Monday, July 27, 2015

The Demise Of Extreme Unction

 One of the greatest tragedies of the Great Apostasy is the destruction of the Sacraments. With the exceptions of Baptism and Matrimony (which are valid in most cases), the other five Sacraments have been invalidated. Since Holy Orders was rendered null and void by the Pauline Rite (introduced by Montini [Antipope Paul VI] in 1968), the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as well as the Eucharist it produces were invalidated. So were the other Sacraments that depend on a valid Apostolic Succession, to wit: Penance, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction. Much has been written about the changes to the Mass, but even with a valid priesthood, the changes made by the Modernists render the other sacraments dubious at best and certainly invalid at worst. In either case, Traditionalists must avoid dubious and/or invalid Sacraments in all circumstances.

 Luckily, for Traditionalists who are no where near a priest,  Baptism and Matrimony can be conducted by laymen, when necessary,in the absence of such a True Priest. You can sanctify Sunday by a DVD Mass and spiritual communion. You can have your sins forgiven by an Act of Perfect Contrition.  You can travel far once a year to a real Church  for the True Sacraments.  Sadly, Confirmation and Extreme Unction are not readily available, even to those of us near a Church, due to Traditionalist bishops/priests needing to go all over to make the Mass and Sacraments available to as many of the Faithful as possible. One of the supreme crimes of the Modernists was making Extreme Unction, a glorious Sacrament to prepare us to meet Christ when the end comes, into a sentimental "Get Well Soon Card" delivered in person.

 To better understand what was done, you must realize the Modernists invert the primary and secondary effects of the Sacraments. Baptism, whose principle purpose is the remission of Original Sin (and all personal sins as well as the temporal punishments due to them in the case of adults), is now about "initiation into the community." As a matter of fact, the Vatican II sect refers to Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist as the "Sacraments of Initiation"--as if being in the "People of God" for an "assembly" is why Christ instituted these Sacraments. Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony are called the "Sacraments of Service"---ignoring the primary purpose of each; the offering of Sacrifice to God and the procreation of children, respectively. Finally, Penance (renamed "Reconciliation"), and Extreme Unction (renamed "Anointing of the Sick") are called "Sacraments of Healing." Keeping this in mind,let's examine how a Sacrament instituted by Christ was invalidated by the apostates of Vatican II.

Extreme Unction v. Anointing of the Sick

Now let us see how they have changed the very purpose of Extreme Unction . According to the Catechism of St.Pius X,  "Extreme Unction is a sacrament instituted for the spiritual as well as for the temporal comfort of the sick in danger of death." (Emphasis mine)

The heretical Catechism of the Catholic Church writes, "By the sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of the priests the whole Church commends those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord, that he may raise them up and save them. And indeed she exhorts them to contribute to the good of the People of God by freely uniting themselves to the Passion and death of Christ." Notice that any mention of the individual's possible death and dying have been purged.

Effects of the Sacrament
  "The effect is the grace of the Holy Ghost, whose anointing takes away sins, if there are any still to be expiated, and removes the trace of sin; and it comforts and strengthens the soul of the sick person. It gives him great confidence in the divine mercy. Encouraged by this, the sick man more easily bears the inconvenience and trial of his illness and more easily resists the temptations of the devil who lies in wait for his heel. This anointing occasionally restores health to the body, if health would be of advantage to the salvation of the soul. " (Council of Trent. 14 session on Extreme Unction).

From the Vatican II "Blessing of the Oil" (for the Anointing of the Sick): "Send, O Lord, the Holy Ghost on this and oil (...) to restore the body (...) in order that those who will receive this unction will have a help for the body.."

It is clear that the new doctrine insists on the bodily effect of the sacrament. It is an inversion of the traditional doctrine of the Church once more as demonstrated above.

Recipient of the Sacrament
According to theologian Kilker, for the valid reception of Extreme Unction, three requisites MUST be present: "1. He must be a "fidelis" (i.e. Catholic--Introibo) 2, He must have acquired the use of reason 3. He must be in danger of death from sickness or old age" (See Fr. Adrian J. Kilker, Extreme Unction: A Dissertation, Catholic University Press,Washington D.C. [1926], pg. 123). 

From the "Introduction to the rite of anointing sick and to the pastoral care of the sick" Dec. 7, 1972:
"Elderly people may be anointed if they are weak, though not dangerously ill." I have personally known of Vatican II sect parishes giving "group anointing of the sick" to any adult who is sick for any reason,including the common cold!! Furthermore, Kilker states that the sickness must proceed from an internal cause (Ibid, pg. 165) which excludes from validity the conferral (rampant in the V2 sect) of anointing those about to have an operation, go into military battle, or be executed, as these are all external causes of death. 

Minister of the Sacrament

The Council of Trent says: "If anyone says that the presbyter of the Church, who St. James says should be called in to anoint the person who is sick, are not priests ordained by the bishop, but the older men of any community, and that consequently the proper minister of Extreme Unction is not the priest alone: let him be anathema. " (4th Canon on Extreme Unction).

It is officially the same in the Vatican II sect, but there have been instances of anointings performed by "permanent deacons" and even "nuns." Most Vatican II sect "priests" are invalidly ordained in the new rite of Paul VI.

Matter of the Sacrament
"Olive oil alone[blessed by a bishop]" (Catechism of the Council of Trent). The Holy Office declared (September 14,1842), that "it is rash and close to error, to assert that this sacrament could be valid with another oil."

The Vatican II sect has virtually no more valid bishops to bless anything. In addition to this problem,
according to Antipope Paul VI's "Apostolic Constitution" Sacram unctionem infirmorum, November 30, 1972, "The sick are to be anointed with blessed olive oil or, as circumstances suggest, with another oil extracted from plants." (Emphasis mine)

Form of the Sacrament

Extreme Unction: "By this holy unction and His pious mercy, may God forgive thee whatever sins thou hast committed by the evil use of sight (hearing, smell, taste and speech, touch)." (Traditional Roman Ritual) "The anointing should be done on these parts: on the eyes because of sight, on the ears because of  hearing, on the nose because of smelling, on the mouth because of taste or speech, on the hands because of touch, on the feet because of walking. " (Council of Florence)

Anointing of the Sick:"By this holy unction and His pious mercy, may God help you by the grace of the Holy Spirit, in order that, delivered from your sins, God save you and restore you in his goodness.""The sick are to be anointed on the forehead and hands. " (Paul VI Apostolic constitution Sacram unctionem infirmorum). This makes sense as traditionally, the sacrament was meant to cure/forgive the sins committed by the five senses. Since the Anointing of the Sick is primarily concerned with the body (things of this world is a must in Modernist theology) two anointings suffice.

In the new form, the principal effect of the sacrament (curing the sickness of the sins) is de-emphasized, and the secondary effect-a possible cure of the body-is added in the words, "restore you."

Intention of the Sacrament
It is clear that the intention of Extreme Unction and Anointing of the Sick is not the same. Even a validly ordained priest who forms an intention, positively excluding the primary effect of the Sacrament, based on the Modernist ideas inherent in the Anointing of the Sick most probably has a defective intention as well. 

Summary and Conclusion
The "Anointing of the Sick" is not a new name for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction instituted by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is creation of the Modernist theology of Vatican II and devoid of grace. It is a pseudo-sacrament.It is defective as to:
  • The remote matter. There are no more bishops left to bless the oil, and in many cases olive oil is not used.
  • The proximate matter. Five anointings are reduced to two and the form does not clearly and unambiguously express the principle effect of remission of sin.
  • The minister is, in most cases, an invalidly ordained priest, or in some cases so-called deacons or nuns who don't even pretend to be ordained priests
  • The stated purposes and effects are different.
  • The recipients are sometimes not able to receive it validly.
  • The intention can very well be defective in addition to everything else!

Please my dear readers, it is now more imperative than ever to give ample time to a Traditionalist priest for the administration of Extreme Unction. Do not let a loved one miss out on so great a Sacrament when the time of judgement draws near. Weep not only due to the pain of loss that comes with the death of a loved one, weep for those dying faithful who will be robbed of so much grace as Extreme Unction falls as yet another "victim of Vatican II."

Monday, July 20, 2015

Death By Redefinition

 It is the ploy of Modernists in the Church (now emulated by secularists in the social order) to destroy the Truth by redefining it. Rather than deny a truth in the natural or supernatural order, it gets redefined out of existence. In this way, the unwary will think that the same thing is being taught, but it is something quite false and evil under the old terminology. I will elaborate on two examples. In the supernatural order, the Vatican II sect claims on paper to believe in Transubstantiation.

 This is the doctrine that, at the Consecration of the Mass, the whole substance of the bread and the whole substance of the wine is changed into the substance of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity--with only the accidents or outward appearances-- of bread and wine remaining. In the immediate aftermath of Vatican II, Modernist theologians Frs. Karl Rahner (d. 1984) and Edward Schillebeeckx (d. 2009) taught something drastically different, and most all bishops hopped on the heretical bandwagon. Schillebeeckx agreed with Rahner that the physical bread and wine were only a "sign" of Christ. In fact, for Schillebeeckx, the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Eucharist was not the consecrated species (former bread and wine), but the presence of Christ in the "assembled community." This is why Schillebeeckx says that "I kneel, not before a Christ who is, as it were, condensed in the host (sic), but before the Lord himself who is offering his (sic) reality, his (sic) body, to me through the host (sic)." (See Edward Schillcbeeckx, O. P. The Eucharist, [New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968] p. 120.)

 This novelty is called Transignification. Having jettisoned belief in the Thomistic concept of substance, what changes is not the physical reality, but the significance it has for the people. You won't hear the local Vatican II "priest" mention transignification, but doesn't it all make sense of the practices in the Novus Bogus bread and wine service ("mass")? Consider:

  • The minister ("priest" is a meaningless term in the V2 sect) turns towards the people with either his back to the tabernacle, or the tabernacle relegated to somewhere no one can see, because what really matters is what the "assembly" does--they somehow--are the "Body of Christ."
  • All the genuflections  before the host and chalice at the consecration are reduced from six to two. Anybody can touch "communion"--- both to dole it out and eat it. You chew it like cud instead of letting it dissolve in your mouth. No more sacred hands of the priest specially consecrated for the task of touching Christ's Own Body will be found.
  • If the host falls, you just pick it up and pop it in your mouth. The particles that fall are no worry, so why even bother with a paten?
  • People stand for the wafer instead of kneeling when they take it in their hand. 
  • The priest, in the Real Mass, makes the sign of the cross over the kneeling communicant with the Host as he states the effect of the Sacrament worthily received, saying (in Latin), "May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting." The communicant says nothing. In the Novus Bogus, the "eucharistic minister" (e.g., the local female janitor who shacks up with her boyfriend and took a 'class' on so-called theology) says "The Body of Christ" as he/she holds it up.The communicant says "Amen" before it's placed into his unconsecrated hands and he pops it in his mouth to be chewed.
 Does it seem that the Vatican II sect clergy and laity really believe that they receive Christ Himself in Holy Communion, i.e. that Transubstantiation takes place? (It's a rhetorical question, I know). Ironically, it DOES NOT take place (Deo gratias), but they claim it does--at least officially. A 1992 Gallop poll stated that only 30% of the Vatican II sect laity still believe in the Real Presence. I can only wonder how much lower its gone in the last 23 years. 

 In the natural order, the Supreme Court has now redefined marriage as, well, basically anything that involves "love and intimacy." Taking it even one step further, to eliminate the contradiction between the basic tenets of Christianity and homosexuality, I came across an incredibly ignorant propaganda piece written by one Whitney Kay Bacon at the Huffington Post (no surprise there). Entitled, "So Gay Marriage Biblically Offends You? Then You Should Read This..." I will reprint her anti-intellectual drivel and respond below it in red. 

I want to start by saying that I am a Christian. I always have been and always will be... and I'm also a gay woman who is happily married to a beautiful British Woman named Megan. 

She's a Christian? By whose definition? Obviously her own. Married to another woman? By whose definition? Not that of Christ! To have same sex attraction and live celibate is one thing, but to claim you can proudly practice one of the Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance and still be "Christian" is another. "Gay Christian" is analogous to "Meat-Eating Vegetarian." 

Since the recent Supreme Court ruling of legalizing same-sex marriages in the United States, I have seen the ugly and the uglier come out in people I never expected. Having moved to live with my wife in the UK, I find myself in awe at the complete and utter ignorance that has been clogging up my news feed and other social medial outlets in the past few days from my so-called American friends back in the South. It's important to state that I'm not generalizing all, as I've also seen a positive response from those Christian in the South; even including support from an amazing pastor. However, it saddens me that amongst the many rainbow-colored pictures on my feed, there is also a great deal of hatred.

Ah, yes, "hatred." To disagree with sodomite "marriage" even on religious grounds will be deemed "hate" and "bigotry." I know an Orthodox Jew who thinks it's wrong for me to eat the flesh of a pig, and I'm not one of God's "chosen people." Does he hate me? No. He disagrees with my religious convictions. Do I think he's a bigot? No. I know he wrong, go to Mass on Sunday, and happily eat a ham sandwich for lunch.

 What I don't understand is quite simply, this: why does gay marriage bother people so much? If you are making an unnecessary palava because you're offended by gay marriage then you seriously need to look at your own life and educate yourselves a bit. 

There are many reasons to be bothered by it. (See my post "The Supreme Perversion.") I recommend that Ms. Bacon stop using slang if she wants to be taken seriously as an intellectual. "Palava" is slang for "hassle." 

 If the sole reason you feel that gay marriage is wrong because it's a sin, and the Bible tells you this is wrong, then I sure as hell hope you don't have bacon with your eggs or indulge in shrimp. Oh, or better yet, do you have any tattoos? Ever been drunk, told a white lie or been divorced? Yep, whoops. Those are all sins, too. And all sins are equal, right? 
Wrong. All sins are not equal, there are venial and mortal sins which people commit. Common sense tells us that just as all civil crimes are not punished equally, the same would hold true for God's Law. We don't give the death penalty to someone jaywalking and we don't give community service to a serial killer. Even under the Protestant heresy of justification by Faith alone,the sane pastors realize not all sins are equal. Being divorced is not a sin if you can't live in peace with your spouse (he beats you, etc) and you remain celibate. As for the canard of Old Testament prescriptions against things like eating shellfish and the like, Ms. Bacon (you have to love the name in this context!) should do her research. 

 There are requirements in Leviticus only for the Israelites (e.g., Lev. 7:23, don't eat fat from ox, sheep, or goat, Lev. 7:29, procedures for peace offering to the Lord, Lev. 11:2, list of animals the Israelites may eat, etc.) There are lists of abominations spoken of that were for the non-Israelites as well.  It is in the latter group that homosexuality is listed (e.g., Lev. 18:20, don't have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, Lev. 18:21, don't offer children to Molech, Lev. 18:22, don't lie with a male as with a female, Lev. 18:23 don't have intercourse with animals, etc.). It is a mistake for people to mix topics intended only for Israel with topics that included the non-Israelites.  Furthermore, when we see that the New Testament condemns the idea of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, we could see the continuity between Old Testament moral law and New Testament moral law.

I don't see anyone going off the handle because of any of these 'sins' and I most certainly don't see protests or hurtful propaganda against those. Just because you disagree with something -- and we all have the right to do so -- it is an absolute disgrace to treat the LGBT community the way you do. What if we treated all sins in this way? Bacon eaters would be doomed.

To think eating shrimp or even divorce and remarriage is on the same level as protesting the redefinition of marriage is so ridiculous as to defy description. The only "doomed Bacon eaters" would be cannibals wanting you as their main course, Ms. Bacon.

Therefore, if gay marriage or 'homosexuality' doesn't affect you personally in the way you live your life in any way, why do you feel the need to even get involved? Why worry about something that is, frankly, none of your business? For instance, I'm not divorced, but many people I know are, and I'm not going to judge them. We shouldn't judge anyone for the way they live their life. If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't have a gay wedding. Simple.

Yes! And if you lived in the U.S. during the pre-Civil War days this paragraph would read: "Therefore, if  slavery doesn't affect you personally in the way you live your life in any way, why do you feel the need to even get involved? Why worry about something that is, frankly, none of your business? For instance, I'm not divorced, but many people I know are, and I'm not going to judge them. We shouldn't judge anyone for the way they live their life, or what they own. If you don't agree with slavery, then don't have a slave. Simple."

I know what you must be thinking. If the LGBT community can protest and stand up for their rights, then why can't Christians? They have every right to stand up for what they believe in also... To a degree, yes.

"To a degree"?!? I hope you see where we're heading in society. Didn't she also state that SHE was "Christian"? It seems the truth comes out as she squarely places herself in the sodomite camp exclusive of Christianity. 

Christianity and gay rights will always butt-heads. Luckily, we have the Equality Act 2010 in the UK, where we've seen it in the favor of gay rights; e.g. where a gay couple were wrongly turned away from a B&B due to the owners Christian views, to in favor of Christianity; e.g. the nurse who was wrongly fired for telling her lesbian colleague she's committing a sin. I don't expect the battles to ever fully cease, but choose your battles wisely. Is this really worth your time? 

Given her initial premise, why will Christianity and "gay rights" butt heads? In answer to her last question, yes, saving traditional marriage is worth my time--and every one committed to Truth.

 Could your time not be better spent with showing kindness and acceptance -- isn't that what being a Christian is truly about, rather than showing hatred? It is not your duty to judge and tell others how to live theirs to ensure your angelic conscious is clear. 

Again, the tired "hate and bigotry" card,because they have no real arguments. "Not your duty to judge..." Whitney Kay Bacon the nom de plume of "Pope" Francis?

However, it does change the lives of the LGBT community and gives us freedom and the same rights as anyone else. This means that now my wife and I, if we ever decide to move back to the U.S., can do this freely and can move to any state. Your hatred towards this is unjust and unfair and don't even try to the quote the Bible at me; you may want to actually read it first.

It should be pretty obvious to all that Ms. Bacon is the one who needs to read the Good Book.

To all of the haters, how would you feel if your rights were completely stripped from you because you had a divorce or because you had a baby out of wedlock, for instance? How would you like someone judging and telling you that you're going to hell because of this?

"Haters." Nothing else to say."Your rights are completely stripped away" if the government doesn't support a new definition of "marriage"? I never realized that polygamists and NAMBLA ("North American Man-Boy Love Association") are having all their rights stripped away because there's no "group marriage" and the 40 year old pervert can't marry a 10 year old! As far as going to Hell is concerned, it's an act of charity if someone thinks you're going there to tell you to amend your life. Some Protestants think I'm going to Hell, and they care about me.I tell them the same thing--they will go to Hell if they don't convert. I'm not worried because I know they're wrong. Apparently, Ms. Bacon doesn't have the same clear conscience and convictions--she must feel something is amiss in her life! (There is, and I hope she converts to live in celibacy).

As a Christian, I wholeheartedly believe that God does not make mistakes and he would not have accidentally made millions of people (and animals) gay by chance. We are all who we are for a reason and no one should ever make you feel bad for that. 

Here she assumes homosexuality is predestined genetically. There is no scientific proof of this, and even if so, that doesn't make it morally acceptable behavior. Suppose there's a gene that predisposes one to alcoholism. Go drink and drive, and let abstinence be damned? What about a gene for pedophilia? Go be a Vatican II sect "priest" ? Animals have no immortal soul and their acts are not moral or immoral,so bringing them into a theological discussion is beside the point. 

  If anything, my relationship with God is better than ever, and I know that I am definitely not going to hell or that my lifestyle is wrong. It's important for people to know that you can be a Christian and gay. 

She knows  Unfortunately, her understanding of her relationship with God is like her understanding of the Bible. Can you be "Christian and an adulterer" with no intention to repent and amend your life?

You do not have to choose one or the other. We need more people like Christian singer Vicky Beeching, who came out as a lesbian last year, to look up to as role models.

So, my dear fellow Christians, from one Christian to another, please mind your own business and PLEASE make sure that your hands are clean before you point your finger at me and my community. Amen.

I see, "clean hands" means we must have no sin to condemn another,so since we all sin we must not condemn anyone else. I wonder how she (and Frankie) feel about Adolph Hitler? Remember, "clean hands," "don't judge," and "all sins are equal!" 

Be afraid. Be very afraid. The time will soon come when the only place you'll find sanity is in the dictionary. 

Monday, July 13, 2015

Opus Diaboli

 Mention Opus  Dei ("The Work of God") and you will receive a wide variety of responses to "The Work" founded by "St" Josemaria Escriva. To the secular world (as well as most in the Vatican II sect), it's seen as a very "conservative,"and "traditional" organization which is devoted to the "papacy." As people have inquired as to this organization, I will seek to answer three questions: (1) Who was Josemaria Escriva?, (2) What is Opus Dei?,(3) Is Opus Dei, in any sense, Traditional Catholic?

  1. Who was "Saint" Josemaria Escriva?
            According to an excellent summary in 30 Days magazine (June-July 1995):

"Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer was born in Barbastro, Spain, on January 9,1902, son of a cloth merchant and a pious housewife. He was ordained to the priesthood in Zaragoza on March 28, 1925.

On October 2, 1928, in Madrid, Father Escriva founded the first Opus Dei institute, inaugurating a women’s branch on February 14, 1930, also in Madrid.

In 1939 the first edition of Camino (The Way) was published, setting forth Escriva’s 999 maxims to serve as a guide for Opus Dei members. On May 24, 1941, the Archbishop of Madrid, Leopoldo Eijo y Garay, publicly defended Opus Dei against accusations of secrecy from some sectors in the Spanish Church.

The Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, the association for lay affiliates of Opus Dei who aspired to the Opus Dei priesthood, was founded on February 14, 1943. On June 25, 1944, the first ordinations of Opus Dei priests took place.

Escriva came to Rome on June 23, 1946, returning to Madrid in August with Holy See encouragement for his initiatives. Pope Pius Xll’s promulgation Provida Mater Ecclesia (February 2, 1947) gave juridical status to secular institutes such as Opus Dei. Finally on June 16, 1950, Opus Dei received its definitive approval from the Holy See. The organization became the first secular institute approved directly by the pope and took on the title "Priestly Society of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei." In 1962, Fr. Escriva pleaded in vain with Pope John XXIII to grant Opus Dei a different status from other secular institutes, which were answerable to the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes. A few years later, Pope Paul Vl also set aside the request, saying the time to grant it had not yet come.

Escriva passed away on June 26, 1975, and on May 12, 1981, the process for his beatification was initiated.

In spite of the opposition of a large part of the Catholic clergy and a majority of the Spanish bishops (55 of 56), the Vatican announced on August 23,1982 that Pope John Paul had decided to grant the status of Personal Prelature to Opus Dei." 

 Escriva had the idea of a way (deemed "The Way") for sanctity concerning laity remaining in the world, but it was very different from that of traditional spirituality such as St. Francis De Sales. According to one writer: 

"The basic difference between the two[traditional spirituality and The Way of Opus Dei] can be expressed as movements in opposite directions. One answers [the call to vocation] from outside the world and moves toward it, bringing its presence toward it. This is the evolution of the religious state. The other is a "being in the world"; it starts from being of the world. Such is the Opus Dei’s secular spirituality....This is what made Card. Luciani, the future Pope John Paul I, say that while St. Francis de Sales proposed a spirituality for lay people, Msgr. Escriva proposes a new lay spirituality."(See D. LeTourneau, L'Opus Dei, pg. 26; Emphasis mine)

Interestingly, he debased the priesthood, and paved the way for Vatican II's Modernism. One report states:  Escriva was happy when his first three priests were ordained, but he was also very sad that they did not remain laymen(!)

He was devoted to the Modernism of Vatican II. This explains Wotyla's ("Pope" John Paul II) hurry to "canonize" him in 2002. One need only look at the "miracles" attributed to him to see they were as phony as his teachings:

  • A Carmelite nun is allegedly cured of lung cancer, yet there is no evidence she actually had cancer in the first place
  • A child with hypertension was cured after taking medications--this too was classified as a "miracle"
  • A doctor with cancerous lesions on his hands caused by taking X-rays without gloves was cured after he stopped doing so - another so-called miracle.
  2) What is Opus Dei?

 Opus Dei is organized like a religious order, comprised overall of priests and laity. Entering "the Opus" is considered to be a vocation and there are a rule and vows, although married members take different ones. It is a personal prelature, meaning that, there is a prelate, clergy and laity under the direction of the Congregation of Bishops. As opposed to a diocese, people are bound to the prelature by membership as opposed to geographical area. 

They have four classes of membership:
  • Numeraries: The elite, who take vows, or promises - of poverty, chastity and obedience. Some live in communities and turn over their financial revenues to "The Work" which then takes care of their needs. Numeraries are both priests and laity.
  • Associates: They make the same promises. They are not from the same class nor of the same intellectual rank as the numeraries.
  • Supernumeraries: These are the most numerous, many are married. Their promises are less constraining.
  • Cooperators: These take no "vows," but participate in "corporate apostolic works." It is possible they may be non-Christians.
The idea is sanctification in the world. There have been reports of abuse of authority,Freemasonic-like secrecy, a certain feeling of superiority through a gnostic-like knowledge given to members, and harsh penances. It has been likened by some authors to a cult.

 3) Is Opus Dei, in any sense, Traditional Catholic?

 In a word:NO. 

  • It was the first institution to take in non-Catholics and even non-Christians, 
  • For Escriva and his organization, freedom of conscience comes before Truth. Hence he said, "[Religious] Pluralism is not to be feared but loved as a legitimate consequence of personal freedom."
  • Escriva had Protestant, schismatic, Jewish, Moslem and even pagan benefactors who were very good financial brokers for Opus Dei; it was already an active force for "political ecumenism." In Spain, the group refused to take a stand against abortion, not wanting to violate the "conscience" of the non-Catholics.
  • Montini (Antipope Paul VI) used the work of Escriva for his personal meditations
  • The Opus Dei member ultimately learns not only to respect, but to love, religious pluralism
  • In an interview publish 12/18/13,the prelate of Opus Dei, Bishop Javier Echevarría replies to a question about women in the Church as follows:  "Q:In an interview published in this newspaper, the president of the Focolare Movement, Maria Voce, has asked that a greater role be given to women in the Church. Do you agree? A: Certainly. For, as the Holy Father has reminded us, the Church is a woman: one only needs to remember the role of our Lady. The topic of the role of women isn’t new, and in fact women have played an important role in the development of the Church. Moreover, Opus Dei has always viewed women as playing a central role in the life of the Church." With a Modernist like Frankie, we know that he would love deaconesses and priestesses, and Opus Dei would be supporting it.  (See
In summation, don't be fooled by the seeming piety displayed by many members of Opus Dei. They are a front promoting the same Modernism as the sect to which they belong. In that same interview above, the leader of Opus Dei praises Antipope Francis and states, "In countries with a Christian tradition, Opus Dei (through its activities for spiritual formation) offers a path for rediscovering the faith in the midst of one’s daily occupations. This is what the New Evangelization means: to re-enkindle in Christians (who sometimes see themselves as such only because of their cultural context) the flame of a living and personal relationship with God." A "relationship" as each individual sees fit, divorced from the True Church.

Monday, July 6, 2015

It's Not Easy Being Green

 Antipope Francis has issued his 40,574 word "encyclical" on the environment. It took me this long to get around to reading it. As far as I can tell, it has two main uses: a cure for insomnia, and lining for a bird cage. If you want to find Catholic theology, look any place except here. There are NO citations to the True Magisterium pre-Vatican II. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is mentioned for the first time in paragraph # 82, and only appears 23 times in total.

 We are told that "our common home" is the Earth. Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that our true home is Heaven, and while we must be good stewards of this planet, we must strive to get to humankind's ultimate purpose--the Beatific Vision.The only way to do this is by being good members of the One True Church, and making as many converts as possible so they can hopefully join us there. Not so, saith Francis. "Outside the Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian communities – and other religions as well – have expressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections on issues which all of us find disturbing."(para #7). What I find disturbing is calling a collection of heretics and/or schismatics "Churches." Even more disturbing is the "issues" of which he speaks do not pertain to Faith and Morals or the conversion of said heretics. Another proof (as if any were necessary) that Frankie cannot be pope. 

 We are warned that “to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God.” Was he talking about the legalization of sodomite "marriages" in Ireland and the U.S. ? No! It's a quote from a schismatic bishop telling us about polluting the environment!  In paragraph #175, the false pope tells us: "The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions"In other words, a One World Environmental "Police Force" putting us another step closer to a One World government.

At the end of the encyclical Laudato si, Frankie proposes two different prayers: one for those who believe in the One Triune God, and the other for those who do not believe in Him (infidels, pagans, your local Wiccan priestess, etc.). This shows his desire to have all religions, all beliefs, all opinions unite against his perceived "ecological threat" because this world is what matters--salvation be damned (literally)! Francis has  done away with the First Commandment, the worship due to the true God. It started with Paul VI's heretical ecclesiology, embodied in Vatican II. It continued with "Saint" John Paul the Great Apostate and his ecumenical abomination at Assisi, visiting Lutheran churches, praying in synagogues, and kissing the Koran. It continued with "retired pope" Ratzinger's statement that the papacy (which he never held anyway) was the greatest hindrance to "ecumenical progress." It continues with Francis wanting all false sects to unite as one ecumenical denomination behind a one-world police state enforcing global ecological sanctions. Remember: Saving the environment, not your soul, is what really matters. It sort of makes sense when you consider  Francis believes the souls of the damned are annihilated. 

 "Going green" in the early ecological movement was easy. Now, it entails a One-World Ecumenical Religion in the service of a One-World Government to "save the planet." This is the Modernism of Vatican II and Francis as displayed in the latest piece of anti-Catholic literature he wrote. One can only hope the Vatican II sect itself is biodegradable.