable document with the heretical ecclesiology of "Frankenchurch" i.e., that there is an entity known as the "Church of Christ" that is distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, but resides there in its "fullness." This Church of Christ resides elsewhere according to how many "elements" the sect possesses. To have all the elements like the RC Church is best, but to have some is good as well and leads to salvation. This trashes the necessity of Church membership for salvation, and allows for Francis to maintain "Proselytism is nonsense."

Siri also said the Novus Bogus invalid Vatican II bread and wine service, never supported any Traditionalist group (sedevacantist or SSPX), and publicly recognized Rocalli (John 23), Montini (Paul 6), Luciani (JP I) and Wotyla (JP II) as "popes."  He used the invalid Vatican II "sacraments," and gave the "homily" at the "mass" of Christian Burial for John Paul I (Luciani). Of course, we can always concoct boogeymen to say he was "coerced" into all of this for over 30 years. You know; Masonic death threats, Communist threats of nuclear war, etc. But how credible does all this sound? Couldn't he have at least done as much as Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil and refuse to use the new "mass" and "sacraments" in his diocese? Despite claims by some that he did this, it is unsubstantiated. The fact that he used the new "mass" and "sacraments" is incontrovertible. Seeing the Vatican II sect in the 1980s, he couldn't call a press conference before his death? (On that score, supporters will claim that he was held to silence in the conclave by a seal not unlike confession).

Had he been elected, it seems that he would have lost his office by becoming a heretic, unless you posit that he was under constant grave duress for over 30 years!

3. Where is the pope now? Did Siri leave a successor?

 If Siri was pope, and if he didn't lose office through heresy (both very big IFs), did he appoint a successor? There is no indication that such was ever even attempted by Siri. There is a website, LOADED with error in many things, which claims that Siri's successor will be revealed after "Three Days of Darkness." As usual in all things claiming to be Catholic but are bizarre, private revelations are exalted above the teachings of the pre-Vatican II theologians. It's always about visions, apparitions, etc. When theology is even attempted, its restricted to St. Thomas Aquinas, as if theology stopped with him. I will have more to say regarding "" next week. I would be remiss if I didn't say there exists a small group which holds that Siri, before his death, had appointed a "Pope Gregory XVIII" who (for some reason or other) is "in hiding." They are called "sedeimpedists" since the pope is impeded from claiming the Chair of Peter, distinguishing them from "conclavists" who "elected" an antipope (e.g. "Pope" Michael).

4. What does the "Siri Theory" have to do with Traditionalists in the practical order?

 Nothing. If he were the pope (at least during the conclave and before the signing of the Vatican II documents) this would make John XXII an Antipope--as well as Montini (Paul VI). However, we already know that these two papal claimants could not be popes on wholly separate and independent grounds. Ditto for JP I and JP II, had he somehow retained his office until his death in 1989. We are still in a state of sedevacante, and the Vatican II sect must be opposed. A "secret successor'? I'll deal with that one next week--there isn't any.

Who was elected in 1958? Only Siri (Giuseppe) can answer that one for certain, and having passed into eternity May 2, 1989, he won't be answering.

Monday, February 2, 2015

Love The Sin, Hate The Sinner

 In the Vatican II sect, everything is backwards. The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is God-centered, gets replaced by the Novus Bogus "mass" which is man-centered. Likewise, the primary purpose of the sacraments (which, save Baptism and Holy Matrimony they rendered invalid) are made subordinate to the secondary purpose. Hence, to give but one example, Extreme Unction is now called "Anointing of the Sick." The primary purpose of remitting sin and strengthening the soul against what could be its final battle with Satan before it appears before the Judgment Seat of God, is replaced with restoration of bodily health (secondary effect, if God knows it to be for the good of the soul).

 Now, the old spiritual truth that we should "love the sinner, but hate the sin," gets inverted by Antipope Francis. According to an article in the National Catholic (sic) Reporter, the Modernist Vatican will neither confirm nor deny that Francis met with a transgendered Spaniard ( in this case a woman who was surgically mutilated into a "man"). There are numerous news reports that Frankie hugged the 48 year old Diego Media Lejarraga at a private meeting on January 24th in Vatican City.

 Sodomite/pervert "rights" supporters are jumping for joy. They are using this occasion to show how "inclusive" and "welcoming" Francis is of everyone. Lejarraga said a local priest called him the "devil's daughter," but despite this he wrote to Frankie in the hopes of being accepted and receiving a "papal blessing." According to the Spanish newspaper Hoy, Frankie told the unrepentant pervert, "You are a son of God and the Church loves you and accepts you as you are." (Emphasis mine)

 Yes, God loves sinners but hates sin. By telling this disturbed person he need not repent, Frankie is condoning his sin, his perversion, and his march towards Hell. The pervert even attended with his fiancée (wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if it was a "woman" that used to be a man!). Francis really hates this man. The priest who allegedly called Lejarraga the "devil's daughter" actually had more charity. I wouldn't advise saying that, but would definitely let the person know God loves him but not what he has done. He must seek psychological help from a Christian therapist, and spiritual guidance to both repent and stay chaste. This is true charity which the world hates and will not tolerate.

 New Ways Ministry, lead by Sr. Jeannine Gramick, is dedicated to normalizing perversion of all stripes. She wrote to Frankie that she will be leading an "LGBT pilgrimage" to Rome next month. She wants unrepentant sodomites and other unrepentant sinners to receive Vatican II "communion." (Deo gratias, it's invalid!). She shot back Frankie's own words that the Body and Blood of Christ is spiritual nourishment that we need to grow in our love-relationship with God, not "a prize to be awarded those who are worthy." Yes, no one is worthy to receive Christ, but you must first be a friend of God by being in the state of grace.

 Morality is so turned upside down, few can find their way in this every increasingly wicked world. I saw a post by a young woman decrying "revenge porn." That's when a former boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse posts nude pictures of their ex on the Internet, shaming them. This young woman (unmarried) blamed what happened to her as misogyny. She still gets emails calling her a whore over a year later. While the behavior of those men is deplorable, why would she take such photos in the first place? Fornication and porn doth not a virtuous woman make. So what does she do? Unbelievably, she puts up naked photos of herself on her own website!! She wanted to let the world know that the only thing wrong was "lack of consent" and invasion of her "right to privacy."  Porn is OK with her as long as you want to exploit your body and be an occasion of mortal sin to others. No repentance or acknowledgement that what was done is wrong.

 This year the US Supreme Court is poised to declare sodomite "marriage" a constitutional "right" in the name of "equality" and "privacy." We kill unborn children under the same banner of "right to privacy" and "reproductive freedom" which will give women "equality." As Pope Leo XIII wrote in Temetsi, "The world has heard enough of the so -called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God." But the world will hear none of it. Instead, we think "tolerance" and "acceptance" of those in unrepentant sin is a "virtue." The world will even declare such evils as "rights."People who judge things as sin and demand penance are denounced as "mean-spirited," "exclusive," and even "evil."

 We are now reaping the fruit of such misguided modern morals. New evidence (3,500+ consecutive news reports from China to the US to Russia over the past three years) shows that the portion of a society's child molestation attributable to homosexual abuse is strongly and directly related to its degree of acceptance of homosexuality (See Family Research Institute Jan/2015 bulletin by Dr. Paul Cameron, PhD.). Actions speak louder than words, and Antipope Francis is showing that, despite what still passes for official Vatican policy in some aspects, he wants acceptance of any unrepentant sinner and, by extension, to the sin itself. Unfortunately, those he deludes will find Hell quite intolerable and unacceptable.
I'm reminded of 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error."