Monday, October 31, 2016

Dead Men Tell No Tales

 The names continue to grow: John Edward, Theresa Caputo, and Tyler Henry. These are the "mediums" on American television claiming to "contact the dead." I was amazed at how many members of the Vatican II sect watch these shows; they don't think there is anything wrong with watching them and their clergy say nothing against these mediums either. There's a lot wrong with necromancy (i.e. communication with the dead) as anyone who knows Traditionalist Catholic theology could tell you. I will set out the problems with these "psychic mediums," explain their attraction for many people, and warn against use of the so-called Ouija board.

The "Psychic Mediums"
John Edward McGee, Jr. (b. 1969) is known by his stage name of "John Edward." Born in New York, and raised in the Vatican II sect, he stopped being a practicing member, and claims that "belief in God" is the driving "force" behind him.  "It's the energy from that force [sic] that I think allows us to create this energy [a reference to being a "psychic medium"]." Edward has been criticized by many (including Leon Jaroff in Time magazine) for using mentalist tricks to dupe people. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks here in NYC, Edward taped a show with people who had lost loved ones in that tragedy so he could "contact them on the other side." Outrage over such exploitation resulted in that episode being cancelled. He wrote a book about his alleged abilities in 1998 entitled One Last Time.

Theresa Caputo (nee Brigandi) (b. 1966) is popularly known as the "Long Island Medium." A member of the Vatican II sect, she claims to talk to the dead. Ron Tebo, a private investigator, has declared her a fraud. "For her more on-point readings, Tebo believes Caputo may arrive fully prepared: He suspects her assistants run a background check or even eavesdrop on certain audience members outside the theater to guarantee a catch." (See RadarOnline, 6/4/14). She has published two books, the latest entitled, You Can't Make This Stuff Up : Life Changing Lessons From Heaven (2014).

Tyler Henry Koelewyn (b. 1995) is known by his stage name of "Tyler Henry." Referred to as the "Hollywood Medium," he "discovered" his alleged "gift" while in high school. He was studying in college to be a hospice nurse when a TV producer thought he would be a great new telegenic star. He has been subjected to the same claims of fraud as both Edward and Caputo. He is an open and practicing sodomite. 

The Problems with Mediums

  • As I've written before, mediums are condemned by both the Bible and Church teaching. "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.) According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it. Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium." (See Moral Theology, pg. 100; Emphasis mine). 
  • The contradiction of Church teaching in other areas is ever-present. All of the mediums will tell the grieving person who has lost someone that the deceased are "fine and happy." Of course, this is what we would all like to hear, but how is it possible that all people died as a member of the True Church in the state of sanctifying grace? Hell and damnation are never even considered as possibilities.On the rare occasion when it is mentioned in popular culture, false ideas are still thrown in. For example, in the 1990 blockbuster movie Ghost, starring Demi Moore and the late Patrick Swayze, the souls of the villains are seen being taken by demons to Hell at the moment of death. "They didn't repent," laments Swayze's character, Sam Wheat. The problem is, neither did Sam Wheat repent of living in mortal sin with his girlfriend Molly Jensen (played by Moore). Furthermore, Jensen is aided by a (you guessed it) medium named Oda Mae Brown (played by Whoopi Goldberg). The film clearly teaches that fornication and the use of mediums are morally permissible. Let us also not forget that Tyler Henry is a sodomite; one of the Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance. 
  • "And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also transform themselves as ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Corinthians 11: 14-15). While denying and distorting Church teaching, these mediums seek to appear "holy." John Edward has Vatican II sect "priests" and nuns as "clients," and says in his book that he prays the Rosary (!) before doing "spirit contact."
  • These mediums are doing the work of Satan. When it's human chicanery, they are ghouls whom make a profit by being a false prophet. It's a lie and takes advantage of those in mourning who are willing to believe anything to stop their pain. When such information may be true, it comes from the demonic. In both cases souls are deceived and led into mortal sin. This is the work of the Father of Lies.
Ouija Board: It's Not A Harmless Game

 I would like to warn my readers about the Ouija board, as many people are drawn into the occult by it. Those who can't afford to see "mediums" can get this game rather inexpensively to try and contact the dead. As a matter of fact, there is a version of the Ouija board played by children called "Charlie, Charlie." They call upon a demon named Charlie for answers to questions. (For more on "Charlie, Charlie," see my post of 8/24/15, "Entertaining Demons Unaware."). 

 Manufactured by Parker Brothers and sold with other children's games, such as Monopoly and Clue, the Ouija board is anything but harmless fun for kids. It has its wicked origins in the 19th century, when "table rapping" was the way occultists attempted to contact the dead during a seance. Those who participate would ask questions and wait for the table to "rap" out a prearranged number of times to spell out words using the alphabet (e.g. one rap for the letter "a," two raps for "b," etc.). In 1853, an occultist named M. Planchette, invented the triangular object (now named the planchette) which has three legs. One of its three legs had a pencil to spell out answers on the board posed by a person who was touching the planchette. The modern board has the letters of the alphabet to make the process of contacting the dead easier; the planchette simply points to each letter. The board also has the words yes and no as well as goodbye. 

 This modern Ouija board got its start in the United States with inventor Elijah Bond who filed for a patent in 1890. William Fuld bought the rights to it in 1892. According to Fuld, the board itself told him to patent it under the name "Ouija" which comes from the French "oui" and German "ja" both of which mean "yes." It is an invitation to let spirits (demons) in. The board told Fuld to manufacturer it, and he became wealthy as the game caught on. Ironically, Fuld died in 1927, falling off the roof of a building  the board instructed him to build. 

Parker Brothers bought the rights in 1966, and by 1976 it was the #1 selling board game in the United States. I remember the Christmas commercial for it which asked, "It's only a game--or is it?" There are WAY too many stories associated with the Ouija board and "Charlie, Charlie" to be dismissed. I personally knew a woman several years ago, who told me that in college, she and her sister used a Ouija board. She said it was fun and it "really worked." Things she had never told anyone were spelled out on the board in response to her questions. Then, one night, while asking another question to see how much the board knew about her past, the planchette spelled out, "I saw you naked in the shower." (She had just come out of the shower). After two more "answers" involving her naked body, she screamed and ran out of her dorm room. She warned her sister never to use it, and they gave it away to someone they knew, requesting they never mention it or bring it back. 

Inviting this kind of demonic activity into your life is dangerous beyond description.

  What's the Attraction?
 Why do people go to mediums and Ouija boards? There are several reasons:
  • The desire to feel special with esoteric knowledge
  • The need to feel closure and cope with grieving the loss of a loved one
  • Hell and right/wrong are effectively denied, so they don't need to follow the Commandments 
  • The Vatican II sect does not speak against such things, leading people to think it is ok 
The results of the above are most serious. There have been people who commit suicide to "see the wonders of the other side," and people defrauded of large amounts of money when doing as allegedly directed from someone they knew "on the other side" when told so by the medium. 


Don't fall for the necromancy trap. Be strong in the Faith. Warn others of the dangers and don't watch any such shows with "mediums."  Remember Isaiah 8:19, "When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?" 

Monday, October 24, 2016

Galileo, The Papacy, And Modern Science

 The case of Galileo is one of the most exploited events in the history of the Catholic Church. It has been used to attack papal infallibility, as well as paint the Church in a bad light for being "anti-science" and backwards. Most recently, it has even become a point to attack Traditionalists on sedevacantism, because if the pope got it wrong then and was still pope, couldn't the same hold true today? I wish to set the record clear on Galileo, and demonstrate how advances in modern science (far from being a problem for Christianity as atheists would like us to think) actually help prove God's existence.

The Case of Galileo Galilei

 Galileo was born in Italy in 1564. He was an astronomer, physicist, engineer, philosopher, and mathematician who played a major role in the science of the 17th century. It was alleged that the Roman Inquisition had him condemned because he championed the heliocentric theory of Copernicus (i.e., the Earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to geocentrism, where the sun revolves around the Earth). Here are the facts you need to know:

  • We are indebted to the Church for the Copernican revolution in science. Copernicus delivered lectures in Rome by command of Pope Leo X, held a professional chair and published his treatise on heliocentrism by command of (and by the aid of) Pope Paul III. His work went forward to the world, bearing the sanction of the Holy See. 
  • The ignorance of the populace took scandal at what appeared to contradict plain statements of the Bible. (e.g., Ecclesiastes 1:5, "The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth."). Yet, Galileo was left in peace.
  • The problem arose when Galileo tried to prove his theory from Scripture. He was warned in a letter approved by Pope Urban VIII which read, "You ought not to travel out of the limits of physics and mathematics; you should confine yourself to such reasoning as Ptolemy and Copernicus used. Theologians maintain that the interpretation of Scripture is their own personal care."
  • Galileo promised to abide by the warning, even as Pope Urban VIII was elevating those who held the Copernican theory to high positions; Galileo himself received a pension. Unfortunately, he soon broke his promise.
  • It was out of reverence for the Bible, and to prevent scandal to the weak, that the Inquisition came after Galileo at all. Interestingly, when the great scientist Johannes Kepler (a Protestant) wrote a book in 1596 to defend the Copernican theory and presented it to the Academical Senate of Tubingen, it was pronounced a "damnable heresy," and he was forced to take out the references to Scripture.
  • The condemnation of the Inquisition did not give a definition as to the true sense of Scripture. It was a condemnation of Galileo's "special errors"--whatever they may have been. It pronounced no dogma or explained no true meaning to the Bible.
  • The word "heresy" as used by the Inquisition, was not used in its specialized theological sense, but rather meant "any offense against the Church." This is proven by the declaration of the Pope stating, "The Copernican system is not condemned, nor is it to be considered heretical, only as rash." The works of Galileo were allowed to be published with the references to Scripture expunged. 
(The information above was condensed by me from The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Stated and Vindicated by Bishop John Walsh [1875]).

The Popes Weigh In 
 That the Scripture does not contradict true science was made clear by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII. As they explain, the inspired writers explained things in terms commonly used at the time. We still say "the sun rises and sets," even though it is not scientifically accurate because it appears to be that way. 

Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) teaches:

"...we have to contend against those who, making an evil use of physical science, minutely scrutinize the Sacred Book in order to detect the writers in a mistake, and to take occasion to vilify its contents. Attacks of this kind, bearing as they do on matters of sensible experience, are peculiarly dangerous to the masses, and also to the young who are beginning their literary studies; for the young, if they lose their reverence for the Holy Scripture on one or more points, are easily led to give up believing in it altogether...If dissension should arise between them [science and scripture], here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: 'Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.' To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost 'Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.' Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - 'went by what sensibly appeared,' or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to." (para # 18; Emphasis mine)

Again, Pope Pius XII reaffirmed his predecessor's teaching in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943):

"The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order 'went by what sensibly appeared' as the Angelic Doctor says,speaking either 'in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.' "  (para. # 3)

Modern Science Offers New Proof of God

Far from being an "enemy of religion," true science and the True Church cannot be in conflict for God is the author of both theological and scientific knowledge. The greatest philosopher in the history of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas (rightfully called "The Angelic Doctor" [1225-1274]), admitted that the universe could have always existed. Philosophically, there was no way to prove that it was NOT eternal. He needed to appeal to Holy Scripture and Church teaching in support for a beginning of the universe. 

 Prior to the 1920s, scientists had always assumed the universe was stationary and eternal. In 1917, Einstein applied his new General Theory of Relativity to cosmology, and found that it would not permit an eternal, static model of the universe unless he fudged the equations in order to offset the gravitational effect of matter. This was the beginning of what would lead to the "Big Bang Theory," accepted by all scientists today. The standard model describes a universe which is not not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Not only all matter and energy, but even time and space themselves came into being at the initial cosmological singularity out of nothing or ex nihil. This is exactly the teaching of the Church!! 

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (taken from a Mohammedan philosopher Al-Ghazali), is brilliant and has made discussions of God's existence come alive again in academia. (Let's remember that Aquinas used the pagan philosopher Aristotle's ideas that were judged sound by right reason. So too, we can do the same with an infidel). The argument states:

1. That which begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

We know the truth of (1) from our experience and science. An atheist would be forced to admit of miracles should he deny (1). We know the truth of (2) from science (Big Bang). We know the truth of (3) from the logical deduction of (1) and (2). Moreover, this cause must be:

  • Outside of time and space, because they did not yet exist.
  • Of enormous power to create out of nothing (ex nihil)
  • A personal Being of infinite intellect because He created by means of an intelligent design 
 Doesn't that describe God?

Summary and Conclusion
  • The Galileo affair has nothing to do with a "papal error"
  • True science and true faith cannot contradict each other, as God is the author of science and has revealed the truth about Himself to His One True Church
  •  Modern science has given new proofs of God's existence
To adjust an old phrase, by "learning how the heavens go," maybe we can strengthen our Faith and devotion so we know better "how to go to Heaven."  

Monday, October 17, 2016

Jung And The Restless

 There are many influences (all bad) which have shaped the Vatican II sect. Twenty-three years ago, a friend of mine wanted me to accompany him to a Jesuit-run retreat house. I would only attend on the condition that it would be a private retreat, I would not participate in any Vatican II sect service or prayers, and he would join me in the traditional Rosary at least once in private. He had just come to belief in Christianity, and I was hoping to get him away from the Vatican II sect in which he was raised. He agreed to my terms. Upon arrival, the "nun" (dressed like a lesbian and standing for everything unholy), gave us information on the Enneagram and how it would be used in all prayers and services. We politely told her we were praying in private and had no interest. She looked at us askance, and walked away. The Enneagram is but one of many gnostic-inspired influences that has a prominent place in many Vatican II sect churches, retreat houses, and prayer groups. It came into vogue through the influence of Carl Jung; the infamous psychoanalyst.  I will examine Jung (pronounced "yung") and his role in the destruction that was Vatican II. (N.B. The Gnostic heretics believed that salvation is not through Christ and His One True Church, but through secret knowledge. They also acknowledge there are two "gods"--one who made the physical world, and the other good "god" who wants us to escape the material world. To find the truth you do not look for external revelation, but within yourself for the "spark of the divine." ---Introibo)

Who was Carl Jung? 

Carl Gustav Jung was a Swiss psychoanalyst (b. 1875) who abandoned the Lutheran sect of his parents for the occult. Jung’s entire life and work were motivated by his hatred of Catholicism, the Faith and Morals of which he considered to be the source of all the neuroses in the world.  Jung’s mentor was psychoanalyst Otto Gross (1877-1920). He was particularly drawn to Gross's ideas about the "life-enhancing value of eroticism" and his concept of "free love." Jung wrote with approval of Gross’s use of sex orgies to promote pagan spirituality, as he did when he wrote: "The existence of a phallic or orgiastic cult does not indicate eo ipso a particularly lascivious life any more than the ascetic symbolism of Christianity means an especially moral life." Jung, absorbed by eroticism and entranced by the occult, sought to provide a holy merger of the two, which is now popularly know as "Jungianism". In 1912, at the age of 37,  he declared that he could no longer be a Christian, and that only the "new" science of psychoanalysis—as he defined it through "Jungianism"—could offer personal and societal rebirth. 

 Many of the apostate clergy in the wake of Vatican II became disciples of Jung, and were eager to spread his errors. As a result, Jungianism has become a great money-maker in the Vatican II sect, by promoting books and seminars on such topics as "analysis of dreams," "archetypes," "Enneagram personality types," and "discovering the god within you." They despise the Rosary as "out of date." The traditional Mass is derided as "patriarchal" and "sexist." God, for Jungians, must be both male and female--incorporating the Eastern pagan notion of "ying and yang." The Mass is a "communal celebration" (sound familiar?) and the Real Presence in the Eucharist is denied since we all have "god within," a form of pantheism. According to Robert Noll's book, The Jung Cult, "...for literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of individuals in our culture, Jung and his ideas are the basis of a personal religion that either supplants their participation in traditional organized Judeo-Christian religion or accompanies it."  

The Enneagram and Deception
The Enneagram was developed indirectly from the Sufi religion (a mystical dimension in the darkness that is called Islam) and promotes "self-knowledge" through the use of traditional theological terms. You are to get in touch with your "true self" and let go of the "false self." This was Jung's goal for transforming religion away from God, and turning it inward to "the divine" in each individual. The Enneagram is a figure composed of three parts. There is an outer circle, an inner triangle and an irregular hexagonal figure containing nine points that touch the outer circle. Each part of it is connected to gnostic spirituality: the circle represents unity, the inner triangle "the law of three," and the hexagon "the law of seven." 

People using the Enneagram will hear Traditionalist Catholic terms, to which Jungians have given new meanings. By discovering your "personality type" (a number from one to nine) you can become "your true self." Here is some of the "Jungian-speak" you will hear; traditional words given new meanings in using the Enneagram.

Sin = personality traits that separate people from God or their true selves.

Original Sin = a person is never at any time in his life undamaged or free, but is always exposed to harmful forces

Prayer = delving into Nothingness to become "one" (pantheism)

Redemption = freedom from one's "false self " to one's "true self "

Faith = having doubts about yourself and overcoming them

Jung and the New "Mass"

According to Stephan A. Hoeller, The Gnosis of the Eucharist (See, 

That great modern representative of the Gnosis, C.G. Jung, had a great interest in the Christian sacraments, particularly in the Mass...Jung emphasizes that those involved in the celebration of the Mass are ministering causes of the divine event. The priest does not cause the mystery; he is merely a minister of grace and power. The same is true of the congregation and of the seemingly inert substances of bread and wine. The Mass is not an action executed by humans, but by divinity.

In addition to the views of the mass discussed above, there is also the notion that this mystery is of the nature of a sacrifice. The sacrifice, in its Gnostic sense, involves the return of the alienated spark to its original flame. Neither philosophy, metaphysics, nor dogma can accomplish this longed-for union, for it is not a matter of concept but of experience. If we wish to join our shining twin in heaven by removing the dichotomy, we must do a work, an opus, as the alchemists of old would have called it. We must offer the bread and wine of our lesser nature to a power from above, so that this human self may be transformed into the likeness and indeed the substance of the wholly other, the alien God, the One beyond and above all the aeons, who in some utterly mysterious way is still our own, true, inmost Self. God in man returns to himself in the sacrificial mystery. (Emphasis mine)

And again:

The mysteries in the pre-Christian era were elaborately devised ritual dramas contrived to intensify the spiritual transformation of the initiate. They were usually patterned after the mythic life, death, and resurrection of a particular deity to whom the mystery was dedicated. The candidate was usually made to symbolically undergo certain events in the life story of the hero. This is still evident in the initiation rituals of Freemasonry, particularly in the sublime degree of Master Mason, where the candidate undergoes the death and rising again of the Masonic hero Hiram Abiff.

The pagans of antiquity were convinced that humans could undergo apotheosis, that they could become gods and goddesses. The Mass is closely connected with this process, since in its mysteries earthly substances are transmuted into divine ones, and, more important, humans may be similarly transformed in their psychospiritual natures. The ancient Gnostics for the most part seem to have held that Jesus was a human being who, very much like a hero in the pagan tradition, became divine as a result of his spiritual virtue. Jesus the hero became Christ the God. (This event is said to have been finalized, as it were, on the occasion of the baptism of Jesus in the river Jordan, which was called the Epiphany, or the manifestation of Christ to the world.) ---(Emphasis mine)

Gone are the days of The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The Vatican II sect is brimming over with gnostic heresy--indeed, is not Modernism the "synthesis of all heresies" as Pope St. Pius X taught?

If you ever pick up books that purport to be "traditional" in spiritual exercises, but were published after 1964, please avoid anything that:

  • tells you to seek your "inner true self" or says "God is within you"
  • has disdain for the traditional Rosary and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament
  • wants you to interpret your dreams
  • uses the buzzwords and phrases "personal empowerment," "becoming authentic to yourself," and finding "healing and meaning" in your life

Vatican II retreat houses are full of the pagan teachings of Carl Jung derived from gnostics of old. Countless souls have lost their faith. My friend with whom I went on retreat was so confused and disenchanted with the garbage peddled in the Vatican II sect, he became a Protestant. I couldn't convince him it wasn't the Catholic Church but a new sect posing as the True Church. Another case of someone restless for God, and wanting bread, was given a stone instead. I pray for him and feel sorry for him. Jung's influence is even seen in the Novus Bogus, where everyone participates to "become divine." If "god" is in us, we don't need to have a tabernacle to face during Mass. It's about the people and their self-importance.  The psychoanalyst's name may be Jung; but the heresies he peddles are very evil and quite old. 

Monday, October 10, 2016

The Dr. Seuss Of Ecclesiology

 Bishop Richard Williamson has become a joke. He's been a joke for some time now, and it just keeps getting worse. His "St. Marcel Initiative" (a version of the Society of St. Pius X [SSPX] with no desire for union with Modernist Rome) formerly referred to as the "Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance" continues to attack the sedevacantist position, even as they attack the SSPX as being "too soft" on Francis. He's "re-excommunicated" from the Vatican II sect after having consecrated two bishops for his "Initiative" in 2015 and 2016. Each Saturday, the baffled bishop sends out his "Eleison Comments" via e-mail, ostensibly to convince everyone that only his organization has the post-Vatican II situation properly figured out, and to warn people to stay away from sedevacantism.

 He begins almost every issue of his "Comments" with some kindergarten-like rhyme. A small sampling should suffice:

  • The sacrificial Mass once thrown away, How could poor Catholics not go astray?
  • Truth which is true excludes all contradiction. "Truth" which admits of error, is truth-fiction.
  • While Menzingen is by Rome’s sirens charmed, To keep the Faith, let forewarned be forearmed
. Shakespeare he's not, but you would expect that an educated man who was a close confidant of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre to understand basic Catholic theology and present a good argument. Such is not the case. During his last attack on sedevacantism, he's long on poetry and short on theology. You will look in vain for any citation to an approved theologian. In typical Feeneyite fashion, he will cite to a decree, and then give his interpretation instead of what the Church has always understood it to mean.

Bp. Williamson Reinterprets the First Vatican Council

 He begins his "Comments" of 9/17/2016 with the title, "Church's Infallibility." (Emphasis in original) Then the following rhyme, "Conciliar Popes I have to 'disobey,'  But that they are not Popes, I need not say." Bp. Williamson arrives at the correct conclusion; that the post-Vatican II "popes" are EITHER really popes and must be obeyed OR they are not popes and are owed no obedience.  Unfortunately, he proceeds to deny that this is the theologically (and logically) correct decision to be made. He cites the First Vatican Council (1870):

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra , that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, 1 by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he 2 defines 3 a doctrine regarding faith or morals 4 to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." — Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv. (Emphasis in original). 

The bishop goes on to explain that these are the four requirements for an infallible decision. He emphasizes that the fourth so-called requirement of infallibility coming from the Church, means that the pope must "plug in" the requirements to be infallible. He analogizes to a housewife who must plug in her iron to an electric power source or it does't work. His conclusion: If the pope doesn't "engage the four conditions" he can say what he likes without harming the infallibility of the Church. 

Bp. Williamson is correct insofar as a "pope" who teaches heresy is no pope and so no harm can come to the Church in that sense. On everything else, he's completely wrong.

The Teaching of the Church

 According to theologian Tanquerey, "The conditions, all of which must be present at the same time in order that the Pontiff's judgement may be infallible are:

a. The Roman Pontiff may not be speaking as a private doctor, nor as bishop of the city of Rome, nor as a prince of a state, but as the Pastor and Doctor of the universal Church according to his supreme authority;

b. The Roman Pontiff should be teaching a truth of faith or morals;

c. The Roman Pontiff must be defining, that is, he must be determining with finality which doctrine must be held with internal faith;

d. The definition must bind the universal Church" (See Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, 1: 128-129).

The fourth requirement is to "bind the universal Church." It does not mean that the pope can teach heresy, and as long as he does not attempt an infallible definition, all is well. That the Church is infallible means this:

"...the Church can neither deceive or be deceived in matters of faith and morals. It is a prerogative of the whole Church; but it belongs in one way to those who fulfill the office the office of teaching, and another way to those who are taught. Hence, the distinction between active infallibility, by which the Church's rulers are rendered immune from error when they teach; and passive infallibility, by which all of Christ's faithful are preserved from error in their beliefs." (See theologian Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, 2: 102). 

You will notice nothing about housewives, toasters, or "plugging things in" to the Church. Bp. Williamson has distorted this beyond recognition. The Church's teaching office cannot teach error, and the faithful can be secure in their beliefs. If error is taught, it cannot have come from the Church. That pope must have lost ecclesiastical office by the profession of heresy. 

The Extent of Infallibility

Theologian Van Noort assures us that the secondary objects of infallibility include: 1. theological conclusions, 2. dogmatic facts, 3. the general discipline of the Church, 4. approval of religious orders, and 5. canonization of saints. Let's look at just two of these secondary objects of infallibility, and see if Bp. Williamson would go along with being obedient, as a Traditionalist Catholic must. 

The General Discipline of the Church

"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)

 "When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgement: 1.'This law squares with with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals;' that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. 'This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune. This is a decree of practical judgement." (See Van Noort, 2: 115). 

So, Bp. Williamson, the Vatican II sect and their "popes" all of whom you accept as legitimate have infallibly imposed a "New Order of Mass" and a new order in all the sacraments. Why do you reject them?

Canonization of Saints

Mother Teresa of Calcutta was a great humanitarian, but also was a heretic who believed in  ecumenism and participated in false worship. (See my post of 9/12/16, "Putting Unity Before Truth" for more on Mother Teresa). Francis proclaimed the following,

 "For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed Teresa of Calcutta be [a] saint and we enroll her among the saints, decreeing that she is to be venerated as such by the whole Church. In the name of the Holy Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

That's infallible if he's pope. The Church doesn't want us venerating the damned, we need to be sure they are both in Heaven and worthy of emulation.

Bp. Williamson, even if Mother Teresa was saved, do you believe her acts of public false worship and apostasy from the Catholic faith make her worthy of emulation and veneration by all the faithful? Will you pray to her, and offer Mass in her honor?

Conclusion: You Can't "Recognize and Resist" Infallible Decisions 

  According to theologians McHugh and Callan:

"Rejection of a Command or Decision of a Pope Can Happen In One of Three Ways:

  • Rejection of the thing commanded. This occurs when one disobeys something ( e.g., a fast or restitution enjoined by the Pontiff) because he considers it too difficult. This results in sin, but not separation through schism because he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the Head of the Church.
  • Rejection of the command when you regard the pope in his capacity as an individual. As the pope is not above human weakness, he might make a command moved by hatred, envy, or some other sinful motive involving an individual decision (not one affecting the whole Church). The pope might also command something sinful (e.g., kill someone he dislikes). In such a case neither sin nor schism is committed by this refusal to obey. 
  • The rejection is based on his official capacity as pope. The person is guilty of schism and is no longer a member of the Church because he does not wish to submit to the authority of the pope who gave the command. (See theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology 1: 542-543)

 It's clear that Bp. Williamson rejects decisions of the post-Vatican II "popes" that Catholic theology demands we regard as infallible. They were promulgated in their official capacity as "pope." You must either submit or be outside the Church. As a matter of fact, since these decisions are the objects of infallibility, you would be a heretic, not merely in schism. The only alternative is that, as all the pre-Vatican II theologians taught, these men professed heresy in their personal capacity and fell from office by Divine Law.

Bp. Williamson wants to make himself sound "reasonable" and not "extreme." The sedevacantist position is logical and only "extreme" when you don't understand theology. His next "Comments" should begin:

"Theology I understand not, with me don't throw in your lot.
A good argument I cannot make; listen to me not for Heaven's sake!" 

Monday, October 3, 2016

You Shouldn't Always Believe What You See

 Apparitions are a hot topic among Traditionalists. I have, unfortunately, seen the exaltation of  private revelation over public revelation too many times to count. Rather than study what the Church teaches (in public revelation which ended with the death of the Apostle St. John in 100 AD), they seek to quibble over what Our Lady of (fill-in-the-blank) is alleged to have said to the seer (private revelation). Note well that the term "private revelation" has nothing to do with the number of people who witnessed the revelation, but rather that it never needs to be accepted as authentic, unlike the Deposit of Faith which comes to us from Christ and the Apostles (deemed "public revelation"). As a matter of fact, in the comments section of one of my posts earlier this year, a person accused me of sin/heresy for stating that private revelations need not be accepted!

 I will attempt to demonstrate Church teaching on apparitions, and how we must not let devotion to them (even when approved by Holy Mother Church), obfuscate what is really of the Faith. The apparitions most talked about involve the appearances of the Mother of God, Mary.

Apparitions, Visions, and Their Causes

 In Catholic theology, "visions" (when authentic) are of an internal nature; i.e., God produces a concept or image in the seer without anything external to the person. An "apparition" (when authentic) occurs when God causes something external to the person to be seen through the senses--it is usually, but not necessarily---seen by people present other than the seer. Notice I mention authentic visions and apparitions, because in the words of theologian Farges, "True visions are rare, but visionaries are legion ..." (See Farges, Mystical Phenomena,Burns, Oates and Washbourne, London, [1926], pg. 323). All apparitions are caused by one of three things, God, people, or demons. 

 People who see authentic apparitions (i.e. "seers") are usually children, because of their innocence and due to the fact that visions usually occur in the saintly to whom God can act more directly on the soul as they have grown close to the Almighty. According to Farges, "Amongst sinners ... visions are always very rare, and therefore must always seem suspect and attributable to illusion or the devil, unless there is a proof to the contrary." Since most of us adults in the world fall into "the sinner" category, it follows that apparitions that come from God are very rare. From the sixteenth century until the Great Apostasy at Vatican II, only nine (9) apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary have been approved as "worthy of belief" by the Church. 

The vast majority of "seers" are either charlatans or have mental illness. Hallucinations, whether from schizophrenia, drugs/alcohol, brain tumors, or highly suggestible states, comprise most false apparitions. Mass hysteria, whereby a group of people exhibit similar physical or emotional symptoms, can manifest itself in shipwrecked people all apparently seeing a rescue ship, and can equally explain how some people "see" what the false seers "see." Some, such as in Medjugorje, are perpetrated by individuals who never cease to have these so-called apparitions. They even operate an online store and pilgrimages costing thousands of dollars "not including tips" to the tour guides of the numerous "holy places." A sure case of charlatan-ism. 

Demonic Apparitions

 In discussing the diabolic origin of some apparitions, it is important to know what demons and Satan can and cannot do. They cannot:

  • Raise the dead, since this would entail allowing the soul back into the body after final judgement by God. God can suspend such judgement and raise the dead (Lazarus, etc.), but Satan and his demons cannot. They can make it appear as such, perhaps by allowing a demon into the corpse, but this is doubtful.
  • Create anything, because substances can only be created by God.
  • Know the future or read minds. According to theologian  Delaporte, the devil does not know the future as God does. However, "A pure spirit, not subjected to ...know only through the medium of corporeal organs, sees more things at once, and sees more than we do. He may, besides, thanks to his potent intelligence and long experience draw better from the present, what he knows by conjecture of the future. Finally, he may announce things he counts on accomplishing himself, or having accomplished by those who willingly receive his inspiration." (The Devil pg. 70).Therefore, Satan can "know the future" and "read minds" in that sense. However, he does not know the future as God does, and is not infallibly sure of what will transpire, unlike God Who is omniscient. 
 They can:

  • Produce corporeal or imaginative visions.
  • Falsify ecstasy.
  • Instantaneously cure sicknesses that have been caused by diabolical influence. Tertullian writes, "First of all, they [the demons] make you ill; then to get a miracle out of it, they prescribe remedies either completely novel, or contrary to those in use, and thereupon withdrawing hurtful influence, they are supposed to have wrought a cure." (Apology of the Christian Religion, 22)
  • Simulate miracles (i.e. walking on water, levitation, etc.)
  • Make people or objects seem to disappear by interfering with a person's sight 
  • Cause a person to hear sounds or voices.
  • Cause a person to speak in tongues.
  • Have someone reveal a fact which is hidden or distant.

Whatever nature or science can cause, the demons can cause, according to what God may permit by His Will. (See e.g., the Book of Job, and Exodus 7:11-12; 7:22; 8:7; 8:18-19; 9:11 N.B. The magicians of Pharaoh were able to replicate only some of what was done by Moses and Aaron). With this impressive arsenal, it wouldn't be too hard for demonic forces to produce an apparition.

How to Discern the Real from the False/Evil

My advice is to stay away from apparitions other than the nine approved by the Church since the 16th century and prior to Vatican II. There are six (6) "warning signs" you need to beware when hearing of an "apparition" of Our Lady, Our Lord, or any angel or saint. In the case of the first warning sign below, it is a clear indication that the apparition is a fraud and must be rejected, as God cannot contradict Himself; He is Truth itself. The second warning sign below means the apparition should be rejected, or you may wind up a heretic. Warning signs three through six indicate you should have (at the very least) suspended judgement regarding said apparition. Here are the warning signs:

1. Any apparition that states something against Traditional Faith and/or morals must be rejected as false. (e.g. Palmar de Troya declared Our Lady "Irredeemed"; meaning "not redeemed." This is a total misunderstanding of the Immaculate Conception and rank heresy.)

2. Any apparition that states something contrary to the unanimous (or even common) teaching of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians.

3. A fulfilled prophesy being claimed as automatic proof of authenticity. Demons could be responsible.

4. Apparitions that contain mundane (and even strange) matters (e.g. in one apparition, it was stated that the so-called Blessed Mother "played hide-n-seek" with the seers).

5. Apparitions where novel doctrines (not incompatible with Church teaching) are introduced, a definitive date is given (or strongly suggested) for the Second Coming, or the "Blessed Mother" either "blesses" objects or demands that only un-blessed sacramentals be brought to the site (as was the case regarding the "apparitions" in Bayside, NYC).

6. The seer is neither a child nor an adult known for great sanctity and mental stability. Also where the apparitions never end, and there is profit to be made by the "prophet" (think: "Medjugorje"). 

Tried and True

 Rather than obsess over unapproved apparitions (and we have no hierarchy with authority to approve new apparitions since 1958 when the last known pope, Pius XII died) stick to the nine major apparitions that have the solemn approbation of Church authority:

1. Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531): The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared four times to Juan Diego in 1531 at Tepeyac hill near Mexico City. She proclaimed herself the Spiritual Mother of all humanity and left her miraculous image on Juan Diego's outer garment, his tilma.

2. Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (1830): The Mother of God appeared to St. Catherine Labouré, in the chapel of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, at Rue du Bac in Paris, three times in 1830. She showed her the design of the the medal of the Immaculate Conception, the "Miraculous Medal." This medal, when propagated, helped to renew devotion to Our Lady throughout the world. 

3. Our Lady of La Salette (1846): Our Blessed Mother appeared to two children, Maximin Giraud, aged 11, and Mélanie Calvat, aged 14, in 1846, while they were looking after their animals high up on the mountain. She asked for penance, an end to work on the Sabbath (Sunday), and an end to blasphemy.

4. Our Lady of Lourdes (1858): The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to St. Bernadette Soubirous, aged 14, a total of eighteen times at Lourdes in southern France, at the Grotto of Massabielle. She called herself "The Immaculate Conception" as Heaven's delight in (and affirmation of) Pope Pius IX's infallible decree Ineffabilis Deus of December 8, 1854 defining the Immaculate Conception of the BVM a dogma of the Faith. A miraculous well sprung up there, and has been the occasion of many miraculous cures. 

5. Our Lady of Hope (1871): Our Lady appeared in the sky over the small town of Pontmain in north-western France to a group of young children for about three hours in January 1871, as the Franco-Prussian war was threatening the area. Slowly, a message appeared beneath her: "But pray, my children. God will hear you in time. My Son allows Himself to be touched." The crowd prayed and the Prussians, for reasons unknown to secular historians, abandoned their advance on the little town. The Prussian general is reported as having said, "We cannot go farther. Yonder, in the direction of Brittany, there is an invisible 'Madonna' barring the way."

6. Our Lady of Knock (1879): The Blessed Mother appeared at Knock, a small village in County Mayo, Ireland, in August 1879. A number of villagers of diverse ages saw a silent apparition, which lasted about three hours, outside the gable end of the local church. They saw three figures, Mary, St. Joseph, and St John the Apostle, as well as a lamb on an altar and angels. Many speculate the silence of the apparition was to show the future silencing of Fatima as well as the destruction of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

7. Our Lady of Fatima (1917): Our Blessed Mother appeared to three children, Lucia de Santos, aged 10, and her two cousins, Francisco Marto, aged 9, and Jacinta Marto, aged 7. Our Lady asked for recitation of the Rosary, prayers and penance for poor sinners, the Five Saturdays Devotion to Her Immaculate Heart, and the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. There were three secrets given (one never revealed in 1960 by Roncalli), and a Miracle of the Sun witnessed by thousands.

8. Our Lady of Beauraing (1932-1933): The Immaculate Mother of God appeared thirty-three (33) times to a group of children in the winter of 1932-33 at Beauraing in Belgium. She called herself  "the Immaculate Virgin" and "Mother of God, Queen of Heaven," while asking for prayers for the conversion of sinners.

9. Our Lady of Banneux (1933): The Ever-Virgin Mary appeared eight times to Mariette Beco, aged 11, outside the family home at Banneux, a small village, in Belgium. She called herself "The Virgin of the Poor" and promised to help the poor, sick and suffering who turn to her. She said, "If you believe in me, I will believe in you." 


 No one must believe in any apparition; even those approved by the Church. If you have a devotion to an approved apparition, please do NOT let it become some kind of "dogma," and do not waste valuable time and energy debating with others over the "true meaning." Instead, read the approved theologians and learn about what the Church really teaches, since we live in this time of near universal apostasy. As far as "new" apparitions, my advice is to stay away. Some are obvious frauds (Medjugorje, Bayside) and others are highly dubious because we have no hierarchy in the aftermath of Vatican II which can make a definitive judgement. Don't let a dangerous curiosity of the spectacular detract from your spiritual life. The next time someone wants you to read about "the true meaning" of an apparition, or believe in some alleged new apparition of Our Lady or Our Lord, remember the warning of Our Savior Jesus Christ Himself, "If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not." (St. Matthew 24: 26).