What To Do When You're Home Alone--But Not By Choice

"Home Aloners" is the name given to those misguided souls who think that because of a lack of Ordinary jurisdiction in a time of sedevacante, they must stay "home alone" and cannot attend Mass with Traditionalist priests. It's like a spiritual rerun of the 1990 movie "Home Alone" minus the joyful conclusion. I've written on that subject before, especially in regards to the teachings of former Protestant minister turned Feeneyite Home-Aloner, Gerry Matatics. (See my post of 4/8/13)

 My purpose in this post is to address the concerns of my readers who, for reasons beyond their control, do not have access to a Traditionalist Church or Chapel. Such people would love to attend a real Mass and associate with fellow Traditionalists, but cannot due to distance, infirmity, etc. These Traditionalists, dear to Our Lord, find themselves "home alone" and  don't want to be. I will discuss the options for such people, so they can make their Traditionalist Catholic way as best possible in this world gone mad during the Great Apostasy. I wish to credit and acknowledge the ideas of Fr. Anthony Cekada and Bp. Daniel Dolan, who have written on this topic before. I have taken from their ideas and have added my own.

•  The Morality of Staying Home on Sundays and Holy Days

According to theologian Jone,  "Any moderately grave reason suffices to excuse one from attendance at Holy Mass, such as considerable hardship or corporal or spiritual harm either to oneself or another." Therefore, those who would be excused include: the sick, convalescents, those that have a long way to church, people hindered by the duties of their state (e.g. policemen on duty, etc), those who care for the sick, etc. (See Moral Theology, The Neumann Press, Maryland, [1962] pgs. 125-126).

• Consecrate Your Home to The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Most Immaculate Heart of Mary

 Set up a home "altar" placing on it blessed statues of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Include your patron saints too. Have blessed candles when you pray there. How do you get them blessed? You can buy them online and arrange to have them mailed (with return shipping and boxes provided) to a Traditionalist priest that will perform the proper blessing and mail it back to you. You can ask them to send Holy Water and blessed candles, which most will gladly do for a nominal fee.  Perform the Enthronement ceremony to make the Sacred Heart of Jesus the King of your home.(Copies of the ceremony can be obtained from most Traditionalist priests either free or for a nominal fee) This is a good place for you and your family to gather for prayer; especially on Sundays and Holy Days.

• Make the Most of Sacramentals

 The Church has many sacramentals, most of which are not used as frequently by the faithful as they should. Besides statues and crucifixes, how many of you use: Chaplets (a great way to engender different devotions throughout the year), St. Benedict medal (and Crucifix-Medal), the Cords of St. Joseph, St Francis of Assisi, and St. Philomena, the Five Fold Scapular, the Green Scapular, St. Joseph Oil, St. Philomena Oil, The Pardon Crucifix, etc. Pray the Rosary.

• Use the Breviary (in English or Latin) and follow the Proper of the Mass

Use of the Breviary and reading the Proper of the Sunday Mass, followed by the Rosary is a great way to Keep Holy the Sabbath. You may want to read and meditate on Fr. Goffine's Devout Instructions on the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays and Holy Days.

• Follow Mass on the Internet or DVD

 You can follow a live Mass via Internet or by DVD. There is a great DVD put out by the CMRI.

• Use Social Media to Fellowship with other Traditionalists

 While 34% of the websites are pornographic, and a good percentage more are spreading evils and errors, we can still make good use of technology. Meetup.com, is a way you can start a group of Traditionalists seeking to know the Faith and live it. Perhaps you can "meet up" on Sundays at someone's house to pray together and learn the Faith. Remember 1 Peter 3:15, "But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." With all the attacks on religion from the "new atheists," to attacks on Traditionalists in particular, it is important to know your Faith. I suggest reading theologian Ott's one volume Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Then proceed, slowly but surely, through the 12 volume work on dogmatic theology by theologian Joseph Pohle. You can study together.

 Twitter is another way to meet Traditionalists (I'm on it too). Read good websites and blogs. The two best out there are "Novus Ordo Watch" and "Daily Catholic.org" I would caution you to stay off "Catholic" Internet chat sites where there is much disinformation, misinformation, and even heresy. People will often chat with the intention of controversy for the sake of controversy. There are good points, but unless you are both firmly grounded and strong in the Faith, please avoid them.

• Get a Traditionalist Priest to visit you or even start a chapel

 If you are successful in starting a Traditionalist group in your area, as I described above, perhaps you could get a priest to come out with a portable altar once a month to offer Mass and hear Confessions! If you all chip in for his travel expenses and give him lodging and a stipend, chances are you will get one. Make sure he is reputable, properly trained, validly ordained, and not in union with the Vatican II sect. If enough of you come together, you might even eventually be able to build a chapel. This was done in New Jersey by the congregation following the late, great Fr. Paul Wickens, whom I  knew personally.

  Lastly, thank God for the gift of the Integral Catholic Faith, without which no one gets to Heaven. Offer up your spiritual suffering for the conversion of sinners. I hope this post has provided those of you who are in this situation with good ideas, and given you hope. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar DePauw, used to say, "Any true priest who offers the real Mass, even if I never met him, I consider that priest my friend in Christ." In similar fashion, I say to all my Traditionalist readers that I consider you my friends in Christ. I remember you all at the Most Holy Sacrifice every Sunday and Holy Day, and in my daily Rosary. There are not many of us, so let's do well to remember the words of Galatians 6:10, "So then, as we have occasion, let us do good towards all, and especially towards those of the household of faith."

Pseudo-Sanctity

 "Pope" Francis has announced that Mother Teresa, who founded the Missionaries of Charity and became famous for her work among the poor and dying in India, would be declared a "saint" in 2016. Without doubt, Mother Teresa performed many good works and is a great humanitarian. However, people lose sight of what Catholic sainthood is really all about. Mother Teresa, born Anjeze Gonxhe Bojaxhiu in Albania, 1910, was credited as healing a Brazilian man of multiple brain tumors, the second miracle necessary under the new rules of the Vatican II sect for "sainthood." To be a true canonized saint, one must profess the Integral Catholic Faith, and be worthy of emulation for heroic virtue. It is not enough that someone was "good" according to worldly standards, or even made it to Heaven.

 In the absence of a true pope, no one can be canonized. Given the good work she did (including her strong pro-life stand), I certainly hope that Mother Teresa made it to Heaven. "But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8). However, she gives good cover for Frankie's sect, which declares "atheists can go to Heaven" as long as one is "good." "Good" in their sense means "nice" and only concerned with the things of this world--an exaltation of the Corporal Works of Mercy over the Spiritual Works of Mercy.

 There was an eye-opening book written in 2007 entitled, Mother Teresa: The Case for the Cause by Mark Michael Zima. This well-researched book raises three serious problems with the nun: 1. Statements that teach the error of Indifferentism; 2. practicing invalid Baptisms stemming from a wrongful "respect" for  false sects; and 3. seeming doubts about the existence of God and other statements which suggest universal salvation.

•  Indifferentism

Mother Teresa is quoted as saying, "Some call him Allah, some simply God. But we all have to acknowledge that it is he (sic) who made us for the greater things: to love and be loved."  God is not the false moon "god' named "Allah." God created us to know, love, and serve Him in this life, and to be eternally happy with Him in the next.

In another disturbing quote, she claimed her purpose was not to convert others but to "to make the Christian the better Christian, the Muslim a better Muslim, and a Hindu a better Hindu." Addressing the Masonic United Nations in 1985, she said, "No color, no religion, no nationality should come between us. We are all children of God." (Emphasis mine) The purpose of a Catholic religious is to convert others to the One True Church of Christ, not to entrench others in their errors. A better Mohammedan makes for a worse person. And while it is true that God created all humans, we are not all His children. God Wills all to be saved, but He does not force Himself on us. Those who reject Him, are not His "children," anymore than non-Jews before the coming of Christ could be called His "chosen people."

• Invalid Baptisms

According to Zima, the policy of Mother Teresa and her nuns was to ask those who were about to die "if they want a blessing by which their sins will be forgiven and they will see God." Most replied "yes," and the nuns would put a wet cloth on their heads and quietly recite the form of baptism.

Serious theological problems: (a) Asking an adult for a "blessing" that will "forgive sins" and allow them to "see God." According to theologians McHugh and Callan, "Since the promulgation of the Gospel, it is also necessary as a means that one believe explicitly in the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. For he who does not accept these, does not accept the Gospel, whereas Christ says: 'Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth not shall be condemned.' (St. Mark 16: 15, 16)"
This is the more probable opinion. (See Moral Theology, A Complete Course, Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1929, 1: 290)  Furthermore, baptism is to be denied "when it is certain that the dying person is substantially ignorant of the Trinity and Incarnation through his own fault, and is unwilling to hear about them." (Ibid, 1: 293). Why weren't the nuns giving proper instruction? If the dying refuses to so be instructed, baptism must be denied. This alone is a travesty and casts serious doubts on validity.

(b) Placing a wet cloth on the head and reciting the form of baptism in a quiet voice. According to theologian Prummer, baptism requires as the remote matter pure and natural water. The proximate matter is the application of the water "by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring." Furthermore, it must be administered "in such a way that in the common estimation of men an ablution has been performed." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, 1957, pg. 253). Placing a wet cloth on the head is not immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, and it most certainly does not appear to be an ablution or cleansing.

• Doubts about God and Universal Salvation

According to Protestant minister Sid Burgess, "Thus, it came as quite a shock to the world to learn that for nearly 50 years, Mother Teresa privately experienced doubts over her religious beliefs--doubts which apparently continued until the end of her life. According to the editor of her private papers, who is also the church official directing efforts to have Mother Teresa declared a saint, there were times when 'she felt no presence of God whatsoever,' 'neither in her heart nor in the Eucharist.'" (See http://www.edgewoodpc.org/sermons/sermon061911.html) True, there are saints who experienced a "dryness of the soul" aka, "the dark night of the soul," but not pervasively until the end of life.

She is reported as telling those in her care that, "we will meet all our friends and family members who died before us in Heaven" regardless of their beliefs. She also told non-Catholics, "You could replace Jesus by God if you are not a Christian." She forgets "Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him this man standeth here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (See Acts 4: 9-13; Emphasis mine).

 Lastly, there's doubts as to the first alleged "miracle" being used for her "canonization." It involved the cure of a young Indian woman, Monica Besra, who claimed that a tumor on her ovary was cured when a medal of Mother Teresa was touched to her body where she felt pain.  Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, the chief gynecologist treating her, claims that it was the four drugs to which she was responding. The Vatican never contacted Dr. Mustafi to investigate, and nevertheless claimed "there was no medical explanation" for her cure.

 Mother Teresa was a great humanitarian. She helped alleviate much human suffering. Unfortunately, she did not preach Christ and His One True Church as the antidote to eternal suffering. As Our Lord said, "For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?" (St. Matthew 16: 26)




   

Heretics Anonymous

 My spiritual father, the late, great Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, the first Traditionalist and a peritus (i.e. "theological expert") at the Second Vatican Council, fought the Modernists alongside Bishop Blaise Kurz and Cardinal Ottaviani. He founded the Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964. When I had inquired as to how the vast majority of prelates could have apostatized at Vatican II, his answer was clear and to the point: "They didn't become bums overnight." Truer words were never spoken. Many Traditionalists think all was dandy prior to the Council (1962) or at least prior to the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.

 The "synthesis of all heresies," Modernism, had been brewing for quite some time. Thanks to the efforts of the ecclesiastical giant, Pope St. Pius X, they were driven "underground," but had certainly not been eradicated. They were crafty and cunning, like their master Satan, waiting for  an opportune moment to strike. They did all they could to influence members of the hierarchy with the false teachings and principles of Modernism. One such wolf in sheep's clothing was arch-heretic Fr. Karl Rahner. Few people realize he was called the "mind of Vatican II" and was a driving force behind ecumenism; especially the idea of universal salvation. Few people have heard of this man, and still fewer realize the impact he had on both the creation of the Vatican II  sect as well as the Fenneyite reaction spawned by his pernicious ideas. I thought I would write this post for the benefit of all of us who need to remember the axiom "Know Thy Enemy."

Rahner's Beginnings

  Karl Rahner was born on March 5, 1904, in Freiberg, Germany. He was ordained a Jesuit on July 26, 1932. In the twentieth century (beginning in the late 1930s), Rahner, along with theologians  Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Louis Bouyer, Jean Daniélou, Jean Mouroux and Joseph Ratzinger (later "Pope" Benedict XVI) began a Neo-Modernist movement that despised the Neo-Scholasticism which had served the Church so well. The movement was called "Nouvelle Theologie" (French for "New Theology") by the great anti-Modernist theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, often pejoratively called "the sacred monster of Thomism" by his enemies because of his love of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and his hatred of Modernism.

 In 1946, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote a scathing criticism of the movement (which liked to call itself  ressourcement ---"return to the sources"), because they claimed they were "returning to patristic thought." Garrigou-Lagrange demonstrated that the theologians of the movement did not "return to the sources" but deviated from the long-standing theological tradition of the Catholic Church, thus creating a "new theology" all their own, and a disguised resurgence of Modernism. In 1950, Pope Pius XII responded with his great encyclical Humani Generis which condemned many of their errors, such as rejecting the traditional dogmatic formulations that emerged throughout Church history as a result of scholastic theology, re-interpreting Catholic dogma in a way that was inconsistent with tradition, falling into the error of dogmatic relativism and criticizing biblical texts in a way that deviated from the principles of biblical hermeneutics outlined by his predecessors (principally Pope Leo XIII).

Rahner's "Anonymous Christians" and Vatican II

 Almost all the theologians of the "new theology" were under suspicion of Modernism by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottavianni. Rahner was no exception. Before the death of Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani tried unsuccessfully three times to convince the ailing Pontiff to have him excommunicated. In November 1962, "Pope" John XXIII appointed Rahner as a peritus at Vatican II. The heretic Rahner thus had complete access to the Council and numerous opportunities to share his heresy with the bishops.  Rahner's influence at Vatican II was widespread, and he was subsequently chosen as one of seven theologians who would develop Lumen Gentium, the dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which created the Vatican II sect with its damnable new ecclesiology. The Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church, but it is a separate entity which "subsists in" the Catholic Church, as well as false sects. 

 From this false notion of the Church came Rahner's most infamous heresy, that of the "anonymous Christian." According to Rahner:

"Anonymous Christianity means that a person lives in the grace of God and attains salvation outside of explicitly constituted Christianity… Let us say, a Buddhist monk… who, because he follows his conscience, attains salvation and lives in the grace of God; of him I must say that he is an anonymous Christian; if not, I would have to presuppose that there is a genuine path to salvation that really attains that goal, but that simply has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. But I cannot do that. And so, if I hold if everyone depends upon Jesus Christ for salvation, and if at the same time I hold that many live in the world who have not expressly recognized Jesus Christ, then there remains in my opinion nothing else but to take up this postulate of an anonymous Christianity." (Karl Rahner in Dialogue, p. 135)

This was encoded in the heretical Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church, citing Lumen Gentium:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (See Catechism of the Catholic Church, New York: Doubleday, 1995, nos. 839-848)

We DO NOT adore the false "god" of the Mohammedans---"Allah."

In the document Dominus Iesus (2000) written by Ratzinger and (falsely) hailed by "conservative" Vatican II sect members as a "reaffirmation" of the Catholic Church as the One True Church, is really just full of more Rahner-inspired heresy:

"Nevertheless, God, who desires to call all peoples to himself  in Christ and to communicate to them the fullness of his revelation and love, "does not fail to make himself present in many ways, not only to individuals, but also to entire peoples through their spiritual riches, of which their religions are the main and essential expression even when they contain ‘gaps, insufficiencies and errors'". Therefore, the sacred books of other religions, which in actual fact direct and nourish the existence of their followers, receive from the mystery of Christ the elements of goodness and grace which they contain."

In other words, false sects and their false books/teachings, merely have "gaps, insufficiencies, and errors," and yet contain "elements of goodness and grace" from the "mystery of Christ" which will "nourish and direct" the existence of their followers. According to the concept of Anonymous Christianity, the "Mystery of Christ" is contained in varying degrees in non-Catholic religions. Therefore, salvation is also available in those other (false) religions.

This document ostensibly affirms Catholicism as the only way of salvation. However, it also locates Jesus (albeit imperfectly) in other sects, including those that do not even reconize jesus Christ as God. They deny Jesus (Judaism), call him a mere prophet (Islam), an ascended master (Buddhism), or know nothing of him (voodoo, Wicca,  animism, etc.). These other concepts of Jesus are not merely imperfect revelations of Jesus, but are, in fact, various forms of denying Jesus Christ.

 You can see how the Fenneyites began. It was a reaction to the heretics of the "New Theology," teaching that "Baptism of Desire" (BOD) covers anyone. It was a false and distorted (heretical) notion of BOD to which Leonard Feeney was reacting. This led him into the heresy of denying BOD and BOB, even when properly understood, by going to false and exaggerated extremes to defend the truth "No Salvation Outside The Church."

Rahner in his own heretical words

The following quotes are all taken from the book, Karl Rahner in Dialogue his words in red:

How would you characterize the neo-scholastic theology before the Second Vatican Council?


Rahner: It had "a kind of defensive mentality, a certain defensive turning of the Church in on itself against the world… The Church certainly had great missionary success, but in fact only by exporting Western European Christianity to all the world… I also believe that one can say that neo-scholastic philosophy and theology, for all their accomplishments, are quite passé today."

So do you believe that the Holy Spirit works through other religions?

Rahner: "Certainly."

What do you think about the question of the ordination of women?

Rahner: "When the Vatican declaration against the ordination of women (even in the future) came out a few years back, I published an article saying that it failed to convince me. (Of course, it was not an infallible definition). Rome is digging in its heels, it seems to me, against the development that one ought to admit calmly might not be a bad thing."

What about clerical celibacy?

Rahner: "The obligation of the Church to provide sufficient clergy is of divine right and takes precedence over the ecclesiastically desirable law of celibacy. If, in practice, you cannot obtain a sufficient number of priests in a given cultural setting without relinquishing celibacy, then the Church must suspend the law of celibacy, at least there."

There you have it folks. A rabid heretic preaching universal salvation. He died in 1984, just after his 80th birthday. I wince when I think of the most probable fate of his soul, and the millions he has helped lead to Hell.

 In today's world there is no more sin and no more character flaws. There are only "addictions" and "sicknesses" which compel behavior. Hence, when former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught frequenting prostitutes, he wasn't an adulterous sinner in need of repentance, he was a "sex addict." He went to "Sex Addicts Anonymous" and was nearly elected NYC Comptroller only five years later. People seem to take pity and love a poor "victim." You can now be an out-and out sleeze-bag, and be loved in spite of it if you claim a compulsion.

Perhaps the Vatican II sect can go beyond their "anonymous Christians" and start a "Heretics Anonymous" group so they don't need to pretend they are Catholic anymore. I can just imagine the first meeting. An old guy in a white cassock gets up and says, "My name is Jorge, and I'm a heretic." To which the worldly people will respond, "We love you anyway, Jorge."

Bishop Williamson's "Novus Miracle"

 Just when you think Bp. Richard Williamson, the expelled prelate formerly of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), can't get any more confused in his thinking, he's right there to prove you wrong. His last couple of e-letters (entitled Eleison Comments) seek to prove the Vatican II sect is the True Church by citing alleged "Eucharistic Miracles" produced by the Novus Bogus "mass." He links to a video about a "miracle" that happened in 1996 at a Vatican II service in Argentina (home of false "Pope" Francis). The host is supposed to have changed to real human flesh.

 In summation, Bp. Williamson attempts to "prove:"

• God works Eucharistic miracles to strengthen the Faith in so sublime a mystery as the Real Presence, and to remind people of the reverence due the Sacred Species. Due to the lack of belief in the Real Presence and the profanation of the "host" at the Novus Bogus, we should be wondering why God hasn't performed more of these miracles (!) To his credit, Bp. Williamson does say, at least in one of his missives, "if this (event) is true." However, he certainly seems to think it really took place.

• Not all Vatican II "masses" are invalid

• Not all Vatican II priestly "ordinations" and episcopal "consecrations" are invalid

• Catholics became to worldly to keep the Mass, but loved it too much to lose it completely (whatever this invented idea is supposed to mean)

• The Novus Bogus is "bad as a whole, bad in parts, but not bad in all its parts" so a Eucharistic miracle can happen 

This unsubstantiated nonsense makes one wonder how the website "Traditio" can refer to Williamson as "intelligent."  I shall set forth the Church's teaching on miracles and how it applies in the instant case.

THE CHURCH'S TEACHING ON MIRACLES

1. Miracles are an effect wrought in nature by the direct intervention of God. They are proofs of the truth of the Catholic religion.

Proof: From the Oath Against Modernism promulgated by Pope St. Pius X for all clerics on September 1, 1910:

 "Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time."

From the Vatican Council (1870):

"If anyone shall say that miracles are impossible, and therefore that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy Scripture, are to be dismissed as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine origin of Christianity cannot be proved by them; let him be anathema." 

2. While we must believe in miracles (especially those contained in the Holy Bible), we are not bound to believe in every specific event claimed to be miraculous. We should only give credence to those events considered miracles by the authority of the Church. 

Proof: Many events thought to be miraculous were denied as such by the Magisterium of the Church prior to the defection of the hierarchy at Vatican II. 

• Many people claimed that they saw the statue of Our Lady of Assisi move and smile. (1948) The Church later declared there was no apparition of Our Lady in Assisi, and no miraculous events.

• There are people hundreds of years into the canonization process as of  1958 (death of Pope Pius XII) whose alleged miracles were never confirmed despite large numbers of witnesses.

• Theresa Neumann (d. 1962) was alleged to have survived only on the Eucharist for 30 years, and claimed the stigmata. The Church has never confirmed nor denied these miraculous claims which were investigated beginning in 1928.

 3. Miracles cannot be used to help give credibility to that which is false. Any "miracle" that does so is either (a) naturally explained, and therefore not a miracle, or (b) of demonic origin.

Proof: A miracle is a deed that is sensible, extraordinary, and of divine origin. Hence, since transubstantiation is not sensible, it cannot be considered a miracle in the strict sense. Miracles can only be used to support that which is true and good. It is impossible for God to deceive. Moreover, God would equivalently be producing falsehood if He were performing some miracles in order to demonstrate that some false doctrines or a doctrine that is altogether human has been revealed by Himself. We should recognize that God allows extraordinary things to be performed by the devil. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology,Desclee Company, 1959, 1:40-45)

In Exodus 7: 8-13, we read:
The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had said." (Emphasis mine).

APPLICATION OF CHURCH TEACHING TO WILLIAMSON'S THESIS

   Bp. Williamson wants us to believe that there is a partially defective hierarchy, with a partially defective "mass" and sacraments, replete with partially heretical teachings. God will then attest to this mishmash by performing Eucharistic miracles. 

Salient problems:

• In the absence of a pope and hierarchy, we can't give credence to any alleged miracles. However, given Williamson's assertions, if they were miracles, to what would God be attesting? Is He showing that this particular priest can confect the Eucharist? This particular way of using the Novus Bogus is valid?  After all, if it is "partly good, partly bad, and bad as a whole" wouldn't God be attesting to something that is "bad as a whole?"

• Who discerns which priests and bishops are the valid ones? Bp. Williamson? His episcopal buddy, Bp. Faure? Do we simply wait for confirmation by way of miracle?

• If the Vatican II sect's "sacrament" of Holy Orders is only invalid sometimes, what makes it so? The form and intention have been rendered substantially defective. How does a valid priest or bishop "slip in through the cracks"? again, who decides which ones are valid? The SSPX claims Francis as "pope," yet they have been acting as an "Uber-Magisterium" for years by "reviewing" Vatican II sect annulments and deciding which ones they got correct. Perhaps Williamson could do the same for Vatican II "priests" and "bishops." 

• The only valid episcopal consecration in the Vatican II sect since 1968 (of which I am aware) took place in 2002. The Society of St. John Vianney in Campos, Brazil defected to the Vatican II sect, betraying their holy founder, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer. All the priests of the Society had been validly ordained to the priesthood in the traditional rite of the Church by Bishop de Castro Mayer (himself having been consecrated by order of Pope Pius XII in 1948). Fr. Licinio Rangel was chosen to replace Bp. de Castro Mayer when the bishop passed, and was consecrated in the traditional rite by Bp. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais of the SSPX as principal consecrator (Bps. Alphonso de Galaretta and Richard Williamson as co-consecrators), on July 28, 1991. After they apostatized, Wotyla (John Paul II) allowed Bp. Rangel to choose a successor. He picked Fr. Fernando Rifan, of the Society. On August 18, 2002, the traditional rite of episcopal consecration was used. Despite the fact "Cardinal" Dario Castrillon Hoyos (principal consecrator) and "Archbishop" Alano Maria Pena (co-consecrator) were themselves invalidly consecrated, Bp. Rangel was a true bishop and second co-consecrator.  Hence, Rifan's consecration was valid through the episcopal lineage of Rangel. Notice how my conclusion is based on solid principles of theology applied to the facts. Bp. Williamson gets his theory from....well, any place BUT Catholic theology applied to the facts. 

The heresy of Modernism produces no miracles; it even eschews the very notion of such. The fact that Bp. Williamson can claim alleged "Eucharistic miracles" in defense of a partially evil "mass" means he is a heretic that believes that the Church can defect and give that which is evil.  As theologian Van Noort teaches:
"The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. ...But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life." (Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115; Emphasis in original)

 The "church" of Richard Williamson has some valid "masses" and some invalid. Some valid priests and bishops, some invalid. And which is which, well, nobody knows! Maybe someday Bp. Williamson will come to his senses, and apply real Catholic theology and principles to the facts at hand to come to the correct conclusion of sedevacantism. Then again, I'm starting to believe that would take a real miracle. 

Soldiers Of Christ No More

 The news is increasingly more disturbing to read. Conflict after conflict is all we read and see. From the Mohammedan infidels attacking France, to Turkey shooting down a Russian plane, the world is in a constant state of struggle. However, we must not forget that the greatest battle we wage is the one for our immortal souls. "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." (Ephesians 6:12)

 In pointing out what was wrong with the Vatican II "sacraments," I thought I would dedicate a post to the sacrament of Confirmation. This great sacrament is defined in The Baltimore Catechism thus:

 "Q. 670. What is Confirmation?
A. Confirmation is a Sacrament through which we receive the Holy Ghost to make us strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ."
"Q. 673. Why are we called soldiers of Jesus Christ?
A. We are called soldiers of Jesus Christ to indicate how we must resist the attacks of our spiritual enemies and secure our victory over them by following and obeying Our Lord."

According to the Vatican II sect's "Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church" :
"ARTICLE 2
THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION

1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the sacraments of Christian initiation, whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed."

The whole idea of being at a war against "the devil, the flesh, and the world," has been excised. It is now more "initiation" into the "People of God" (notice they always like to use the appellation "Christian" in place of "Catholic") which includes non-Catholics who are not "in full communion" with the "Church of Christ"--which is present in its fullness in the Catholic Church, but also present in false sects by different "degrees of participation" measured according to how many "elements of truth and sanctification" each sect possesses.  Also missing is the traditional emphasis on "resisting the attacks of our spiritual enemies" to be replaced by a call to "spread and defend the faith by word and deed." Although "Pope" Francis will remind you, "Proselytism is nonsense."

 What, therefore, is the True teaching on Confirmation, and how has the Vatican II sect invalidated it? I will answer in two parts.

THE TRADITIONALIST CATHOLIC TEACHING ON CONFIRMATION

The Holy and Ecumenical Council of Trent infallibly defined: "If any one saith, that the Confirmation of those who have been baptized is an idle ceremony, and not rather a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a kind of catechism, whereby they who were near adolescence gave an account of their faith in the face of the Church; let him be anathema."

The Church has always taught that Confirmation is not necessary unto salvation, but it is an indispensable aid in helping a person fight for the Faith and the salvation of their soul; even to the point of sacrificing life itself to obtain eternal life in Heaven. The Apostles experienced miraculous gifts when the Holy Ghost descended upon them at Pentecost. While those miraculous gifts are not manifested today (healing others, speaking in tongues, etc.) the strength of character is manifested. Just as there have been reports of people performing extraordinary feats of strength under duress, likewise, the Gifts of the Holy Ghost will manifest to help us, provided we are in the State of Grace. 

St. Therese of Lisieux prepared diligently for this sacrament, and wrote, "On that day [she made her  Confirmation]I received the strength to suffer, a strength which I much needed, for the martyrdom of my soul was soon to begin." It is of Divine and Catholic Faith that Confirmation is one of three sacraments (the other two being Baptism and Holy Orders) which leaves an indelible mark, or 'character,' on the soul, and can therefore never be repeated without committing a grave sin of sacrilege. Pope Clement XIV approved a decree in 1774 which stated, "...this Sacrament cannot be refused or neglected without incurring the guilt of mortal sin, if there be an opportune occasion of receiving it."

CONFIRMATION VS. DEFORMATION (VATICAN II)

 The requirements for valid reception of Confirmation are not as clearly defined as the other sacraments, but the Vatican II sect has heaped so much doubt upon doubt as almost assuredly render it null and void. Let's examine the minister, the matter, the form, and the intention of the sacrament and what has happened to each.

The Minister of the Sacrament

The ordinary minister of the sacrament is the bishop, and the extraordinary minister is the priest.

 In 1968, the new Pauline rite of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination were introduced. They are null and void. Hence, unless the minister is (at least) validly ordained a priest prior to 1968, Confirmation is unquestionably invalid.

The Matter of the Sacrament

The remote matter is Holy Chrism which is made from olive oil and balsam which is then consecrated by a bishop on Maundy Thursday.

The Vatican II sect's Congregation of Divine Worship issued a decree in 1971 permitting the use of of other oils from other plants and seeds (e.g., coconut or vegetable oil) in the place of olive oil for Confirmation. This novelty has no basis in Church teaching and/or practice. (See Documents on the Liturgy, no. 3864)

The proximate matter is considered by most theologians to be both the anointing with Holy Chrism and the individual imposition of the hands by the bishop. (See theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, B. Herder Book Co., 1923, 12:292-293)

The imposition of hands for each individual has been suppressed. Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) issued his "Apostolic Constitution" Divinae Consortium Naturae promulgated August 15, 1971, making the new rite mandatory effective January 1, 1973. He responded to a query (See Documents on the Liturgy, no. 306) stating that the anointing with chrism without the imposition of hands "sufficiently expresses the laying on of hands." Hence, most "bishops" do not impose the hands on the individual.

The use of other oils than olive oil in the Chrism, the lack (in almost all cases) of a valid bishop (or authorized priest as in the Eastern Rites) to consecrate it, and the suppression of the individual imposition of hands, renders the sacrament highly doubtful on these grounds alone.

The Form of the Sacrament

The traditional form in the Latin Rite is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the Chrism of salvation. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." The traditional form (pre-Vatican II) in the Eastern Rites was: "The sign of the Gift of the Holy Ghost."  

The new rite of Paul VI states: "Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit" shall be the new form of the Sacrament. Montini lies in Divinae Consortium Naturae, claiming, "The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand, and through the words: 'Accipe Signaculum Doni Spiritus Sancti.'" Just a few paragraphs before he had written (correctly): "In the East, in the fourth and fifth centuries there appear in the rite of anointing the first indications of the words 'signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti'" This is translated as "The sign of the Gift of the Holy Ghost." However, Montini renders it: "Accept the sign of the Gift of the Holy Ghost" and incorrectly translated in English to "Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit" as I wrote above. It has been changed from the active giving of the character and gifts of the Holy Ghost to some passive request for the person to accept something. This ties in nicely with ecumenism, so as not to offend our "separated brethren" who detest the idea of an ordained clergy with powers to effectuate a sacrament "ex opere operato" (i.e., by the very performance of the sacramental sign).

Changing the sense of the words of the form renders Confirmation highly doubtful on this point alone.

The Intention

The bishop imparts the Character on the soul of the candidate to receive the Holy Ghost and His Seven Gifts to make the recipient a "soldier of Christ."

The faulty form gives the idea that instead of getting an indelible mark on the soul, you are merely passively receiving something. Montini stated, " in a certain way [Confirmation] perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church." (See  Divinae Consortium Naturae). It is ambiguous at best. The Church once again bestows the grace of Pentecost, really and actively, not "in a certain (passive) way" of recalling an event in the past and accepting a gift from God. Any minister who would positively intend to do that, may have a defective intention invalidating the sacrament.

Once more, the Modernists of the Vatican II sect have destroyed something sacred. If you have not been confirmed by a Traditionalist Bishop in the traditional rite of the Church, please try and do so as soon as practicable. In these tough times, we need to be soldiers for Christ, not cowardly Modernists who have raised the white flag of surrender to the devil, the flesh, and the world.  

"Partial Communion" = Intercommunion

 Recently, Francis, the apostate Argentinian who falsely claims the title "pope," appeared at a prayer service in a Lutheran sect church and is opening the door to "intercommunion." At a question and answer session after the false worship service, a Lutheran woman asked Frankie, "My name is Anke de Bernardinis and, like many people in our community, I'm married to an Italian, who is a Roman Catholic Christian. We’ve lived happily together for many years, sharing joys and sorrows. And so we greatly regret being divided in faith and not being able to participate in the Lord's Supper together. What can we do to achieve, finally, communion on this point?" To a Catholic, the answer would be simple: "Leave your false religion and become a member of Christ's One True Church, then you can receive a valid Eucharist together at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."

 However, we all know Frankie is not Catholic, but the leader of the Vatican II sect which has a strange faith, and morals more decadent than the Lutherans. Here's what he had to say:

"The question on sharing the Lord’s Supper (avoid that four letter word the Modernists hate--MASS--Introibo) isn’t easy for me to respond to, above all in front of a theologian like Cardinal Kasper! I’m scared!" (Calling Walter Kasper a Catholic "theologian" is akin to calling Stalin a "humanitarian"--Introibo) " ....It’s a problem each must answer, but a pastor-friend once told me: 'We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present. You all believe that the Lord is present. And so what's the difference?'— 'Eh, there are explanations, interpretations.' Life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism. 'One faith, one baptism, one Lord.' This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences from there. I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more."

 "Talk to the Lord and then go forward." In other words, "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."  You believe Christ is present, we believe Christ is present, so who cares if such beliefs are grounded in Truth? Who cares about dogma? If you feel that you want to eat one of our invalid crackers we still jokingly refer to as "communion," please go right ahead. Ironically, neither sect has a valid Eucharist, so it really doesn't matter!

 The real crux of the matter lies in this telling phrase, "Always refer back to your baptism. 'One faith, one baptism, one Lord.' This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences from there." As I pointed out in a previous post (A "Laver Of Regeneration" No More--11/2/15) only some baptisms in the Vatican II sect are even valid. Lutheran baptisms are also dubious and need to be conditionally repeated. However, let's suppose they were valid. All validly baptized heretics and schismatics are considered members of the True Church until they begin to be taught the false doctrines of their sect at the age of reason (seven years of age).  After that, they have separated from the unity of Christ's Church and must return or be eternally lost. (See theologian Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology , The Neumann Press, 1961, 2:245).

 This makes perfect sense as there exists only one Church--the One established by Christ. All sects, Lutherans and Vatican II adherents included, belong to a man-made religion. If you are validly baptized, then by necessity you are baptized into the only Church; the traditional Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, one validly baptized is no longer a member of the Mystical Body of Christ when he is separated in matters of Faith (heresy), governance (schism), or excommunicated. As Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis,para. # 22:"Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit."


 Frankie clearly contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius XII. The reason is simple: Vatican II ecclesiology (i.e. the teaching on the nature of the Church) has changed into something totally different and completely heretical. Pope Pius XII was teaching the perennial dogma of the Traditional Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Christ is a perfect society, insofar as She contains all that is necessary for the attainment of Her Divine Mission. Only the Catholic Church is of Divine origin, and only those who die in the Church with Sanctifying Grace in their souls can attain salvation. Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition in his Syllabus of Errors (1864):

19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights

Also condemned:
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church

Vatican II introduced a new ecclesiology, one wherein you can be "partially Catholic." In the damnable document Lumen Gentium, we read in paragraph #8:

"This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic (sic) unity." (Emphasis mine).

In other words, the Church of Christ is an entity distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. It subsists there in its fullness because it contains all the "elements of sanctification and truth" of the Church of Christ.  To be Catholic is best, but to be non-Catholic and have just some elements of truth and sanctification is good too, because Vatican II teaches in Unitatis Redintegratio # 3:

"For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

This directly contradicts the Syllabus of Errors above. Protestant sects are another form of the Church of Christ which possesses elements of truth and sanctification leading to salvation. The elements of truth and sanctification are only efficacious within the True Church. All others use them to no benefit. Taken to its logical conclusion, Satanism could be a "means of salvation." It has some "elements of truth" (e.g. the devil exists) and "elements of sanctification" (e.g. a validly ordained apostate priest confects the Blessed Sacrament to be profaned at a "black mass"). Does anyone really believe these "elements" lead the Satanist to Heaven?

 Francis is a product of Vatican II. Modernism wants a dogma-less, One World Religion. It was only a matter of time before sharing in the "one bread" of apostasy via "communion for all" would come to pass.

• Canon 843 of the Vatican II Code of Canon Law states: "§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed." Translation: A Catholic (sic) minister ("priest") can give the sacraments to non-Catholics, who are unable to obtain them from a minister of their own peculiar sect. How can you "manifest the Catholic faith" in these sacraments if you're not Catholic? What if they have the correct understanding of the sacrament, but they deny other truths of Faith? No problem. They have "partial communion" with the Church.  

• In 1992 Ratzinger, the future and now former, "Pope" Benedict XVI issued the Letter to the Bishops of The Catholic (sic) Church On Some Aspects Of The Church Understood As Communion. It states: "Indeed, 'through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature', for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present." Really? Compare Pope Pius IX, "He who leaves this [Roman] See cannot hope to remain within the Church; he who eats of the lamb outside of it has no part with God." (Amantissimus, 1862). A valid Mass is offered in persona Christi ("in the person of Christ), but an efficacious Mass must also be offered in persona Ecclesia ("In the person of the Church"). This the schismatics, such as the "Old Catholic" sect, cannot do.

• In 1993, John Paul the Great Apostate ordered to be published the DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM. Paragraph #129 states: "At the same time, the Catholic Church teaches that by baptism members of other Churches and ecclesial Communities are brought into a real, even if imperfect communion, with the Catholic Church  and that 'baptism, which constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn... is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ'. The Eucharist is, for the baptized, a spiritual food which enables them to overcome sin and to live the very life of Christ, to be incorporated more profoundly in Him and share more intensely in the whole economy of the Mystery of Christ." (Emphasis mine). A real and imperfect communion simply by baptism, not even valid orders, somehow makes the "Eucharist" a way to share in the 'whole economy of the Mystery of Christ." (Whatever that means)

• In 2015, the Vatican II "Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs"affirmed the 32 Agreed Statements and commended the document entitled the Declaration on the Way to Cardinal Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, for "further reflection and action." The Declaration states "Both traditional Catholic and traditional Lutheran approaches,then, different as they are in expression, affirm Christ’s real, substantial presence in the sacrament. In the faith of both churches, when one receives the Eucharistic elements or species, one truly receives the body and blood of Christ in a sacramental way, and so comes into communion with Christ, in order to be on a pilgrimage with him." Lutherans have no priesthood. They deny transubstantiation and replace it with the heresy of "consubstantiation." This heresy claims (a) the "assembly of believers" must be there for Christ to be present and (b) Christ is present "with the bread" and only for so long as the "Lord's Supper" is celebrated. They deny a sacrificial Mass offered by a priest (in public or private) and have no reservation of their "blessed sacrament." They render the meaning of Christ's words as "Here is My Body" rather than "This is My Body." The Lutheran "Communion" cracker, like the Vatican II sect cracker takes no one on a "pilgrimage with Christ." You can't travel with Someone you no longer follow. 

 The heretical ecclesiology of "partial communion" feeds into Frankie's intercommunion. The Vatican II sect has a service devoid of sacrifice, presided over by an invalid "minister of the Word." The "active participation" of people reading, responding, and passing out the bread is a must for the "priesthood of all believers." Lastly, all share in standing to receive the "host" in their hands, and must respond with faith "Amen." We can't let anyone think Christ would be present without the consent and belief of the assembly. This would give "cultic powers" to the so-called "priest."

A dogma-less, One World religion creeps closer by the day. I'm reminded of a line from George Orwell's   Animal Farm (slightly revised): "I looked from Lutherans to Vatican II, and from Vatican II to Lutherans, and I could no longer tell the difference."

Terrorized By Ecumenism

 As I write this post, at least 153 people have been killed in France by Moslem terrorists. The fact they were Islamic was hardly mentioned by the left-wing media for fear of being labeled "Islamophobic" (i.e. you have a mental disorder if you despise the teachings of Islam, just as opposition to sins against nature itself will get you labeled "homophobic"). France, the erstwhile "Eldest Daughter of the Catholic Church" and home to my patron saint, King St. Louis IX, has reaped the "rewards" of ecumenism. I pray for those poor people who have gone to meet their Maker in Judgement; were they in the State of Grace, or did they even care about religion at all after the Vatican II sect destroyed the Faith?

 "Pope" "Saint" John XXIII removed the words asking for the conversion of those "in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism" from the text of the prayer for the Consecration of the World to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. 

"Pope" "Blessed" Paul VI signed the heretical document Nostra Aetate in 1965, which proclaims in paragraph #3, "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God." (Emphasis mine)

"Pope" "Saint" John Paul II kissed the Koran and prayed, "May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam." Maybe he should be given the title "John Paul the Great Mohammedan."

"Pope" Benedict XVI  called for Christians "to open their arms and hearts" to Moslem immigrants and "to dialogue" with them on religious issues. Ratzinger told participants that the Catholic (sic) Church is "increasingly aware" that "inter-religious dialogue is a part of its commitment to the service of humanity in the modern world."

"Pope" Francis prayed towards Mecca and said, "Islam is a religion of peace, one which is compatible with respect for human rights and peaceful coexistence."

WAKE-UP CALL: THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM

1. The True Church does NOT regard Mohammedans as "worshiping the same God." Traditionalist Catholicism and Islam have competing theologies which are mutually exclusive. "Allah" is the name of a false moon "god" exalted by the false prophet Mohammed.  The psalmist tells us that  "All the Gods of the Gentiles are Devils" (Psalm 96:5) and hence to whom do they render their worship? The Scriptures tell us clearly " They provoked him by strange gods, and stirred him up to anger, with their abominations.  They sacrificed to devils and not to God: to gods whom they knew not: that were newly come up, whom their fathers worshiped not. "  (Deut 32:16- 17)

They "sacrificed to devils and not to God" - regardless of whether or not they might have believed they were rendering homage to the True God, the reality is quite the contrary! It is an erroneous proposition to qualify a prayer addressed to the devil as authentic prayer. Islam is a false religion. It does not come from God, and those who follow it lose their soul.

2. The Koran is an evil book written under demonic inspiration. Strong words? I own a copy. Here's what it teaches:

"O ye who believe!  Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you; and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."  (Sura IX 123) Islam spread by means of violence. Catholicism spread by being persecuted and loving Her enemies along the way.

"They do blaspheme who say: 'Allah is Christ the son of Mary.'  But said Christ: 'O Children of Israel!  Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.'  Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode.  There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help."  (Sura V 75) Islam says Christians go to Hell, and Christ is not Divine; He allegedly told others to worship the false moon "god" Allah.

"O ye who believe!  Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors:  They are but friends and protectors to each other.  And he amongst you that turns to them (For friendship) is of them.  Verily Allah guided not a people unjust."  (Sura V 54) Mohammedans are told not to have Christians or Jews as friends.

Also taught:
Women are inferior to men (Sura IV 34)
Men can, and even should, ‘beat’ their wives in some circumstances (Sura IV 34)
Allah does not love the unbelievers (Sura III 32)

3. The Koran Cannot Be Interpreted Peacefully

 "So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith: (Establish) Allah's handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made mankind: No change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that is the standard Religion: but most among mankind understand not."  (Sura XXX 30)  Traditionalists who commit violent acts do so in spite of  Church teaching to the contrary. Mohammedans who commit violent acts do so because of their false religion. It's history is one of violence.

 4. The Vatican II Sect Has Allowed Islam To Flourish

 Gone are the days when St Francis of Assisi met Sultan Al Malik Al Kamil. The Saint told him, "If you wish to convert to Christ, and your people with you, I will most gladly remain among you out of love for Him. If you are hesitant about abandoning the law of Mohammed for the faith of Christ, order an immense fire to be lit; I will enter into it with your priests and you will see which is the surer and holier of the two creeds, and which one you must follow."  There was no "esteem" for the false religion shown, and peace was by conversion.

Gone are the days of King St. Louis IX and Pope St. Pius V who fought to keep the infidels out of Catholic Europe. Vatican II welcomed them in with "open arms," rejected Catholicism as the State religion, and NOW France decides to close its boarders when the blood of her citizens runs red in the streets from Islamic terrorists.

Gone are the days when artificial contraception, abortion, and euthanasia were banned and large families flourished. "Christian" Europe is shrinking while the Moslem hordes breed us out of existence.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

• Islam is a false religion inspired by Satan. We do not worship the "same God " as Moslems do. Mohammedans worship the devil and must be converted.

• The Koran is an evil book of hate and violence. It leads to violence and cannot be interpreted "peacefully." Those who are not violent do so against the teachings of their false faith.

• Islam was born in violence and perpetuates it.

• The Vatican II sect has allowed God's enemies to prosper by its heretical faith and decadent morals.

 We must call upon God to help us as never before. If the errors of Vatican II are not stopped soon, the bodies will pile up as Islam seeks to eradicate us, and we may see it all happen "Nostra Aetate" ("In Our Time").

 King St. Louis IX, Victor over the Saracens, Pray for us!   

Never Forget The Cross

 Anyone who has had the misfortune of attending the Novus Bogus "mass" of the Vatican II sect will immediately get the idea that the service is about them, not God. It's about "the assembly" getting together and having a good time to commemorate the Lord's Supper. The emphasis is upon enjoying a meal, not renewing the unbloody sacrifice of the Cross. Much emphasis is given to the Resurrection and the sacrificial death of Christ is downplayed in what has been referred to as Vatican II's "Paschal Theology."

 I got a good insight into this new Soteriology (that branch of theology which deals with the Redemption of the human race) when I came across an early writing from the Vatican II sect:

 "It would be excessive to think that it might have been necessary to wait for Vatican II because, again, the term and the theology of the Paschal mystery was very much alive in the Church and was a part of the Church. However, it has to be recognized that such a rediscovery did not take too long to occur. The last and most important liturgical document prior to Vatican II, Pius XII's 1947 encyclical, Mediator Dei, did not as yet employ the term. It speaks of redemption and does not insist at all on Our Lord Jesus Christ's resurrection. It keeps to the viewpoint that posits the death of Jesus Christ-- the central salvific event, and still does not emphasize that His Resurrection is as much, and in an essential way, the event of the world's salvation." (See Dictionary of the Second Vatican Council (Corpus Books, Washington, D.C., first edition, 1968) "Paschal Mystery," Fr. Adrien Nocent, O.S.B., and Jacques Deretz eds.--Emphasis mine)

 The Modernist heretics who produced this book lie, as all Modernism is a lie. Pope Pius XII's great encyclical Mediator Dei did not employ the term for a very good reason; it wasn't orthodox, it is heretical. The Modernists, driven underground by Pope St. Pius X, kept the false teaching that Christ's Resurrection was equal to His death in effectuating our redemption. Modernism sees all dogmas as in continual "evolution," from one meaning to another. The great Pontiff condemned such errors in this encyclical as:
"... one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table-form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See." (para. # 62)

 All the things condemned by Pope Pius XII have been implemented and lauded by the Vatican II hierarchy. Altars were ripped out and replaced by tables; black was removed as a liturgical color and replaced by white (Yea! He's dead! Must be in Heaven so let's celebrate!); and the traditional crucifix was replaced in many of the sects churches with the crosses showing the resurrected Christ and not His wounded, suffering Corpus. Yet they claim Mediator Dei was a step in the direction of Vatican II!!

 The Second Vatican Robber Council's heretical document Sancrosanctum Concilium (On the Liturgy) says in paragraph # 106:

"....the Church celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the Lord's day or Sunday. For on this day Christ's faithful are bound to come together into one place. They should listen to the word of God and take part in the Eucharist, thus calling to mind the passion, resurrection, and glory of the Lord Jesus, and giving thanks to God who "has begotten them again, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead, unto a living hope" (I Pet. 1:3)."

 Notice that there is no mention of the Mass as a True propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead, and the resurrection is put on par with Christ's Passion and death on the cross. So what does the True Church teach about redemption? Is the Resurrection really " as much, and in an essential way, the event of the world's salvation" ?

 According to theologian Pohle: "Considered from the distinctive viewpoint of Soteriology, the Resurrection of Christ was not, strictly speaking, the chief, nor even a contributing cause of our redemption; but it was an essential compliment thereof, and constituted its triumphant consummation. (a) The Catholic Church regards the Resurrection as an integral, though not an essential, element of the atonement." (See Dogmatic Theology,  B. Herder Book, Co. (1935), 5:102).

 The "Paschal Mystery Theology" compliments the Modernism of Vatican II. "Pope" Francis hides his cross from the Jews. Let's forget what Our Savior did for us. We all have a glorious Resurrection awaiting us, so let's try and eliminate all human suffering and see it as useless. There is no subjective redemptive value in suffering or making sacrifices; strive to feel good and forget sin and the price that He paid. Don't get caught up in "small-minded rules" and "who am I to judge?"  What they fail to realize is that we must follow a suffering Savior. There is no Crown of Glory without going through a Crown of Thorns in this "valley of tears." Francis is ashamed of the cross and wants everyone to forget about it. However, it is Christ Himself that tells us that in order to achieve a glorious Resurrection, a person must first "...deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me." (St. Matthew 16:24).

A "Laver of Regeneration" No More

 Many times I have posted regarding Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as extraordinary means of obtaining both Church membership and salvation at the moment of death. The Feenyites (both sedevacantist and Vatican II sect) are always ready to pounce on any exposition regarding this matter of established Church doctrine which must be believed in order for someone to be a Catholic. Instead, they should be more worried about the revised baptisms produced by the Second Vatican Robber Council and in use since at least 1972.  I have always maintained that all the sacraments of the Vatican II sect are invalid except for most baptisms and marriages, since there is no need for a priest to validly confer either sacrament and the basic matter and form remain. I have been doing some research on this subject and I would like to revise my prior statement based on my findings: Some baptisms and marriages may be valid in the Vatican II sect not most.

 I've changed my conviction based on some very serious considerations I'd like to share with you. First, I will set out Traditional Church teaching, followed by the revisions made to baptism in the Vatican II sect.

THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ON BAPTISM

According to theologian Prummer, baptism is "the sacrament of regeneration through water in words" (quoting the Catechism of the Council of Trent). The effects of baptism by Divine Law are six: 1. The bestowal of the Baptismal character (even if the sacrament is unlawfully administered or received); 2. the remission of all sin; 3. the remission of all punishment; 4. the bestowal of Grace, virtues, and the gifts; 5. the bestowal of sacramental grace; 6. incorporation in the Church. (See Handbook of Moral Theology, 1957; pgs. 252 and 254)

 The proper minister for lawful reception is a priest, and for valid reception, any person who has attained the use of reason. The remote matter of the sacrament is pure, natural water. The form of the sacrament, to be employed while the water (proximate matter) is flowing over the face or forehead is, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (See Prummer, Ibid, pgs. 252-256). The intention of the minister is to remit Original Sin, infuse Grace, and make the person a member of the Catholic Church.

The sacrament is so necessary to salvation, Christ made it very hard to invalidate it.

VATICAN II AND CHANGES TO BAPTISM

 Most Protestant sects acknowledge Baptism as a sacrament, so why all the changes by Vatican II in the rite? The Modernists wanted to bring it in alignment with the new and heretical ecclesiology, whereby one is more or less part of the Church according to "degrees of participation." Hence, the inversion of the primary and secondary effects of the sacrament (the usual ploy of the Modernist heretics), so that Original Sin is hardly mentioned, and emphasis is on "full participation in the Christian community." 

According to the Vatican II sect's Christian Initiation, General Introduction, no. 4, 1973, "...baptism is the sacrament by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacramental bond of unity linking all who have been signed by it." Really? "All who have been signed by it"? This would include validly baptized adults in heretical and schismatic sects--welcome to the new ecclesiology. 

As theologian Henry Davis teaches, "In conferring the sacraments, (as also in the consecration in Mass), it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course." (See Moral and Pastoral Theology,Sheed and Ward, 1935; 3:27). As previously stated, it is very hard to invalidate the sacrament of baptism, but where there's an evil will, the Modernists find an evil way. Yes, the matter is still water, and yes, the form is the substantially the same (substituting "you" for "thee" and "Holy Spirit" for "Holy Ghost" nevertheless retains the same meaning). 

 However, there are problems in many cases. With regard to the matter and form, many times the "priest" will 

• flick water over the hair so as to preclude contact with the skin

• dip his fingers in the water and touch the forehead, not signifying a true ablution (washing) from sin

• separate the recitation of the form (words) from the water flowing on the recipient (proximate matter), sometimes by a long interval

• change the form to be politically correct (as one "priest" in Boston did by baptizing, "In the name of God the Creator, and of Jesus the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.")

 It will be protested that these are "abuses" and the integral rite retains the valid matter and form. However, there is a problem with the intention that could be inherent in the rite for those who use it. To begin with, the new rite calls itself, "The Rite of Christian Initiation" (one for adults, another for children). Absent are:

• The exorcisms

• The requirement a saint's name be used

• Godparents' playing an active role

• emphasis on remission of Original sin

It now seems a mere "welcoming ceremony" as in many Protestant sects that do not validly baptize. The Council of Trent infallibly decreed that the minister of the sacrament must have the intention of "at least doing what the Church does." According to theologian B. Leeming (Principles of Sacramental Theology [Westminster MD: Newman 1956)], 482)--- "This principle { A priest or bishop who confers a sacrament doesn't have to “prove” that he intends to do what the Church does. He is automatically presumed to intend what the rite means} is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be theologically rash… the minister is presumed to intend what the rite means.." (Emphasis mine)

But the rite has been changed---it was changed after the principles of the most heretical Protestants when they tampered with the rite of baptism in the 1500s. These baptisms are considered invalid. We must distinguish between false ideas in the intellect, and the intention which is an act of the will. If a baby is dying and the child's mother asks a non-Catholic nurse to baptize him, as long as that nurse intends to perform the baptism as instituted by Christ (in accordance with the mother's wishes with proper matter and form applied), the sacrament is valid. Therefore, personally held views that are heretical and erroneous regarding the sacrament of baptism do not render it invalid, as long as the sect's "priests" think they are repeating and performing the rite established by Christ and doing what the Church does using correct matter and form.

 However, in his A Treatise on Baptism, theologian Kendrick writes, "The belief in [baptism's] efficacy to remit sin is not indeed necessary for its valid performance: but may we not fear that the prevailing errors concerning its being a mere form of association to the visible Church, utterly void of all spiritual efficacy, may so pervert the intention of the person who baptizes that he may propose to himself rather to comply with an established usage and form, than seriously to administer an institution of Christ Our Lord?" What Kendrick wrote about Protestant baptism in 1852 could easily apply to the Vatican II sect today. The revised rites, all in use since January 6, 1972, have a heretical concept driving them. They are now administered by invalidly ordained "priests" taught heresy in sodomite-filled seminaries where many may think baptism is just an empty rite, even as Original sin means "evil in the world" but is not an actual deprivation of grace. They do NOT intend to seriously administer an institution of Christ, in which case the baptism would be invalid!

 My conclusion: some Vatican II baptisms are valid, and some are not--even ones where matter and form are correctly applied. This opens another can of worms: Marriages in the sect between a member validly baptized and one invalidly so. The consequences of the new rite of baptism are staggering.

 Few receive the miracle of Baptism of Desire. Thanks to Vatican II and the false "popes," this venue might be the only hope for many of their followers.

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!

 Compare:
"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)

Compare:
"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."