Monday, October 26, 2015

Christus Regnat

 On the Traditionalist Roman Catholic calendar, October 25, 2015, marks the feast of Christ the King. The Vatican II sect celebrates the "Thirtieth Sunday of Ordinary Time." (Very ordinary, indeed, as they have jettisoned the True Faith, Morals, and Sacraments for Modernism and an invalid bread and wine service). The sect will observe its "Christ the King" on November 22, the Sunday before Advent. The Feast of Christ the King was ordered established--and to be celebrated every year on the last Sunday of October--by Pope Pius XI in his famous encyclical Quas Primas of December 11, 1925. From this encyclical, three lessons are clearly taught:

  1. God is the Supreme Being. All societies, nations, and States owe submission to God as their Creator and Final End. 
  2. Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, has received from God, in His humanity, all power in Heaven and upon Earth. He has authority and sovereignty over every other authority. He is invested with a  true royal power that is shared with the pope and bishops.
  3. It is obvious, according to the teachings enumerated above, that all Constitutions and legislation have Jesus Christ and His One True Church as their head and foundation. 

 December 7, 1965 will mark the 50th anniversary of the Vatican II sect's heretical declaration Dignitatis Humanae.   Christ's Kingship is perverted and reduced to a mere "Lordship over our personal life," and eliminated over society. This idea was adopted by other heretical societies, all too happy to rejoice that the Vatican II sect was willing to be "first among equals" with other false religions and disassemble the Catholic Countries across the world. Anglican, Lutheran, and other heretics celebrate this revised and evil concept the Sunday before Advent. One female minister, Carol Reynolds, of the First Congregational Church (sic), had this to say on their feast of Christ the King in 2011:

[The feast of Christ the King means] Christ is the light that shines in each one of us. Christ transcends Christianity. Meet the Cosmic Christ.Why are many of us meeting this Christ for the first time this morning? According to former Dominican and now Episcopalian priest Matthew Fox, this image of the Christ has been obscured by fruits of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution: scientific investigation,industrial development, and medical advances. With the new knowledge and discoveries, the universe suddenly lost its sacredness and came to be viewed as more technical and machine-like than awesome and mystical. And, at the same time, the Western world began to think in more individualistic terms, leading many Christians to focus specifically on personal salvation, often at the cost of the health of God’s creation, human and nonhuman. In his creation-based spirituality, Fox asserts that we need to re-imagine a living cosmology for our time. He writes, 'The holy trinity of science (or knowledge of creation), mysticism (or experiential union with creation and its un-nameable mysteries), and art (or expression of our awe at creation) is what constitutes a living cosmology.'

Where does this Reign of Christ leave the rest of the world’s faiths and cultures? Matthew Fox believes THAT this Cosmic Christ connects us to all peoples and that it is a principle discernible within the wisdom traditions of all world religions. He calls the movement to unleash this universal wisdom for the common good "deep ecumenism" and believes the heart of the Cosmic Christ is the figure of Jesus as Sophia or Wisdom. For Fox this is the perfect bridge between Christianity and other faiths. (Emphasis mine).

With the Vatican II sect denying absolute truth and seeing  "degrees of truth" in other sects, this new and heretical concept of Christ's kingship becomes easily understandable. When one begins to doubt the  veracity of the Catholic Religion as  the One True Church, it logically follows that there is no reason to proclaim the Catholic faith as the State religion and refuse public worship to false sects. Christ and His Church are banished from public life.

 It began with the arch-heretic, Fr. John Courtney Murray, spreading his errors on Church-State relations in the late 1940s. On July 7, 1954, The Holy Office under Cardinal Ottaviani, condemned four of Murray's teachings as "erroneous doctrinal positions," to wit:

a) The Catholic confessional State, professing itself as such, is not an ideal to which organized political society is universally obliged.

(b)Full religious liberty can be considered as a valid political ideal in a truly democratic State.

(c) The State organized on a genuinely democratic basis must be considered to have done its duty when it
has guaranteed the freedom of the Church by a general guarantee of liberty of religion.

(d) It is true that Leo XIII has said "states must follow that way of worshiping the divinity which God Himself has shown that he desires." (Encyclical Immortale Dei). Words such as these can be understood as referring to the State considered as organized on a basis other than that of the perfectly democratic State but to this latter strictly speaking are not applicable.

In 1958, Cardinal Ottaviani had drawn up 21 propositions of Murray's for formal condemnation. Unfortunately, the death of Pope Pius XII and usurpation of the papal title by Angelo Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII) prevented their approval. At Vatican II, Murray and his Modernist comrades would have their day. What was previously condemned by all popes and the approved theologians of the Church, would become official teaching!

"Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX, CONDEMNED proposition #15, 1864)

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits." (Vatican II Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, para. # 2, 1965)

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin." (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, para. #14, 1832)

"In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. " (Vatican II Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, para. # 3, 1965)

Here's what theologian Tanquerey had to say about the True Church teaching pre-Vatican II:

Freedom of Conscience and of Worship
I. Principles
a) True freedom of conscience is given to us, namely, the right to embrace and profess the true religion according to the laws laid upon us by God or by an authority set up by God.

b) But absolute freedom of conscience must be rejected, that is, the right to choose a religion which is more pleasing, or the right to decide on a religion according to the sole light of the individual's reason.

c) When a religion is concerned with internal acts only, God alone is the judge in this matter.

d)  When a religion is manifested by external acts and, in a special manner, by a cult or a rite, the ecclesiastical and civil authorities have the right and duty to prohibit those acts, which are harmful to the social good. (See A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Declee Company, 1959 1:166-167; italics in original)

Vatican II apologist Thomas Storck tries to "reconcile" obvious contradictory teaching thus:

"What about the repeated declarations in "Dignitatis Humanae" about religious freedom as a personal human right? The Council proclaims, I think, an abstract human right, but a right that is not necessarily fully applicable in any given circumstance or place. Because of the "dignity of the human person" man does indeed have a right to religious liberty, in fact, by giving us a free will God has necessarily given us a kind of religious liberty, including the liberty to err. But this does not mean that this liberty may be exercised without reference to anything else. There are many rights that are contingent upon circumstances. Man, for example, has a right to marry. But what of those who are impotent or who cannot find anyone to marry?"

 Storch misses the point. The old axiom is, "Error has no rights." No person has a "right" to choose a false religion. It's an abuse of freewill. That's like saying someone has an abstract "right to commit murder." Murder of the body is actually less pernicious than the murder of the soul by heresy. (See St. Matthew 10:28) The right to marry was never condemned by the Church. Religious liberty was so anathematized.

 The results of this new concept of Christ as King over private lives only has had its horrible effects. John Paul the Great Apostate urged Catholic States in Europe, such as Italy, to remove the special status of the Church as the State religion. To give but one example, formerly Catholic Spain, a bastion of the Faith, now reports these sad statistics in 2010 after dropping Catholicism as the official religion in 1975:

According to a study by the Spanish Centre for Sociological Research in 2014 about 68% of Spaniards self-identify as Catholics, 2% other faith, and about 27% identify as atheists or declare they have no religion. Most Spaniards do not participate regularly in religious worship. This same study shows that of the Spaniards who identify themselves as religious, 61% barely ever goes to mass, 14% go to mass few times a year, 10% few times per month and 14% every Sunday or multiple times per week. Although a majority of Spaniards are Catholics, most, especially those of the young generation, ignore the Church's conservative moral doctrines on issues such as pre-marital sex, sexual orientation or contraception.

 This is yet another consequence of the perverted Vatican II sect and its new teaching on the Kingship of Christ. Truly, it's been said, "Where the Lord does not reign, Satan takes the Throne."

Monday, October 19, 2015

Emasculating The Church

 The Vatican II sect continues its quest to stamp out every last vestige of Catholicism from its ranks. At their "Synod on the Family," Canadian "Archbishop" Paul-Andre Durocher of Gatineau, Quebec, said the Synod should consider the possibility of allowing for female "deacons" as it seeks "ways to open up more opportunities for women in church (sic) life."  (See

 Let's be clear: the goal of the Modernists is strict egalitarianism. All religions are more or less good and lead to Heaven. Women and men are not called to different vocations. Females and males are the same, not only insofar as they are created in the image and likeness of God, but they must be called to do everything equally in the "Church." In 1968, the new rites of ordination to deacon and priest (as well as consecration to the episcopacy) were rendered null and void--just like Anglican Orders which were declared invalid by Pope Leo XIII in 1896. Hence Mr. Durocher is a layman, having been "ordained" a priest in 1982, and "consecrated" a bishop in 1997. (His boss, Jorge Bergoglio, is also an apostate layman, so as the teenagers are wont to say, "It's all good.")

 If the Sacrament of Holy Orders is already invalid, why a push for women as deacons? Because just as "same sex marriage" puts male and female in roles God never intended (indeed, has forbidden), parity of females with men in churches is a spiritual perversion of God's supernatural order of things. The Modernists always soften things up incrementally. First, "altar girls" now known by the gender-inclusive term "altar servers." (Ironically, they should be called waiters and waitresses since there are no altars, just tables to eat bread and drink wine). Then, to show a facade of  being "traditional," in a 1994 letter, Ordinatio Sacredotalis,  then-"Pope" John Paul II wrote: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." Even Frankie has written in Evangellii Gaudium: "The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion."

 In order to change, they must admit deaconesses first. There are already women who read at the Novus Bogus "mass," distribute "communion" and "nuns" (mostly glorified lesbian social workers) who offer "communion services" at "priestless parishes." Once deaconesses are in, they can begin to "reexamine" the older declarations and find some pretense as to why they no longer apply to bar priestesses and female bishops. Remember you read it here when it comes to pass. Mr. Durocher is doing the dirty work of groups like Roman Catholic (sic) Women Priests. According to their website: "Mission: 'A new model of ordained ministry in a renewed Roman Catholic (sic) Church.'"

They further write: "Statement on Apostolic Succession
The ordinations of Roman Catholic Womenpriests are valid because of our apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church. The principal consecrating Roman Catholic male bishops who ordained our first women bishops are bishops with apostolic succession within the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, our bishops validly ordain deacons, priests and bishops. Consequently, all qualified candidates, including baptized ministers and priests from other Christian traditions, who are presented to our bishops for ordination are ordained by the laying on of hands in apostolic succession in the Roman Catholic Church. The ordination rite has all the same essential parts as the rite used for male candidates and deacons." (Emphasis mine) The apostate women in this sect and within the Vatican II sect are "welcoming" to any false creeds, as well as sodomites. Many are bisexual or lesbian. They dare to seek a role Christ did not give to the His Immaculate Mother. If any human being was worthy of the sacrerdotal dignity, it was the Blessed Virgin Mary. It has nothing to do with "discrimination" and everything to do with God's plan for men and woman being different in the Church.  

 What does the True Roman Catholic Church teach about the ordination of females? According to theologian Tanquerey: "First, by divine law only men who are wayfarers, of the masculine sex, can validly receive the sacrament of orders. Women are absolutely incapable of receiving any order whatsoever. 

Proof from Scripture. Priests and deacons must preach but according to St. Paul: "Let women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted them to speak but to be subject" [I Cor. 14:34-35]. "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach. [I Tim., 2 et seq.] 

Proof from Tradition. St. Irenaus, St. Epiphanius, St. Augustine and others regarded as heretics the Pepuzians, the Marcosians and the Collyridians who proclaimed women capable of the priesthood and of sacrifice, and listed their teaching among the heresies. The Code teaches similarly: Canon 968 sec. 1." (See A Manuel of Dogmatic Theology, Desclee Company, 1959, 2:361--Italics in original). 

For those who claim deaconesses were ordained in the early Church, theologian Pohle notes that the "ordination" was considered a mere blessing and whose main duties were to guard the doors and maintain order among those of their own sex in Church, to instruct them privately in the Faith, and other strictly non-sacerdotal functions. (See The Sacraments B.Herder Book Co., 1924, 4:126-127).

 Having filled their ranks with sodomites, the lesbian former "nuns" will soon join the Vatican II clergy as deaconesses as the first step to the One-World Ecumenical and Egalitarian Sect which will emerge as the ultimate bitter fruit of the Second Vatican Council. In the not-to-distant future, you might stumble into one of their temples to hear "Mother Gloria Steinem" give a sermon on the goodness of abortion, and "bless" the congregants "In the name of the Mother/Father and of the Christ Child and of the Holy Spirit." Spiritual castration complete.

Monday, October 12, 2015

Beware The Bizarre

 Traditionalists often get a bad reputation. Many people will see us as "eccentric." A lot of it we bring on ourselves when we exalt apparitions and other private revelations over dogma and the teachings of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians. Some of it comes when we are affiliated (wrongly) with some strange people or groups who claim ties to Traditionalists or attempt to engage us in argumentation so as to persuade us to join them. I will discuss three such individuals/groups that should be avoided at all costs. If someone asks you about them, I hope to arm you with enough information so that you can explain why they have nothing to do with Traditionalists, nor do they represent our theological positions.

1. Eucharist and Mission Blog (Lionel Andrades)
   I wrote about this individual twice before (see my posts of  6/22/15 and 6/29/15), but I bring him up yet again because I was informed that he misrepresented my remarks (he did) and claimed that I (along with Fr. Cekada and Bp. Sanborn) would "not answer" three questions he poses. The fact is everyone ignores him because (at the risk of sounding uncharitable) he needs (a) prayers for conversion, (b) a decent education, and (c) lithium. He is a "Vatican II Feeneyite," i.e., he not only accepts the heresies of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II "popes", but he denies Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as being sufficient for Church membership and salvation without Baptism with water.

 Unlike the "Dimond Brothers" at Most Holy Family Monastery who are sedevacantist-Fenneyites and twist the teachings of the Church beyond recognition regarding BOD and BOB, Andrades has a twisted theory that is as ridiculous as it is amusing and pathetic. He attempts to salvage both Vatican II and Fennyism by making a distinction between "visible/invisible" and "implicit/explicit." According to Andrades, since no one can see the dead, we don't know if anyone is in Heaven without Baptism in water, so BOD and BOB are "implicit" and hypothetical. Likewise, when Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican II claims that Christ uses Protestant sects as a "means of salvation," we can't see the dead, so it's hypothetical for us in 2015 and is consistent with pre-Vatican II ecclesiology. He claims you can read the documents of Vatican II with "Cushingism" (his neologism for Richard Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston who condemned Fr. Feeney) and "Feeneyism."  He even makes obviously historically inaccurate remarks, such as BOD and BOB without being followed by Baptism with water started with the Baltimore Catechism in the 19th century. (I guess he never read St. Thomas Aquinas expounding on the subject written in the 13th century; and I can go back much farther.).

Andrades doesn't understand the problem, so he'll never comprehend the answer. From his blog in red:

It is a dogma of the church that all need the baptism of water for salvation.
It is not a dogma of the Church that BOD is sufficient and must exclude the baptism of water.

The Church teaches infallibly that BOD and BOB are sufficient for salvation without Baptism by water through Her Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. Here are but a few examples:

 A letter of Pope Innocent II to the Bishop of Cremona (1140) reads:

We answer to your question: The presbyter who died without the water of baptism, since he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, we affirm without any doubt that he became free of the original sin and reached the joy of eternal life" (Denzinger n. 388--Emphasis mine).

Pope Innocent III in his letter Debitum pastoralis of 1206 (well before the Baltimore Catechism) states:

"You have communicated to us that a certain Jew, at the edge of dying as he was only among Jews, immersed himself in water saying: ‘I baptize myself in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.’

We answer saying that the baptizer and the one who receives baptism must be different persons, as we infer from the words of the Lord when, speaking to His Apostles, He said: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc (Matt 28:19). Therefore, the mentioned Jew must be baptized again by another person to show that one is the baptizer and another is the one who receives the baptism. … Nonetheless, if he would have died immediately, he would have flown instantly to the celestial homeland for his faith in the Sacrament rather than for the Sacrament of the Faith "(Denzinger n. 413--Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XII:
“In the present economy there is no other way of communicating [sanctifying grace] to the child who has not yet the use of reason [other than Baptism]. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open.” (Address to Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951, qtd. in John McCarthy, Problems in Theology, Vol. I (Newman Press, 1956), p. 53--Emphasis mine)

The 1917 Code of Canon Law:

"Baptism, the door and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary unto salvation for all, is not validly conferred except through the ablution of true and natural water with the prescribed form of words." (Canon 737--Emphasis mine)

"Those who have died without baptism are not to be given ecclesiastical burial. Catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be counted among the baptized." (Canon 1239--Emphasis mine)

The Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law and cannot teach error. It was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.

Anyway these cases are hypothetical.You and Bishop Sanborn do not know of any specific case. So how can you assume in principle that there are persons saved as such or going to be saved as such when you do not know and cannot know of any specific case?. How can you make a theoretical rule when no one in Church in history could know of any case?

First, we DO know of some specific cases: From the Roman Martyrology:

"January 23: At Rome, St. Emerentiana, a Virgin and Martyr. She was just a catechumen when she was stoned by the Gentiles while praying on the tomb of St. Agnes, who was her foster-sister."

"April 12: At Braga in Portugal, the martyr St. Victor, who, although only a catechumen, refused to adore an idol, and confessed Jesus Christ with great constancy. After suffering many torments, he was beheaded, and thus merited to be baptized in his own blood."

"June 22: At Verulam in England, in the time of Diocletian, St. Alban, martyr, who gave himself up in order to save a cleric whom he had harbored. After being scourged and subjected to bitter torments, he was sentenced to capital punishment. With him also suffered one of the soldiers who led him to execution, for he was converted to Christ on the way and merited to be baptized in his own blood. St. Bede the Venerable has left an account of the noble combat of St. Alban and his companion."

"June 28: At Alexandria, in the persecution of Severus, the holy martyrs Plutarch, Serenus, Heraclides a catechumen, Heron a neophyte, another Serenus, Rháis a catechumen, Potamioena, and Marcella her mother."(All emphasis above in the Roman Martyrology is mine). 

We know they died as catechumens. We know catechumens are unbaptized or they wouldn't be called catechumens had they received the sacrament with water. They were "baptized in their blood" and are listed as saints in the authoritative Roman Martyrology . It can't be wrong because the Church is infallible in declaring people saints. Otherwise, we might be praying to the damned; such is unthinkable. So here are your specific cases, Mr. Andrades. If they can happen then they can happen in 2015! 

  Second, Andrades sounds like a bad inverse of the movie The Sixth Sense---"I can't see dead people!"
The most important principle he won't acknowledge is that hypothetical statements can be heresy!

If someone said "Christ COULD commit sin" this is heresy because Christ is God, and God can't go against His Own Nature. It doesn't matter that we can't see Christ commit sin, so it's only invisible and implicit for us in 2015. It's heresy. Likewise, I can flip Andrades weird verification criteria on him. In 1950, Pope Pius XII canonized St. Maria Goretti. He couldn't see her in Heaven; he can't see the dead. No one can see her now in 2015, so how do we know she is in Heaven? By the authority of the Church! The same Church that authoritatively decrees that four catechumens are saints in Heaven baptized by there own blood. No "seeing the dead" is needed. When Vatican II states Protestant sects are a "means of salvation" you'll never find proof because it can't happen---but just as "an hypothesis" it is heresy, as it contradicts the True Faith. 

His three questions to me:
1.Baptism of desire (BOD) is not relevant to EENS. So why does Fr. Anthony Cekada say the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious, at the St. Benedict Centers USA, are in mortal sin for not accepting BOD with reference to EENS.
It has nothing to do with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (EENS) "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation." It has to do with HOW membership is obtained. St. Benedict Center denies BOB and BOD as understood by the Church and are in mortal sin.
2.The SBC say they accept BOD and it will be followed with the baptism of water.These are hypothetical cases. Why does Fr. Cekaga(sic) consider hypothetical cases as being exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS?
Once again, it has nothing to do with EENS. BOD is sufficient in and of itself. They deny Church teaching. Hypothetical statements can be heresy. 
3.So why does the professor at the sedevacantist seminary make this claim that they are in in mortal sin? Is he not wrong?
No, he is not wrong.

Mr. Andrades will continue to repeat the same drivel, and accuse those who disagree with his heresy "illogical" and "irrational" even after all this has been explained to him. It won't register. I wonder how he considers his "popes" not heretical since they can't see the irrationality and preach near universal salvation in a one-world religion. JPII, Benedict XVI, and now Francis, would all disagree with him. If they are irrational, they can't be popes, for habitual insanity precludes one from holding papal office. If they are not irrational and perpetrate this alleged error, they are heretics and can't be popes. The Holy Ghost is supposed to guide the "pope", but Lionel Andrades is better guided (so he thinks). 

Do not engage this man. Pray for him.

2. The Palmarian Church

 Unlike most conclavists who think they can elect a "pope" anyway they choose (e.g. David Bawden aka "Pope" Michael), this group has started a new sect based on private revelations. On March 30, 1968, a group in Palmar de Troya, Spain began claiming supernatural revelations from apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The apparitions involved four pre-teen girls – Ana Aguilera, Ana García, Rafaela Gordo and Josefa Guzmán – who said they saw Mary while picking flowers one day. The locals went to the spot of the miracle where all kinds of strange phenomena were claimed to have taken place. These involved occurrences  such as a local woman seeming to glow from within, a man running around on his knees at an incredible speed, hosts materializing on people’s tongues, and miraculous healings.

The Blessed Virgin was supposedly giving messages regarding the Antichrist, and a man named Clemente Dominguez became the "official seer" of Palmar de Troya. He claimed to have received the "stigmata" (Wounds of Christ), but one only needs to look at the photos to see it looks like he squirted himself with ketchup. He attracted quite a following, including some rather wealthy people who contributed large sums of money. He contacted Archbishop Peter Thuc, who fell for the story, and in January 1976, Abp. Thuc ordained and then consecrated Dominguez and four of his friends as priests and bishops using the Traditional Rite of the Church. Abp. Thuc was "excommunicated" by Montini (Paul VI) and then reconciled, before breaking away to ordain some sane men as bishops in this time of near Universal Apostasy.

Dominguez didn't understand Latin and had no formal training, so "Mary" conveniently revealed that Spanish was God's favorite language after Latin, and Spanish could be used in the Mass and sacraments.Dominguez lost both his eyes in a car crash, and it was revealed that when Montini died, he would be the next pope as "Gregory XVII."  God would publicly restore his sight after he became "pope" on TV so all would know he was the true pontiff. He then said "Mary" revealed what some have called the "crooked ears theory." Montini was a good and holy pope, but had been drugged and locked up in a closet shortly after his election by Masons. They had one of their own replace him by using plastic surgery to look like him, and that's how Vatican II was promulgated. If you look at photos before and after 1964, you will supposedly notice that post January 1964 photos show him with crooked ears--an imperfection that the Masons overlooked and "proof" of this goofball story.

 After Montini died, Dominguez was "mystically crowned pope" by Christ Himself, and called the First Palmarian Ecumenical Council. Things got super-weird at this point. Every priest in his sect was also a bishop. Since Dominguez had no training and attempted to translate the rites into Spanish, his ordinations and consecrations are dubious at best. He declared that Palmar de Troya and not Rome, would now be the seat of the Church (the pope must always be bishop of Rome--this is heretical). His "Palmarian Creed" declared Mary the "Irredeemed," for She who is without sin had no need of redemption (Pure heresy. Pope Pius IX, in his infallible declaration on the Immaculate Conception Ineffabilis Deus, declared that Mary was redeemed "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ"--in a unique manner prior to His death, which God knew with certainty would happen).

He declared John XXIII, Paul VI, and Francisco Franco as "saints." He is accused as having molested several of the nuns in his sect before he died in 2005. His successor, Manuael Alonso Corral, succeeded him as Peter II, but he died six years later. He was succeeded by the currently reigning “pontiff” – Sergio Maria – who took the name Gregory XVIII. Dominguez was "canonized" as "Pope St. Gregory the Very Great."
They have proclaimed the "real presence" of Mary in the Host with Christ, and the bodily assumption of St. Joseph, as dogmas.

At the present time, the Palmarian church claims to have 60 bishops, 70 nuns, and 2,000 followers.
Here's a copy of their whacky rules:
"1. Woman may not wear trousers.
2. Shorts are banned
3. It is forbidden to wear any shirt or similar garment with short sleeves.
4. Sleeves can only be rolled up for the duration of any work such as washing dishes etc.
5. Females must wear skirts no shorter than two fingers width below the knee.
6. Tights are banned as they are classed as mens attire. Female teens and adults may only wear stockings, female children only socks.
7. Female babies cannot wear all in one baby suits.
8. Shirts and blouses must be buttoned to the neck.
9. You cannot play any sport that requires you to wear short sleeves or shorts.
10. Visiting beaches is banned.
11. All voting banned. e.g. Local and general elections, referendums etc.
12. Visiting and using swimming pools is banned.
13. Visiting night clubs is banned
14. Denim cloth is banned, therefore wearing jeans is banned.
15. Listening to popular / modern music is banned.
16. Watching boxing matches is banned.
17. Attending non-Palmarian religious services such as weddings, funerals, christenings etc is banned, for all non Palmarians even family.
18. Males are banned from dying or bleaching hair
19. Males cannot wear ear jewelry or other face jewelry.
20. Receiving organ transplants is banned.
21. Leaving or providing organs for transplant is banned.
22. All contraception is banned.
23. Disco’s are banned.
24. Later introduced in addition to rule 16, All functions associated with non Palmarian religious services such as wedding breakfasts, evening functions, i.e. social functions before or after, christenings, weddings, funerals etc are banned you cannot attend even if function is family or relatives.
25. Later above rule no. 5 was changed to increase the length of skirts below the knee from 2 to 4 or 5 fingers width.
26. Children must be told Christmas presents are from parents and not Santa Claus as he doesn’t exist
27. New Bible introduced, any copies of any other bibles must be burnt. This bible was authored in Spain and has many changes in comparison to the standard bible.
28. TV programs that have people or cartoon characters outside the Palmarian dress code may not be watched. In effect this is most television, it would encompass news, documentaries, etc. etc.
29. No social contact with any persons not dressed to the Palmarian dress code. This in effect means virtually all non-Palmarians.
30. Nobody allowed in the home if not dressed to Palmarian dress code except workmen.
31. In work, contact with non-palmarian co-workers must be kept to a minimum, i.e. only talk to when necessary to carry out the job and no social chat.
32. Only religious books approved by Palmar are allowed all others banned and must be burnt. This in effect means virtually any non Palmarian authored book is banned.
33. Any photos/images with priests who have left the order must be burn/destroyed.
34. Religious films are banned.
35. All prayers and hymns not contained in the Palmarian missal are banned
36. Birthday candles on birthday cakes are banned.
37. Contact with anyone including relatives who are living with partners and not married is banned. This would include all marriages outside the Palmarian Church since the early 1980's as these marriages are considered invalid.
38. Throwing coins in a fountain/well/water is banned.
39. Children must be removed to another room from their classes where non palmarian religious instruction is given.
40. Horoscopes are banned
41. Movies containing references to magic are banned.
42. The neckline of a shirt or blouse etc must when worn be at least 2 fingers width above the breast bone.
43. Christmas trees are banned.
44. Images of Santa Claus are banned
45. Giving or opening presents on Christmas day (25th December) is banned.
46. Christmas presents must be given and opened on the feast of the Epiphany"

Some of these rules (banning horoscopes) make sense, but others (no voting) are without justification and are not based on sound principles of moral theology. Mixing good and bad is something the True Church cannot do. Moreover, even the slightest breach of a rule will result in "excommunication." Some were told they had to leave their spouse if he did not adhere strictly to the dress code even around the house!

A group of clergy were dismissed by Dominguez before he died, and now operate as independents--sedevacantist Palmarians!!

3. Mary's Little Remnant

 This group of people are living in New Mexico under a seriously deluded man named Richard Ibranyi. He was formerly associated with the "Dimond Brothers" of NY (and mentioned above). Ibranyi rejects all popes "from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as apostate antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and hence not Catholic." (RJMI’s Position & Authority, Current version: 1/2014--See ) He gets together with some of the "brothers" and they decide by private interpretation, and having no formal education, whether each pope has committed heresy.

He has denounced  St. Alphonsus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More, St. Bernard, St. Vincent Ferrer (and many others) as heretics. In his own words from his website: "I reject all the so-called popes from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward as apostate antipopes because they are idolaters or formal heretics and hence not Catholic. I believe in the deeper dogma that non-Catholics cannot hold offices in the Catholic Church. For an in-depth profession of the Catholic faith, see The Catholic Church’s (sic) Profession of Faith, compiled by RJMI (the initials of his entire name--Introibo)."

His beliefs change at the speed of light. As of 2012, he accepted all Popes up to Pope Pius IX and all Councils up until Vatican I (1870). He rejected Pope Leo XIII as the first "antipope." He claims to be called as the "witness of the Apocalypse."

From his site: "I will now address the portion of the… letter that disputed my claim of being one of the witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11. I will start with a question: Would you believe me if I said, “Yes, God has called me to be one of the two witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse?” Does God’s choice depend upon the approval of [a certain group]… or, for that matter, of anyone else? Cannot God choose whom He pleases? Or does God need the recommendation of [a certain group or people]… to confirm the mission He has called me to fulfill. … God has called me to be one of the two witnesses mentioned in the book of the Apocalypse. Does that mean this is true? Yes, if I continue to do God’s will; and no, if I do not continue to do God’s will. If I disobey God and fall away from the faith, then I will prove to be unworthy and forfeit the mission God has given me. I am well aware of the fact that if I disobey God, He would annul the mission He has called me to fulfill. Over the years, starting in 1986, God has been testing me by fire and bringing me along this long road to prepare me for the day when this mission will directly oppose the Antichrist. … Some believe that Elias must return in person as one of the witnesses mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11. This is not true. John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy of the coming of Elias to prepare the world for the first coming of Jesus Christ. An angel and Jesus Himself said that John was Elias, meaning John was filled with the same spirit of Elias… The same applies to the mission God has given me as one of the witnesses mentioned in the Book of the Apocalypse, Chapter 11. My mission is to expose and attack the Antichrist and his minions and his evil kingdom and to convert good-willed men, many of whom will be Jews, by turning their hearts to the one and only true God, the Catholic God, and to usher in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I am not Elias but am filled with the spirit of Elias!"

Need I even comment on this farce?

As Traditionalists, we are what's left of the Roman Catholic Church, since the Great Apostasy of Vatican II. We base this on sound theological principles, and hold on to the Faith as understood and practiced by all true Catholics from 33 AD to the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. You can see that the groups above are not educated and base their beliefs on private revelations, self-made hermenutics of interpretation,  and grandiose ideas of self-importance. Ibranyi's group resides in a New Mexico city called "Truth or Consequences." It's fitting. If the above individuals, who have turned a deaf ear to the Truth don't repent, they (and their followers) may receive the horrible consequences to come.  

Monday, October 5, 2015

Justification Is Not Salvation

 This past Thursday, the country witnessed yet another senseless shooting; this time in Oregon. A 26-year old man, Christopher Harper-Mercer, entered a community college and opened fire, killing nine innocent people. He was described in the New York Times as a lonely man who spent much time on the Internet, disliked organized religion, and was an aficionado of the Nazis and the Irish Republican Army (IRA). According to the report, he asked his victims their religion.  "While reloading his handgun, the man ordered the students to stand up and asked whether they were Christians, ..."And they would stand up, and he said, 'Good, because you're a Christian, you're going to see God in just about one second,' " Stacy Boylan told CNN, relaying his daughter's account. "And then he shot and killed them."

 Of course, had this evil man been shooting Moslems, we would hear the left-wing media telling us about "Islamophobia," because if you're not politically correct, you must have a mental disorder. We haven't heard a thing about "Christophobia," and we never will. I bring this up because Harper-Mercer bought into the Protestant heresy of "Justification by Faith Alone" (hereinafter "JFA"). The Vatican II sect signed the Joint Declaration on Justification on October 31, 1999, which basically accepted the heresy (they accept anything except the Truth).

 I pray that those victims were in the state of Grace (justified) when killed, thereby obtaining Heaven either immediately or after Purgatory (salvation). However, simply because they claimed the title "Christian" does not guarantee they are going to see God. This is why three things are all important:

  1. Belong to the One True Church of Christ
  2. Always strive to live in the state of Sanctifying Grace 
  3. Pray daily for the Grace of Final Perseverance
The Heresy of JFA

Basically, JFA can be summed up as follows:
  • Justification is extrinsic, not intrinsic. When someone "accepts Christ as their personal Lord and Savior" God's Grace covers up their sins, like snow covering feces. God no longer sees a sinner worthy of wrath (which you remain) but He sees His Only Begotten Son in Whom He is well-pleased. Hence, humans are "justified." "Sin boldly, but believe more boldly," declared arch-heretic Martin Luther. How did they arrive at this idea? By a five-point doctrine they declare in an acronym called "TULIP."
  • T is for "Total Depravity." The sin of Adam did not merely wound human nature, as Catholic doctrine teaches; humanity was defiled so that all acts are worthy of damnation. Catholics see the preternatural gifts (bodily immortality, infused knowledge, Sanctifying Grace, and impassibility) as superimposed on human nature. When Adam sinned, he lost these gifts for himself and his progeny. Think of parents who are rich, but squander their wealth. The children will be born in poverty, but they can work their way up the economic ladder. JFA wrongly considers those gifts to be con-natural to human nature, like sight to the eyes. In sinning, Adam had his eyes gouged out, and his progeny is born sightless. They can't work to get their sight back.
  • U is for "Unconditional Election." God simply picks and chooses whom He will save. This is His right, as He has no duty to save anyone.
  • L is for "Limited Atonement." Christ only died for those He unconditionally elected. He really did  not die for all humanity.
  • I is for "Irresistible Grace." Once you have been elected, you will believe and become Christian as God's Grace cannot be rejected.
  • P is for "Perseverance of the Saints." Once saved, always saved. You cannot lose your salvation. Justification is thus equated with salvation. There is no difference.
There are some Protestants who believe a modified or slightly different version of these points, but "TULIP" forms the basis of the heresy. There are some practical problems inherent in such a belief. 

If God picks whom He chooses, how can you know you're "saved"? Some claim belief is enough, but in times gone by, it was thought that if you were rich, God's favor was upon you. Blessings of this kind show He has favored you. This was the basis of the "Protestant work ethic." Get rich, and you're probably saved. So much for the virtue of evangelical poverty.

 If God's Grace is irresistible and you can't lose your salvation, say goodbye to freewill. Suicide is wrong because God commands not to do it, but there is no logical reason not to go to Heaven sooner. Some will claim that such an act is proof you "didn't really believe." This leads you right back to the problem of how you know you're "really" saved, when a simple declaration of faith is claimed to suffice. 

 Ask a Protestant about the fate of infants, the retarded, and habitually insane. They can't have faith. While on the one hand Faith is claimed to be indispensable for salvation, on the other hand, they quote the Bible where Christ said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (St. Matthew 19:14). That being the case, why not have an abortion and assure your child's salvation? Euthanize the insane and retarded as well, and get them to a better world. 

The Catholic Truth
  • Original Sin consists in the deprivation of Sanctifying Grace. Baptism restores Grace even in infants, since what was lost without personal fault can also be restored without personal assent. 
  • Justification is the restoration of Grace in the soul, whereby people are intrinsically cleansed of sin and made righteous in the sight of God due to the application of the merits of Christ's redeeming death on the cross. 
  • Justification can be made stronger by good works and lost by mortal sin.
  • No one of the age of reason, except by a personal, private revelation from God, can be assured of their being in the state of Grace, or of their salvation. One should thereby "workout Thy salvation in fear and trembling." (Phil. 2:12) We must pray for Final Perseverance ("But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved." St. Matthew 24:13)
  • Justification can be restored by perfect contrition and/or the sacrament of Penance. 
  • People are predisposed to Justification by actual graces that enlighten the intellect and move the will, but grace can be rejected by the freewill of people. 
  • Those who are baptized belong to the Church until separated by heresy, schism, or apostasy. Infants in false sects who are validly baptized are Catholic until they take instruction in their false sect.
  • Someone who dies justified (in the state of Sanctifying Grace) will receive salvation (Heaven, before or after Purgatory). "Once saved, always saved" is true in this sense: If you are saved (i.e. in Heaven or awaiting Heaven in Purgatory) you cannot be damned.
  • Someone who dies outside the Church, or as a member of the Church in mortal sin, is not justified, and will be damned forever to Hell. 
  • Protestants attempt to explain away Jesus' teaching on works by saying His teachings were hypothetical, or He wanted to show people cannot be saved by keeping the Commandments, or that His teachings are reserved for some future "millennial kingdom," but none of these hold up on examination.
  • In the story of the Rich Young Ruler (See St. Matthew 19:16-26), Jesus commends the man for his Faith and obedience to the Commandments and teaches this is necessary for salvation. Jesus calls him to a higher level of obedience by giving all he has to the poor. Christ concludes that if he does not do so he will be forever lost; therefore, works pleasing to God must be added to Faith for justification.
  • Some heretics attempt to use St. John 5:24 as proof of JFA: "Amen, amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life." However, they do so without admitting Christ never used or implied the word "alone" in conjunction with "belief" or "faith." They also tear out the context. Four verses later, Jesus says, "And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment." This clearly indicates they will be judged by their works. 
  • The attempt to use the Good Thief as proof of JFA also fails. This man showed a knowledge that Christ hadn't done anything wrong, admission that he was rightfully there for his own wrongdoing, and showed a willingness to follow Christ in all He wanted done. Even if this were an exception and he was saved by his faith alone, we don't make the exception the rule. All must be baptized by water as the usual means of admission into the Church to be saved. Admission by baptism of desire or blood (BOD and BOB) are exceptions to water, but they are the exception and don't negate the rule. Just as God can save extra-sacramentally by a miracle of Grace, so too, could He save the Good Thief. 

  An evil man killed Christians this past week in a fit of anti-Christian rage. Whether he said they would see God before killing them to mock the Protestant conception of JFA, or whether he thought in his sick and twisted mind that he was really sending them to Heaven (and getting rid of them on Earth), is unknown. We would all do well to understand what justification really means. I'm sure none of those nine people woke up that day thinking someone would shoot them for professing Christianity. How many were actually saved? If you were there, what would have been your fate? Let that sobering thought guide you to live each day in God's Grace so that you will not be caught off-guard should He return "like a thief in the night." (See 2 Peter 3:10)