The Book's Name Is Heresy

 Jorge Bergoglio published a book in January on (what else?) God's mercy. Entitled The Name Of God Is Mercy, it is more of the over-the-top emphasis on a false idea of "forgiveness" without amending one's life as it should be. Written as a rambling interview with journalist Andrea Tornielli, I wonder if someday the word "interview" will become synonymous with "apostasy." It is painful to read (which is why this post comes almost a year after its release), and has major errors to lead the members of his sect even further away from the truth. I will outline just two pertinent errors that permeate the false pope's book.

 According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: "Presumption is here considered as a vice opposed to the theological virtue of hope. It may also be regarded as a product of pride. It may be defined as the condition of a soul which, because of a badly regulated reliance on God's mercy and power, hopes for salvation without doing anything to deserve it, or for pardon of his sins without repenting of them." (Emphasis mine). Bergoglio's book engenders such presumption.

"Go and Sin No More"--after a while

 The book starts from the principle that a human being converts progressively and that he has trouble living completely according to the Catholic morality. This contradicts the infallible teaching of Trent, "CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema." Of course, no person goes from being a notorious sinner to a great saint overnight. Nevertheless, the book claims that because some see the Commandments (especially the Sixth and Ninth) to be "ideals" that are impossible to put into practice, the moral law applies to them in "degrees" according to how far they have "grown morally." This is rank heresy. This makes the Commandments subjective according to the whim (or bad conscience) of the individual as to "how much the law applies and he can follow." 

 Now you can see why Vatican II sect "communion" for adulterers can be permitted. They are not yet "fully moral" by giving up living in sin with their concubine. Yet, they are gradually going that way according to the dictates of their "conscience." Since they cannot fully live up to the Law of God, it is enough for them to try to do it partially, perhaps by having adulterous relations less frequently. This (allegedly) makes them "worthy to receive" their Novus Bogus communion cracker. 

Do you see how the heretical Vatican II ecclesiology has invaded every aspect of Bergoglio's sect? Vatican II puts a false dichotomy between the "Church of Christ" and the Roman Catholic Church. The two are no longer one and the same. The Church of Christ is some mysterious entity which "subsists" in the Roman Catholic Church (and in other sects). This Church of Christ is present according to how many "elements" of it are present. To have all the elements (as The Roman Catholic Church) is best, but to have just some elements is good too and leads to salvation. Hence, Vatican II tells us of false sects that "... the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." (See Unitatis Redintegratio, para. # 3).

 Likewise, just as you can be "Catholic" partially or fully, so too you can be partially or fully moral. To be fully moral is best, but to be partially moral is good too, and you can receive "communion." This explains why in the Vatican II sect almost no one goes to Confession (which they call "Reconciliation"), but nearly everyone goes to "communion." Even though there's more evil prevalent than ever before, "sainthood" seems commonplace when they "come together as Church" to "celebrate Eucharist" as they like to intone (always devoid of definite articles!). 

"Contrition"

 On pg. 33 of Bergoglio's book, there is a case described of a priest confronting a Vatican II sect member who is on his death bed. The penitent declares to the priest that he would commit the sin (of fornication) again if he had the opportunity. Despite this statement, the priest ends up absolving the penitent, because (get this) he's sorry that he isn't sorry! 

 Can a priest absolve someone from sin who is regretful that he has no contrition (or even attrition), and has no resolve to stop an act he knows to be wrong? It's outright absurd to think that regret for not having contrition is a substitute for contrition or attrition! What does Frankie have to say?   "It’s a good example of the lengths to which God goes to enter the heart of man, to find that small opening that will permit him to grant grace." Therefore the fact of regret for not having sorrow for sin and a firm resolve not to sin again is a partial step in the right direction, and is sufficient to receive absolution. Now that's a sorry state of affairs!

 Absent from his book is any mention of the temporal debt due to remitted sin, and blotted out through the use of indulgences. There's no mention of the need to avoid the near occasion of sin, and of God's particular judgement of the soul at the moment of death. All of this will lead readers towards the sin of presumption; a sure road to Hell. 

Conclusion

More heresy from the papal pretender is spread throughout his book. Don't waste your eyesight or money on this trash. Read something edifying from the true saints prior to Vatican II (i.e. no "St." Wotyla, etc.). Bergoglio wants us to think that God's mercy is so great, He keeps everyone out of Hell, even those who are only "partially sorry." If true, wouldn't God's justice keep everyone out of Heaven, for no one deserves eternal bliss who has sinned? Remember the sobering words of St. Paul in Philippians 2: 12, "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation." Mr. Bergoglio's name is apostasy.  

The Evil Of Cremation

 On August 15, 2016, the Vatican II sect's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (sic), issued a decree entitled,  Ad resurgendum cum Christo ("To Rise with Christ"). The decree, approved by arch-Modernist "Cardinal"Gerhard Muller, is a condemnation of certain "abuses" in the process of cremation. Cremation is the incineration of a human cadaver and the preservation of the ashes. There have been reports of people who have their ashes scattered at sea, preserved in jewelry, or made into a "memento." (All of which were duly noted in the Modernist Vatican's decree). According to the "Cremation Association of North America" (See CANA at cremationassociation.org), in the United States, approximately 15% of people who died in 1985 were cremated. In 2015, an astounding 44.42% of the deceased that year were cremated, with a projection that by the year 2025, just over 55% of people will be incinerated to ashes as opposed to being buried in the ground or a mausoleum.

 The True Church always considered cremation to be a great evil. It goes as far back as  1300 AD, when Pope Boniface VIII declared any Catholic who procures cremation for himself excommunicated. On December 15, 1886, His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII,  decreed that if someone has made a public request to be cremated and dies without retracting this sinful act, it is forbidden to give him an ecclesiastical funeral and burial. The 1917 Code of Canon Law made the teaching of the Church very clear. Canon 1203, section 1, states, "The bodies of the faithful must be buried and their cremation is wholly condemned. (reprobata)" Canon 1240, section 5 denies ecclesiastical burial (and as a consequence a Requiem Mass) to those who order their own cremation, even if the order wasn't carried out, unless such order was retracted prior to their death. What's wrong with cremation? Why did the Vatican II sect permit it? These questions will be answered in this post.

The True Teaching On Burial Of Human Bodies

There are several reasons why the Church requires burial:

• Out of respect to the body as the temple of the Holy Ghost. It has a twofold significance in being buried; (a)  showing the cessation of temporal life on Earth and (b) the beginning of life beyond the grave. As stated by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:36, "Thou fool! The seed you plant does not come to life unless it dies,"

• Pope Boniface VIII condemned the horrible practice of ripping the flesh from the bones of the deceased (and cremation) as desecration of the body

• The Church's condemnation does not mean cremation as such is prohibited by the natural law or Divine positive law, but She prohibits the practice as one propagated by the enemies of the Church as a means of gradually paving the way to materialism by "removing from the people's mind the thought of the dead and the hope of the resurrection of the body." (Instruction of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office; June 19, 1926)

• For serious reasons that affect the public welfare, the Church permits cremation (e.g., to prevent the spread of a deadly plague).

(The above was condensed from canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 1:470-471;496). 

Why Do People Choose Cremation Over Burial?

Popular reasons given are as follows:

• Lower cost

• Less space is wasted. 

• The remains can be taken along by the family if they move away from the cemetery

• Alleged psychological benefits in expressing the finality of death to the mourners, and that disposal is quick and clean unlike a slow and foul decomposition after death. 

The Real Impetus Behind Cremation: Enemies of Catholicism

The popular reasons enumerated above may be the rationale for certain people being cremated. However, they are  not viable at all for a Traditionalist. 

• Response to the lower cost argument. Just because something is cheaper, doesn't make it moral. It's cheaper to have an abortion than to raise a child, but does less expense absolve from murder? Obviously not, and we should not desecrate a body for reasons of money either. Sin, of any kind, can not be excused because you want to save money.There are still cost effective means of burial for the indigent.

• Response to the less wasted space argument. This is plain false. Over 1,000 people can be buried in just one acre of land. Bodies can also be layered in the same grave, and using multi-layered mausoleums prevent any so-called "wasted space." These are the same Neo-Malthusian  jokers who push for birth control due to alleged "overpopulation."

• Response to the "take the remains along" argument.  If you can't visit the cemetery, it's better to pray for the soul of your deceased loved one knowing he is resting in peace, as opposed to having his desecrated remains with you. Do you really want what's best for the deceased, or what's best for you?

• Response to the "psychological  benefits" argument. It is debated among psychologists as to whether cremation is better than burial for mourners. There are some who argue that seeing the body helps people accept the reality of death better--both the reality of the loved one who has departed, and the realization/acceptance of the mourner's own mortality. Also, what is therapeutic is not always moral. You might feel better taking revenge on an enemy, but this is not justification for the act.

The real reason cremation has been pushed since the French Revolution (and most especially since the late 19th century) can be summed up in one word: Freemasonry. A circular was put out by the Masons in the latter part of the 1800s stating thus:

"The Roman Church has issued a challenge by condemning cremation. The Freemasons should employ every means to spread the usage of cremation. The Church, by forbidding the burning of corpses seeks to maintain its rights over the living and the dead, over consciences and bodies, and seeks to conserve in the masses of the people the old beliefs, today dispelled by the light of science, extending even to the spiritual soul and the future life." 

The word cemetery comes from the Greek meaning dormitory. In the cemetery souls "rest," waiting in the afterlife as it were, until they are reunited to their bodies and awake to another life (think: resurrection). Cremation suppresses this symbolism and the truths they convey. The corpse is like the grain of wheat that gets buried, and seemingly dies, but sprouts up in new life. A burnt grain of wheat will never do that; a burnt body seems like death has the final say and is definitive.

The Vatican II Sect and Cremation

As noted in paragraph #1 of the Modernist Vatican's latest declaration on cremation, "With the Instruction Piam et Constantem of 5 July 1963, the then Holy Office established that 'all necessary measures must be taken to preserve the practice of reverently burying the faithful departed', adding however that cremation is not 'opposed per se to the Christian religion' and that no longer should the sacraments and funeral rites be denied to those who have asked that they be cremated, under the condition that this choice has not been made through 'a denial of Christian dogmas, the animosity of a secret society, or hatred of the Catholic religion and the Church.'  Later this change in ecclesiastical discipline was incorporated into the Code of Canon Law (1983) and the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches (1990)."

Indeed, it was one of Montini's ("Pope" "Blessed" Paul VI's) first acts to lift the absolute ban on cremation. Wotyla ("Pope" "Saint" John Paul II) enshrined this Masonic practice in his new 1983 Code of Canon Law. Canon 1176, section 3, states, " The Church earnestly recommends that the pious custom of burying the bodies of the deceased be observed; nevertheless, the Church does not prohibit cremation unless it was chosen for reasons contrary to Christian doctrine." (Emphasis mine). And we would know it was chosen for "reasons contrary to Christian doctrine"...how?? The floodgate is open wide. They did the dirty work of their infernal master.

 The results are now manifest. In 1963, cremation was virtually non-existent among Catholics. As of 1989 (the most recent statistics I could find) an amazing 26% of all cremations were performed on Vatican II sect members! That's more than one-in-four. I can only imagine what it must be for 2016. I had to shake my head in disbelief and hold back laughter when I read paragraph # 4 of "Cardinal" Muller's decree approved by Frankie:

 "In the absence of motives contrary to Christian doctrine, the Church, after the celebration of the funeral rite, accompanies the choice of cremation, providing the relevant liturgical and pastoral directives, and taking particular care to avoid every form of scandal or the appearance of religious indifferentism." (Emphasis mine).  "Avoid religious indifferentism"? You mean like John Paul the Great Apostate did at the Assisi abominations of 1986 and 2002 praying with all the false religions of the world? You mean like Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) who gave "communion" to a known Protestant? You mean like Frankie, who tells us "There is no Catholic God"?  What a farce! 

Conclusion

 The Masonic chickens have come home to roost for Mr. Bergoglio and his worthless "Congregation to Destroy Whatever Remains of The Faith." They are attempting to appease some "conservative" members of the sect who are (rightly) scandalized by the number of cremations, and how the ashes are used. The naturalism of Masonry has been promoted and aided greatly in destroying belief in the resurrection and personal immortality after death. We are seeing the rise of materialism and atheism like never before, and cremation helps that process.

There is an undeniable link between symbolism and one's beliefs. Modernists and Masons understand this all too well. The Novus Bogus "mass" has destroyed all reverence for (what they still call) the Eucharist. Men dress like slobs, and women are dressed not just immodestly, but many times immorally. Anyone can hand out and touch the "consecrated" cracker. You take it from whomever wants to distribute it while standing up and putting it in your hand. The tabernacle is relegated to some hole in the wall, and no one genuflects. According to a study published in America magazine,  37% of Vatican II sect members don't believe in the Real Presence (which, ironically, they don't have anyway).  That's nearly one-in- four, a percentage unthinkable just 52 years ago. They are now believing according to the new rites.

Due to its symbolism, cremation carries with it a new way of thinking about life and death. Man is master of his destiny; an animal just like any other on this planet with no immortal soul or hope of an afterlife. The only goal after being reduced to ashes is to return to "Mother Earth" in anyway that person chooses. When people think this life is all there is and they are just animals, why does it come as a surprise when so many now act that way?

The Strange Ideas Of Fr. Leonard Feeney

 After reading the title of this post, you might be thinking, "Not another discussion of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB)." Not to worry, it's not really going to be a discussion of that topic, but a related matter. Most people may not be aware that heresy is rarely ever limited to one topic. Deny one doctrine of the Faith, and you fall away completely from the Church and God's protection from error. The so-called "Boston Heresy" case involving Fr. Leonard Feeney is a perfect example.

 In brief, Leonard Feeney was born on February 18, 1897, in Massachusetts. He entered the novitiate of the Jesuits in 1914 and was ordained a priest on June 20, 1928. In the 1930s, he was literary editor at the Jesuit magazine, America. He became a professor at Boston College, and soon became the chaplain at the Catholic Saint Benedict Center at Harvard Square in 1945. Reacting against the Modernist heresy that was beginning to surface after Pope St. Pius X had driven it underground, he began denying that BOD and BOB  were part of the Church's teaching regarding Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (i.e., "Outside the Church there is no salvation"). He gained a large following. His Jesuit superiors ordered him to leave the Center for a post at the College of the Holy Cross, but after initially going there, he returned to the Center and repeatedly refused to comply with the order. Feeney was summoned to Rome to answer for his teachings, but he staunchly refused to go. On February 13, 1953, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII for disobedience in refusing to go to Rome to answer the charges against him. Prior to his excommunication, Feeney set up a community called the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He was "reconciled" with Montini (Paul VI) and the Vatican II sect in 1972, but was not required abjure his errors, causing his followers to rejoice and claim "his teachings were vindicated."

 Interestingly, the heresy he left as his legacy, and which bears his name ("Feeneyism"), was never taught as 99% of his adherents teach it today. There are other disturbing facts about the teachings of Fr. Leonard Feeney, which will be the subject I address below.

Fr. Feeney was never a theologian or canonist

 Despite the claims of many of his followers that he was some learned scholar, Fr. Feeney never held either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD), or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). His early writings were devotional works. In 1934 he published a collection of essays entitled Fish on Fridays which became a best seller. In it, he made it known he believed that it was possible for a Protestant to be saved (but not as a Protestant, of course, but as a Catholic received in the Church by that rare miracle of BOD). His later works, most notably Bread of Life (1952), set forth his false teachings. Theologian Salaverri, makes it clear that to be considered a theologian, that cleric's works must be known for "...orthodoxy of doctrine...at least to this extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the schools, with the knowledge of and with no opposition from the Magisterium of the Church."(See Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. IB, pg. 327, #857). Obviously, Fr. Feeney, a gifted writer, could not be considered either a theologian or canonist ( i.e., Church-approved expert in Canon Law).

 Justification and Salvation

Justification is the passage from the state of sin to the state of sanctifying grace; salvation is the passage out of this earthly life and persevering to the end in the state of sanctifying grace so as to merit Heaven (either directly, or after time in Purgatory). The Sacrament of Baptism imparts an indelible character on the soul, such that it cannot be repeated. Feeney taught that the character was necessary for salvation. This has never been the teaching of the Church. If a validly baptized person commits mortal sin, they retain the baptismal character, but not sanctifying grace. The two are distinct and separable. In Bread of Life, pg. 118, Feeney writes, "Justification is now being turned into salvation with the aid of water." 

 If someone is justified, they have sanctifying grace. Baptism cannot turn anything "into salvation." This would mean you are somehow assured of going to Heaven as "justification by faith alone" Protestants falsely teach. On pg. 25 of his book we read: "...Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved." Finally, as a "Q and A" format, Feeney presents his heretical teaching very clearly: 

"Q. What does 'Baptism of Desire' mean?

A. It means the belief in the necessity of Baptism of Water for salvation, and a full intent to receive it.
Q. Can 'Baptism of Desire' save you?
A. Never.
Q. Could 'Baptism of Desire' save you if you really believed it could?
A. It could not.
Q. Could it possibly suffice for you to pass into a state of justification?
A. It could.
Q. If you got into the state of justification with the aid of 'Baptism of Desire,' and then failed to receive Baptism of Water, could you be saved?
A. Never."

 In other words, you can have sanctifying grace, but die and go to Hell unless you receive Baptism by water! A person in sanctifying grace is a child of God with the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in his soul. How could such a person go to Hell? They can't. Fr. Feeney on pg. 125, "I myself would say, my dear children, that a catechumen who dies before Baptism, is punished." Really? The 1917 Code of Canon Law states in Canon 1239, section 2, "Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without baptism, are to be treated as baptized." The commentary on this canon expressly states the reason. "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through baptism of desire." (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 493).  Moreover, the True Church has a special Mass for such catechumens. Fr. Feeney would have to reject such a Mass as impious. However, the Council of Trent infallibly declares, "CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema."

 Modern day Feeneyites, such as the Dimond "Brothers" realize the illogical position of Feeney, and so teach that without Baptism of water, no one is saved or justified. While more logically consistent (although totally false), they do not believe as Fr. Feeney did, but "improve" upon his teaching, a teaching demonstrably illogical as well as out of line with the teaching of the Church.

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary--Serious Problems Abound

 Fr. Feeney established the "Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (known by the Latin initials "MICM") without ecclesiastical approval and aided by a married laywoman, Mrs. Catherine Clark, on January 17, 1949. She took the name of "Sr" Catherine, and continued to live with her husband, Hank. Most of the members of the MICM were married and had children. They took vows of obedience and chastity. I'm sure you can see the problems already, without my commentary, but comment I will. Canon 542 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law makes it very plain that "Married persons for the duration of their marriage" "are invalidly admitted to the novitiate." (See Abbo and Hannan, op. cit., 1: 559, 558.) This means that they cannot become religious as long as their spouse is alive even though they may be "separated" and even if "the other spouse consents that his spouse may enter religion." (Ibid., 1: 560). And what of these ersatz "religious community's" children?

 According to Feenyite author Gary Potter, in his book After the Boston Heresy Case, "The children's parents effectively ceased to exist as parents to the children, and more so as a child grew from three to five to ten and older. Care was taken that the children had no direct or special contact with their parents, save on a half-dozen major feast days during each year when the entire community would gather for socializing. On these occasions the children might chat with their parents, but after a certain time, the parents were seen by the children as scarcely more than another Big Brother or Big Sister." (pg. 171; Emphasis mine). It would be interesting if a study were ever to be done on what became of these poor children when they grew to adulthood. What happened to them can justly be deemed child abuse. Children have a right by natural and Divine Law to be raised by their married parents, and not reared as "siblings" of wannabe "nuns" and "brothers." 

More Wacky Theology

 In Bread of Life, pgs. 97-98, Fr. Feeney writes these most disconcerting words, "I think baptism makes you the son of God. I do not think it makes you the child of Mary. I think the Holy Eucharist makes you a child of Mary. What happens to those children who die between baptism and the Holy Eucharist?...They go to the Beatific Vision. They are in the Kingdom of Mary, but they are not the children of Mary. Mary is their Queen, but not their Mother. They are like little angels. There was a strong tradition in the Church that always spoke of them as 'those angels who died in infancy.' They have the Beatific Vision, and they see the great Queen, but not move in as part of the Mystical Body of Christ...I say: If a child dies after having received baptism, he dies the son of God, but not yet as the child of Mary..."

Baptism makes you part of the One True Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, yet Feeney talks of infants who die after baptism as not moving in Heaven as "part of the Mystical Body of Christ"? They are not true Catholics? Isn't Fr. Feeney contradicting his so-called "strict interpretation" of "Outside the Church no salvation"? The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of Christ, the Invisible Head of the Church, and by extension, to each member of His Mystical Body. How dare Feeney call baptized infants who die before First Communion as "not a child of Mary." Note well he never cites to even one approved theologian, canonist, Encyclical, or other authoritative Church declaration in support of his novel ideas--and with good reason: there aren't any. More heresy.

Reconciliation with Montini and the Vatican II Sect

Fr. Feeney died "reconciled" to the false Vatican II sect under Paul VI (Montini). He was never made to recant his errors. This "hero" of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus refused to acknowledge that BOD and BOB are part of that very same dogma! He now finds favor with false pope Paul VI and was spoken of in glowing terms by arch-heretic "Cardinal" Avery Dulles. These heretics promulgated documents which, among other errors, declare false sects to be "a means of salvation." Yet just as Feeney could hold inconsistent views on other topics, so too, he was able to embrace the false sect of universal salvation and offer the Novus Bogus "mass." Leonard Feeney and the Law of Non-Contradiction, never were on speaking terms. ( The Law of Non-Contradiction maintains that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time, e.g. "It is raining in NYC right now" and "It is not raining in NYC right now"). 

Summary and Conclusion

Rarely does heresy stay isolated. Those who deny Catholic teaching on BOD and BOB hold up as a modern day "savior" the late Jesuit, Fr. Leonard Feeney. This is a priest who:

• was never qualified as a theologian or canonist  

• was disobedient to his lawful superiors and refused to report to the Holy See during the reign of Pope Pius XII and defend his teachings. He was subsequently excommunicated by Pope Pius XII. 

• taught a strange, mixed-up notion of Justification and Salvation which is rejected even by his modern day followers

• started a "religious order" consisting of married couples with children without ecclesiastical approval and in violation of Canon Law

• abused the children of those "religious" by raising them communally and depriving them of their mother and father as God intended

• taught that baptized infants were not somehow in the Mystical Body of Christ and could not be considered "children of Mary"

• sought and received reconciliation in the false Vatican II sect which will accept ANY teaching as long as it isn't the teaching of the One True Church. 

Notice how their most ardent supporters, the so-called Dimond "Brothers" have many of the same problems, they:

• Claim to be Benedictines, yet are sedevacantists. Having been born in the 1970s, they could not be members of the Traditional Benedictines, so they either are "self-appointed" or were made such by someone in the Vatican II sect they claim to abhor. More phony "religious."

• Have no formal ecclesiastical training or degrees, yet pontificate on every topic and damning to Hell anyone who disagrees

• Used to tell people they can attend the Mass of sedevacantist priests who are "heretics" (believe Church teaching on BOD and BOB), as long as they don't contribute money. By the same logic you could attend the Mass of an Eastern Schismatic/Heretic as long as you don't contribute money!

• Claimed that a Mass with the name of the false pope in the Canon (such as by the SSPX) is a grave evil to attend, yet for years attended the "mass" of the Eastern Rite Vatican II sect which always puts the name of the false pope in the Anaphora (their Canon)

• Currently tell people they can go to Traditionalist priests for Confession, but not for Mass and Communion, and of course, anyone who disagrees is damned to Hell. They are like the Jehovah's Witnesses sect whose teachings change frequently and often contradict prior teachings

• Have claimed to know that certain people who died were in Hell (we cannot know, except by special revelation who is in Hell except for Judas Iscariot)

• Have an unhealthy fascination with UFOs, and material that's fit to be published in supermarket tabloids

 A Traditionalist friend of mine said that Feeneyites have a certain "sickness of soul." I agree. This sickness is present in all who reject the Church, and wind up far removed from the truth. Fr. Feeney is said to have "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" inscribed on his tombstone. He died outside the Church in the false Vatican II sect. Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if, by a miracle of Grace, God saved Fr. Feeney and brought him back into the Church at the moment of his death by the very means he denied? 

The Man Of Sin

 On November 27, 2016, the True Church began a New Ecclesiastical Year with the First Sunday of Advent. The Sunday prior, the Church Year had ended with the Last Sunday after Pentecost. Holy Mother Church begins and ends each year with the same theme: the end of the world. It is a truth that the world will end for each of us on the day we die and go before Christ in judgement. However, it is equally true that the world itself will end when Christ returns again in glory, known as Parousia or the Second Coming. These sobering thoughts should be with us throughout all our days; "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." (Ecclesiasticus 7: 40).

 With the talk of schism within the Vatican II sect over Bergoglio's heretical Amoris Laetitiae, I couldn't help but think of Parousia. No one can be certain of when Christ will return to judge the living and the dead. Nevertheless, Francis certainly is a false prophet, even if not necessarily the false prophet. In the last days, there will come the Antichrist, known in Scripture as the "Man of Sin." There is much misinformation on this subject, ranging from those who deny that the Antichrist will be a real person, to those who claim to know who he is and what he's doing right now! I will set forth what we know from the teachings of Christ's One True Church.

The Antichrist Will Be An Individual

 The word antichrist is not some generic term for all the enemies of Christ. This erroneous opinion seems to be suggested in St. John 2:18-22, "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists...Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." However, the priests, prophets, and kings of the old law were called "christs." This did not hinder the Jews from believing in the coming of The Christ. Holy Scripture calls Antichrist "The Man of Sin," and "The Son of Perdition." (See 2 Thessalonians 2:3). 

 He will be known as "the beast" and his number shall be "666." The "number of the beast" simply means that while his human name is not at this time known to us, he is designated with 666. According to theologian A Lapide, the number for man is "6" because he was created on the "sixth day." The first 6 is for the time Satan lied and was cursed in the fall from Heaven. The 60 (a multiple of 6) refers to the second time Satan lied and was cursed in the Garden of Eden. The 600 (another multiple of 6) refers to the time Satan will lie and be cursed through the Antichrist himself, who will attempt to deceive the whole world and drag everyone to Hell. According to theologians Suarez, Ott, and Bellarmine, the personal existence of an individual Antichrist in the future cannot be denied. Suarez and Bellarmine actually consider it an object of Faith.

Is The Antichrist Satan Incarnate?

In a figurative sense only, yes. In the literal sense, no. Human generation, outside the laws of nature, is a miraculous work that can only be produced by God. The Antichrist cannot be the son of the devil conceived of a human female. It is certain the Antichrist will be a male Jew, most probably of the tribe of Dan (the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church bear this out). Some theologians opine that he will be the bastard son of a prostitute, but this is mere conjecture. 

 He will be raised in obscurity and lead a hidden life until he begins his public career, in a perverse imitation of Our Lord. This is founded upon the words of Daniel 11: 21, "And there shall stand up in his place one despised, and the kingly honour shall not be given him: and he shall come privately, and shall obtain the kingdom by fraud." 

 According to theologian Huchede, he will be educated by occultists who will imbue his mind and heart from childhood with wicked principles and doctrines. God will not deny him his liberty, nor deprive him of sufficient grace, yet he will reject God of his own perverse will and then give himself over to Satan to be possessed.  He will grow up in the knowledge and practice of evil until he is ready for his public career. "And after their reign, when iniquities shall be grown up, there shall arise a king of a shameless face, and understanding dark sentences." (See Daniel 8: 23). 

 St. Cyril of Jerusalem says that "his malice will surpass the combined wickedness of all the evil doers gone before him." (See his Catechism, 15). Theologian Suarez goes so far as to teach that he will never perform a good act, being the counterpart of Our Lord who was sinless and never committed an evil deed. 

His Rise To Power

 He will seek to obliterate the One True Church of Christ. He will declare himself the true Messiah and have the Temple rebuilt in Jerusalem. He will have all temporal power, just as the false prophet will have all spiritual power, by driving the last members of Christ's Church underground. The Jews will accept him even as the rejected Christ, and the Antichrist will be worshiped as God. St. Anselm tells us that the demons will show him all the precious metals out of which they will have money minted for him. 

 These immense riches, which he will distribute generously to his followers is what will help his rise to this power. "For laughter they make bread, and wine that the living may feast: and all things obey money." (See Ecclesiastes 10: 19). "And he shall have power over the treasures of gold, and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt: and he shall pass through Libya, and Ethiopia." (See Daniel 11:43). "For the desire of money is the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred from the faith, and have entangled themselves in many sorrows." (1 Timothy 6:10). "Neither shalt thou take bribes, which even blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just." (See Exodus 23: 8). 

 Finally, he will not hesitate to kill his enemies. He will also perform false miracles. According to the Book of the Apocalypse, Antichrist will perform at least three major "miracles": causing fire to come down from the skies, make the beast to speak, and pass himself off as dead so as to apparently raise himself up from the dead.

 "And I saw one of his heads as it were slain to death: and his death's wound was healed. And all the earth was in admiration after the beast...And he did great signs, so that he made also fire to come down from heaven unto the earth in the sight of men. And he seduced them that dwell on the earth, for the signs, which were given him to do in the sight of the beast, saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make the image of the beast, which had the wound by the sword, and lived. And it was given him to give life to the image of the beast, and that the image of the beast should speak; and should cause, that whosoever will not adore the image of the beast, should be slain." (See Apocalypse 13: 3, 13-15). 

His Reign

The Antichrist will rule the earth for three and one-half years being worshiped as God and persecuting the few faithful Traditionalists left on the planet. Everyone must accept the "mark of the beast" or be slain. God will provide for His True Church by preparing a safe haven in the desert and not allowing the Antichrist, Satan, or the false prophet to discern their whereabouts. "And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent." (See Apocalypse 12: 14). 

 During this time something miraculous will happen: the return of Elias and Enoch. Neither of these Old Testament prophets has died. St. Paul tells us that Enoch was taken so that he might not see death, "By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had testimony that he pleased God." (See Hebrews 11: 5). The same is related to us regarding Elias, "And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (See 4 Kings 2:11). 

The theologians teach they were placed somewhere in a happy state, where they exist incorruptible, until their return. God gave them such a unique grace for two reasons: (1) to show the possibility of the indefinite permanence of humanity, and (2) to confirm our faith in the resurrection when they return.

 Enoch and Elias will return to earth at the same time as the reign of the Antichrist begins. Their Divine Mission will last 1260 days, or 15 days less than Antichrist. In imitation of Sts. Peter and Paul, Enoch (like St. Paul) will preach to convert the Gentiles to the true faith and away from Antichrist. Elias (like St. Peter) will preach and convert the Jews. They will show many and wondrous true miracles performed by the omnipotent power of God. At the end of the 1260 days, they will be martyred by Antichrist. "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast, that ascendeth out of the abyss, shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them." (See Apocalypse 11:7). Antichrist shall boast and glory in his seeming victory. He will blaspheme God and curse His Holy Name. 

His Demise

 After being dead in the street for three and one-half days, Enoch and Elias will be resurrected from the dead by God. "And after three days and a half, the spirit of life from God entered into them. And they stood upon their feet, and great fear fell upon them that saw them. And they heard a great voice from heaven, saying to them: Come up hither. And they went up to heaven in a cloud: and their enemies saw them. And at that hour there was made a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell: and there were slain in the earthquake names of men seven thousand: and the rest were cast into a fear, and gave glory to the God of Heaven." (See Apocalypse 11:11-13). 

Antichrist will attempt to ascend to Heaven and proclaim such to the world in order to undo the good effects upon everyone by the  resurrection and ascension of Elias and Enoch. 

 He will attempt to ascend from Mt. Olivet, but God shall overwhelm him, "And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, " (See 2 Thessalonians 2:8). Then comes his end, "And there came down fire from God out of heaven, and devoured them; and the devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast and the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (See Apocalypse 20: 9-10).

Conclusion

 After the destruction of the Antichrist, Christ will soon return for the General Judgement. I will not, and indeed must not, speculate as to when the events will come to pass. Those who listen to fools and heretics like the late charlatan, Harold Camping, wound up sorely disappointed (and in some cases having sold all they had) when his predicted end of the world did not happen on May 21, 2011.  Pope Leo X, at the Fifth Lateran Council, forbade any Catholic from venturing to assert anything certain as to the date of the end times. 

 Two opposite errors are to be avoided: (1) denying the Antichrist and the Second Coming of Our Lord, or (2) predicting with certainty the time of its occurrence. With all that's going on around us, I don't think the time is that far off, but who knows except for God? Rather, let's be always prepared to meet our Maker, whether it's by death or the Parousia. "But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up." (See 2 Peter 3:10, Emphasis mine).

  Besides a life of prayer, making sacrifices, and frequenting the sacraments, make time to study and know the Faith. Knowing the teachings of the Church through Her approved theologians will help you to see clearly through any situation in which we live, "...and none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand." (See Daniel 12: 10). 

  

A Matter Of Conscience

 The Vatican II sect exalts "conscience" above all else. When I attended a Vatican II high school (having converted to the True Church in 1981, at the beginning of my junior year), an ex-nun was head of the religion department. She would invite Episcopalian "priestesses" to explain why the Church was "misogynistic," and we were told we must always "follow your conscience." Engage in premarital sex? Need an abortion? Do "what your conscience tells you." (As a result, at least two girls with whom I graduated became pregnant and murdered their unborn child.) Divorce and "remarriage" by a justice of the peace was likewise OK if your conscience told you so, and you'd remain a "good Catholic." (Remember, this was in 1981, way before Frankie officially opened the door to the reception of "communion" by adulterers). There was one problem: the apostates talked about "conscience" without ever offering an explanation of what it really was and the correct principles behind it. As there seems to be very few correct explanations on the Internet, I will expound on the correct teaching regarding conscience and its use.

 What is Conscience?

Conscience is a judgement of practical reason on the moral goodness or sinfulness of an action. It applies natural law/ Divine Law/ecclesiastical law to concrete cases. It may be divided according to several concepts:

• True and false conscience. A true conscience judges an action to be good and commanded by law when it is actually good and commanded by Divine or human law. A false conscience judges to be lawful what is unlawful and vice-versa. Ex. A man is allowed to use money at his disposal in any manner that he wishes as long as it is not for an evil purpose. If a man decided he had no right to use money which he found either (a) because he mistakenly thinks it is not at his disposal because it belongs to another, or (b) he was mistaken as to the moral principle, or (c) if he drew an incorrect inference, the man has a false conscience. (See also St. John 16: 2, "The hour cometh that whosoever kills you will think that he does a service to God"). 

• Good and bad conscience. When conscience is viewed as a guide to behavior from the point of view of the intellect, we call it true or false as above. When viewed from the point of view of the will, it is either good or bad. A person  has a good conscience if it proceeds from a well-meaning intention and a right disposition to one's end and duties; a bad conscience does not so proceed. Ex. If the man in the hypothetical above decided that money that he found was truly his and at his disposal because he wished to know the truth and investigated to the best of his ability, he has a good conscience. If he decided this without sufficient investigation (due diligence), and only because he was prejudiced in his own favor, he has a bad conscience. 

There are other divisions, but these two are most pertinent. 

The Authority of Conscience

 Conscience must be obeyed. You must do what it commands you to do and refrain from that which it forbids. It acts, in a sense, as "the Voice of God." "...all that is not from conscience is sin." (See Romans 14: 23). Furthermore, conscience obliges from the nature of things because apart from revelation, there is no other way of learning what God wishes one to do here and now. However, the authority of conscience is not unlimited. 

• Conscience is not independent of external law and authority. It is not autonomous morality for the individual. It does not function to establish law or pass judgement on it, but to apply the law as expounded by the Church to a present case. it must always strive to agree with and express the objective teaching of the Church. Hence, the heretic Martin Luther was not an example of following his conscience when he stated, "Here I am, I can do no other." He was told of the errors of his ways by a true pope and exalted his own law over God's Law. Luther is without excuse.

• Conscience is not independent of the righteousness of the will. The will must be disposed towards the true end of life--the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven.

• Conscience is not independent of the certainty of the intellect. Judgement must not be formed by sentiment, emotion, or one's own wishes, but by evidence and firm conviction that yields unhesitating assent. 

This was not intended to be an exhausted treatment on the subject of conscience, but merely to give a general overview. I have taken and condensed all the information above from theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, Volume 1, and theologian Jone, Moral Theology. 

False Ideas of Conscience and Vatican II

The heretical Vatican II "Pastoral Constitution On The Church In The Modern World"(Gaudium et Spes), states in para. # 16:

 "In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more that a correct conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality." 

Problems abound in this declaration. "...are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth." What "truth" is being invoked? Truth in matters of Faith and Morals. Wouldn't truth have to come from the infallible teaching of the Church? Replacing the sure possession of the truth established by the Magisterium, the Robber Council substitutes an "inquiry into the truth" as a general criterion of a general truth, which is something indeterminate. Hence, my former (thankfully defunct) "Catholic" high school, in imitation of Luther, would instruct you to "search for the truth," and tell you that it is permissible to follow your conscience even if it leads you to have sex outside of marriage or to murder your unborn child. Any "Catholic" who needs to "search for truth," has either lost their Faith or their marbles--probably both.

 Next, this "search for the truth" ought to be done in union "with the rest of men" and thus also (and above all) with non-Catholics, i.e.,  with those who deny all or almost all of the truths taught by the Church. How can this type of "search" arrive at positive results, in as much as it must also be applied to "moral problems" which are part of "numerous problems" as stated in the heretical text? Henceforth, members of the Vatican II sect ought to resolve these "moral problems" ecumenically through dialogue, and not by applying the principles transmitted by the True Church in matters of faith and morality. 

Finally, the conciliar text specifies that, when "correct conscience" leads them, humanity moves away from "blind choice." However,  in order to resist the "blind choice" of the passions and temptations, people must be aided by Grace. Vatican II never mentions God's indispensable Grace.  "Conformity" to "objective norms" of the moral law, placed in our hearts by God, now exclusively depends, for the Vatican II sect, on "correct" conscience, and therefore on the individual being plunged into his "search for the truth" along with everyone else. 

Conclusion

 A correct conscience, fully and properly informed by Church teaching, is the surest guide to help us get to Heaven. If you don't have one, you get the secular world's bastardized rule, "Let your conscience be your guide." These words were popularized by the Disney character Jiminy Cricket, a character from the movie Pinocchio, whose name is a minced oath/blasphemy  for the Most Holy Name of Our Lord and Savior, "Jesus Christ." (It was also used by Judy Garland in the occult-themed movie The Wizard of Oz, when she exclaims, "Jiminy Crickets!" upon being startled by the Wizard's lights and smoke charade). Always seek the guidance of the True Church, or a phony "conscience" will lead you to an all too real Hell. 

Gender-cide

To express that "the world is in a sad state of affairs," is to state the obvious. Society is breaking down distinctions between real marriage and "solemnized sodomy." Moreover, just two years ago, Facebook began allowing people to choose between fifty-eight (yes, 58) "gender options," including (but not limited to): genderqueer, genderfluid, neutrois, agender, and two-spirit. The world rebels against God's Law that he created humans male and female --Period. The world creates perverse distinctions in the name of the Masonic idea of "equality." Sins against nature are now both sanctioned and encouraged. In so doing, men and women, as well as true marriage, are all degraded.

 Likewise, in the supernatural order, God created men and women equal in importance, but different in their roles. The Vatican II sect destroyed that distinction in roles. While many in the sect still clamor for "women priests," most people don't realize that the roles already assigned to females in the sect prove that it cannot be the True Catholic Church. This evil inflicted will be the subject I will explore.

Altar (sic) Servers (sic)

 In the Vatican II sect there is no altar, just a Protestant table. The altar boys are now joined by girls known collectively by the gender neutral term "altar servers." In the Traditionalist Church, altar boys are literally the right arms of priests acting in the Person of Christ (in persona Christi)  in the symbolism of Our Lord as Bridegroom. The Church is divided by the altar rail, separating the sanctuary where Christ offers His sacrifice in an unbloody manner to His Heavenly Father, and the congregation which represents the Church Militant. The reason why females can’t serve at the altar as do boys is linked to the the reason why they can't be priests. Only males represent fathers, sons, kings, princes, lords, and bridegrooms. 

 Christ chose twelve all-male Apostles to be the first bishops of His Church. Nowhere in the Gospel do we find evidence of Jesus giving "orders" to women to baptize, to give the Last Rites, to offer Mass and confect the Holy Eucharist, or to forgive sins as He did to the Apostles. This was not due to "cultural bias" as some wrongly claim, because Christ was God and would not simply respect human customs if they were in conflict with His design. Even His enemies stated, "Teacher, we know you are a truthful man and teach God's way sincerely. You court no one's favor and do not act of human respect." (St. Matthew 22:16). The altar boys are connected in helping the priest in the sacrificial act, and must likewise be males. Women serving the altar is ultimately a sign of rebellion against the law of God.

In 1980, "St" John Paul the Great Apostate approved the declaration Inaestimabile Donum denying the women could be "altar girls" but claiming they could do other prohibited acts:

"18. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers." Just 14 years later, in 1994, the Vatican II sect Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments announced an "authentic interpretation" (confirmed by John Paul II ) from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. This "authentic interpretation" said that Canon 230 section 2 of the 1983 Code permits service at the altar by women, but the local bishop may decide whether to allow them in his diocese.

Women Speaking In Church and In Positions of Authority

The "priesthood of the faithful," that Protestant heresy imposed by the "conscious and active participation" enunciated in Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilium ("Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as 'a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people'(1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism." para #14) has given a Modernist interpretation to "active participation." True participation at Mass does not mean bantering back and forth around a table presided over by a "president of the assembly" (formerly "priest"). Nor does baptism make such impious activity some sort of "right." 

In the Novus Bogus, the "lector" (male or female) "proclaims the readings" (whatever that means).  

According to the National Pastoral Life Center (NPLC), today there are more lay ministers than priests (sic) working in Catholic (sic) parishes: that is, 31,000 lay ministers to 29,000 diocesan priests. It notes that this "revolution in ministry" has meant a "stronger lay, feminine dimension" in the Church. (See National Pastoral Life Center. Lay and Religious Parish Ministry: A Study Conducted for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1991). By the end of Wotyla's (JP II) false pontificate (2005), women were 21 % of Vatican personnel.

The Teaching of the True Church

• The Church is Infallible in Her universal Disciplinary Laws.  "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible." (See theologian  Herrmann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, ,1908,  1: 258). These liturgical aberrations involving women are universal insofar as they  involve a universal law, because a liturgical law that involves the whole Latin rite qualifies as such. However, the Church cannot infallibly allow that which was already solemnly CONDEMNED AS ERROR. 

• The Church cannot give incentives to impiety. The Council of Trent infallibly declared: "If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema " (D. 954). It is impious to have the laity, especially women, doing those functions reserved to the priest as an alter Christus ("another Christ").  Further, Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, para. # 9 (1832) stated: “Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

• Use of women in Church ceremonies is strictly condemned. 

1. Council of Laodica (4th century):   Canon 44: Women may not go to the altar. (This canon is found in all collections of canons in the Church both East and West.)
2. Pope Gelasius 494 A.D. "We have heard with sorrow of the great contempt with which the sacred mysteries have been treated. It has reached the point where women have been encouraged to serve at the altar, and to carry out roles that are not suited to their sex, having been assigned exclusively to those of masculine gender."
3. Encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV promulgated on July 26, 1755 Allatae Sunt: "Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: 'Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.' We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21."
4. 1917 Code of Canon Law. Canon 813, section 2: "The minister serving at mass should not be a woman unless, in absence of a man, for just cause, it is so arranged that the woman respond from afar and by no means approach the altar."
5. The Holy Bible: "Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith." (1 Cor. 14: 34). "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence." (1 Timothy 2: 12). 
6. 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia "Women ministering at the altar, even in a subordinate capacity, is likewise forbidden. A decree says: 'It is prohibited to any woman to presume to approach the altar or minister to the priest' (cap. Inhibendum, 1 de cohab.); for if a woman should keep silence in church, much more should she abstain from the ministry of the altar, conclude the canonists."

Summary and Conclusion

• The Church is infallible in her universal disciplinary laws. Such laws exclude women at the altar. 

• The Church has condemned women in sacred ceremonies at Church as "evil." They also are not to have authority over men.

• The Vatican II sect has officially approved "altar girls," female "lectors," "Eucharistic (sic) ministers," and women in positions of ecclesiastical authority over men.  They have given formerly sacred functions to laymen and laywomen in keeping with the heretical belief of "the priesthood of all believers." These men and women are de facto "priests."

• The Vatican II sect cannot, therefore, be the True Roman Catholic Church.

 In eliminating the distinction in the supernatural order between women and men, not only does the Vatican II sect trample on the Divine Law, they give an erroneous idea of what the role of men and women was designed to be by God. With a false idea of "being equal," men can "marry" men, women can "marry" women, and women can be "priests" in all but name (and that may change soon, too). One can almost hear the Masonic chant as we move closer to a One World Church: Equality, liberty, fraternity. 

It's Not A Joke

 "Have you been baptized in the Holy Spirit?" This is no longer a question asked only by Protestant Pentecostal ministers. You will hear it spoken by members of the Vatican II sect involved in the Catholic (sic) Charismatic Movement (hereinafter CCM). When Vatican II's "new springtime" of apostasy came in, so did every form of moral and doctrinal aberration.  This CCM is found in nearly every diocese of the Vatican II sect, including the Archdiocese of New York. According to "Fr" Harold Cohen, SJ of the Archdiocese Catholic (sic) Charismatic Renewal, " What can we expect when we are 'baptized with the Holy Spirit'? We can expect an immediate or gradual experience of deeper union with God, our loving Father and with Jesus, our Lord and Friend; a fresh appreciation of Scripture; a greater love for others and a desire for Christian fellowship; the fuller presence in our lives of the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience and
more (see Galatians 5:22-23); the receptions of one or more of the Charismatic gifts of the Spirit such as discernment, service, prophecy, praying in tongues, healing (see 1 Corinthians 12-14). This gift of a new fullness of the Holy Spirit is, I believe, the grace of our age. "Ask and it will be given to you!" (See http://www.catholiccharismaticny.org/baptism-in-holy-spirit).

 What is this "eighth sacrament" being peddled by the CCM? Can the people who receive it pray in tongues, heal themselves and others; even become prophets? The origins and evils of the CCM will be exposed in this post.

Heretical Origins

The CCM can trace its origin to the Pentecostal sect of the 19th century. According to William Whalen's book, Minority Religions in America, "The reappearance of glossolaly (speaking in tongues) was reported in 1901. Charles F. Parham, a Holiness preacher, was dismayed by the aridity of his own spiritual life. He rented a white elephant mansion in Topeka, Kansas, and started a Bible school with about 40 students. Together they set out on an intensive study of scriptures and came to the conclusion that speaking in tongues was the one sign that a Christian had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. At 7 p.m., on New Year’s Eve in 1900, one of the students, Miss Agnes N. Ozmen, startled the assembled group when she began to pray in tongues. Within a few days, many more followed suit. Parham spent the next five years as an itinerant preacher before opening another Bible school, this time in Houston. One of his students, a negro minister named W.J. Seymore, carried the 'full-gospel' message to Los Angeles. A three-year-long revival in that California city attracted people from all over the country, and these people planted Pentecostalism in most of the major cities in the US, as well as in many European nations. The old Holiness churches refused to give emphasis to tongue-speaking, but dozens of independent Pentecostal Churches were soon organized." (Staten Island: Alba House, 1971, pg. 179). 

In 1967, during the nascent Vatican II sect turmoil of ecumenical frenzy and near universal apostasy, students at Pittsburgh’s Duquesne University began exposing themselves to Pentecostal influences because of "spiritual aridity." They were envious of the "changed lives" among many Protestant friends and decided to pray for similar "graces." A weekend "retreat"gave them what they wanted. Various people approached Protestant ministers, laity, and prayer groups. All received "Baptism in the Spirit" after having heretical hands laid on them in prayer.

The importance of this action cannot be overestimated. These former Catholics of the new Vatican II sect submitted themselves to a non-Catholic pseudo-sacramental rite (a mockery of Confirmation) and the emotional thrill brought about by this sin convinced them of the holiness of the entire experience. They came away as "Catholic" Charismatics, and their influence spread quickly throughout the Vatican II sect. The CCM fits in perfectly with the ecumenism of Vatican II. If these "gifts" of the Holy Ghost (allegedly speaking in tongues, "healings," etc.) are true in the "Catholic" Church and they also happen in various Protestant denominations, then it stands to reason that there are "elements of truth and sanctification" outside the True Church by which people can achieve holiness and salvation. (Sound familiar?).

Do Supernatural Gifts Still Happen Today?

 The CCM denigrates the sacramental system of the Church. A sacrament is a "visible sign of an invisible grace instituted by the historical Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of the human race, although every sacrament is not necessary for each member of the Church." They would have these sacramental gifts replaced by speaking in tongues, prophesy, and other such visible manifestations. Some, imitating certain Protestant sects, roll around on the floor and then handle poisonous snakes to show "God's protection." It is a fact, recorded in the Bible, that the Apostles and some early Christians did indeed speak in tongues and heal people. So why did it stop? 

The charismata or "special gifts" of the Holy Ghost such as prophecies, healings, miracles, etc., were given to prove the claims of the Church and to foster conversions. With the achievement of the Church’s moral universality, the need for such phenomena ceased because of the presence in the Church of people of every nationality and because of the Church’s proven record as the One True Religion. Likewise, speaking in tongues was given so that all could hear and understand the preaching of the Gospel. None of these gifts were given for the personal sanctification of the individuals who received them. St. Augustine, Tract. xxxii, states, "Whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks in the languages of all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost."

Some saints were given miraculous gifts, but the CCM would have the extraordinary become the norm. Likewise, these alleged gifts are now offered as "proof" of being in God's favor, yet the Council of Trent infallibly declared, "For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God." (See Decree on Justification). 

Errors Abound

The CCM promotes false teachings not only on grace and the continued necessity of charismata, but they foster other serious errors as well. Chief among them:

• Anti-clericalism. The role of the hierarchy is downplayed. They are seen as "one of the guys." being able to roll on the ground "speaking in tongues" is more important than the ability to offer the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

• Denial of the necessity of the Magisterium. You will hear CCM members say that "God has put it on my heart that I should..." Or, "God told me..." If you have direct contact with God, why do we need the Church and Her hierarchy as intermediaries between God and people? If the Church teaches one thing, but God has supposedly told you something different, guess which one will be obeyed. 

• De Facto denial of the Church's Indefectibility. By wanting to return to the ways of the early Church, CCM claims that an integral part of the Church (charismata) was absent for centuries. This is impossible if the Church is Indefectible. Remember the condemnation of Pope Pius XII regarding those who wish to return to early Church practices, thereby suggesting the Church was not led towards the Truth but away from it. "The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of a table, to want black eliminated from the liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer." (See Encyclical Mediator Dei; Emphasis mine). 

Unholy Gifts

Those who seek after such false gifts open themselves up to dire consequences:

1. Risk of Self-Deception: "And I greatly fear what is happening in these times of ours: If any soul whatever after a bit of meditation has in its recollection one of these locutions, it will immediately baptize all as coming from God and with such a supposition say, 'God told me,' 'God answered me.'  Yet this is not so, but, as we pointed out, these persons themselves are more often the origin of their locution."  (See St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 29) 

2. Possession by demons: "Through the desire of accepting them one opens the door to the devil.  The devil can then deceive one by other communications expertly feigned and disguised as genuine.  In the words of the Apostle, he can transform himself into an 'angel of light' (II Cor. XI:14). (...)  Regardless of the cause of these apprehensions, it is always good for a man to reject them with closed eyes.  If he fails to do so, he will make room for those having a diabolical origin and empower the devil to impose his communications.  Not only this, but the diabolical representations will multiply while those from God will gradually cease, so that eventually all will come from the devil and none at all from God.  This has occurred with many incautious and uninstructed people."  (See St. John of the Cross: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. Book II Ch. 11)

Becoming More Bizarre

 A new "charismata" known as "Holy Laughter" is also present at many CCM meetings. The person who is most responsible for this phenomenon is Rodney Howard-Browne, a South African Protestant evangelist who was born in 1961. It has been picked up by many in the movement. Rodney Howard-Browne reported: "One night I was preaching on Hell, and laughter just hit the whole place. The more I told the people what Hell was like, the more they laughed." "The Holy Ghost...might have you do something that no one's ever done before, and he might have you do something that's totally unique. But don't question, and don't argue, and don't ask, and don't try to devise and to plan it out but just follow the prompting of the leading of the Spirit of God and, oh, great and wonderful things shall be done, for God will move in diverse ways and with diverse anointing in these last days." Laughing about Hell? How does any of this help anyone?

When they are "slain in the Spirit," phenomena reported with "Holy Laughter include: shaking, jerking, loss of bodily strength, heavy breathing, eyes fluttering, lips trembling, oil on the body, changes in skin color, weeping, laughing, appearing drunk, staggering, dancing, falling, claiming visions, "hearing audibly into the spirit realm", inspired utterances--i.e.so-called prophecy, speaking in tongues, violent rolling, screaming, nausea as discernment of evil, smelling or tasting good or evil presences, tingling, pain in body as discernment of illness, feeling heavy weight or lightness, trances--altered physical state while seeing and hearing into the "spiritual world," inability to speak normally, removing some clothing, pawing people and roaring like a lion, walking like a chicken, howling like a wolf, digging the ground with hoofs like a bull while "prophesying," among others. 

This totally insane behavior can only be the result of (a) mental instability/mass hysteria, or (b) demonic influence. St. Thomas Aquinas states that (1) prophesy can come from demons (they can guess at what the future holds given their superior intellect and knowing those who will do their work--they do not know the future as God does but can predict much with an uncanny accuracy); (2) prophets of demons can (in that sense) foretell the truth, and (3) the wicked can work wonders that appear to be miracles.

Conclusion

The CCM is totally heretical, and leads people to Hell. Remember the sobering words of Our Lord, "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) the elect."(St. Matthew 24:24); and again, "Not everyone that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in Thy Name, and cast out devils in Thy Name, and done many miracles in Thy Name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity." (St. Matthew 7:21-23). The people involved with the CCM will soon learn (perhaps too late) that this is no laughing matter. 

The Slippery Slope

 Pop quiz: Who said the following, "Birth control, as popularly understood today and involving the use of contraceptives, is one of the most repugnant of modern aberrations, representing a 20th century renewal of pagan bankruptcy." Was it (a) Cardinal Ottavianni (b) "Pope" Paul VI (c) Pope Pius XII or (d) none of the above? If you picked (d), you're correct; it was spoken by Dr. Walter A. Maier, a Lutheran minister and theology professor at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Louis, in circa 1939. Most people are unaware of two facts: (1) No sect calling itself "Christian" (i.e., all Protestant and Eastern sects) ever accepted birth control as morally permissible prior to 1930, and (2) the anti-contraceptive laws passed in the 19th century in America were written and supported by an overwhelming Protestant majority in power for a majority Protestant country. So much for contraception being a "Catholic" issue.

 The Revolt Against God as Author of Life

 In 1930, the Anglican sect became the first denomination to allow for artificial contraception. Just ten years earlier, the Anglicans had issued Resolution 28 of the 1920 Lambeth Conference, in which they had stated, "We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of contraception..." Having been increasingly exposed to the errors of nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the 1930 Lambeth Conference broke the moral unanimity existing between Protestant sects and the True Church when they passed resoultion #15, which reads as follows:

"Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience." Voting: For 193; Against 67. 

This is a good example of a "hard case making a bad law." What are these "Christian principles" that justify "avoiding complete abstinence" which were never espoused from 33 AD until 1930? It was the idea of "the totality of the circumstances" which came to be known as "The Fundamental Option Theory" in ethics. This was peddled by arch-heretic Karl Rahner, who taught that one's "fundamental option" was either for or against God. People who are "for God" can commit specific acts that run contrary to that option (sin), but they do not necessarily change the person's fundamental option. What it did was (a) eliminate the seriousness of moral actions, and (b) effectively destroy the  truths of mortal and venial sin. One single act of a serious matter, done with full knowledge of its wrongfulness and consented to by the person, constitutes a mortal sin that (if unrepentant) will send him to Hell. This is mortal sin and it robs the soul of sanctifying grace. This truth of the Faith is denied by the Fundamental Option heresy. Even John Paul the Great Apostate condemned it (sort of) in Veritatis Splendor. 

When Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII) set up a commission to "study the question of artificial contraception" the heretic gave the world the wrong idea that the condemnation of contraception was a matter which was open to change. The majority report of the commission in 1967 said contraception could be used "if the marriage was open to procreation in its totality." Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) sided against the majority due to the efforts of Cardinal Ottaviani who convinced him he would lose all moral authority if he were to allow contraception. (I wish Montini had allowed it, as it might have exposed him as the fraud and heretic he was--Ottaviani thought he was doing the world a favor at the time). The minority report rightly concluded that if "general openness to conception" is enough to justify contraception, no single act of sodomy, or mutual masturbation could be considered mortally sinful either.

In 1958, the Anglicans broadened their allowance of contraception, and in 1961, The National Council of Churches adopted the use of artificial birth control. The floodgates were open.

From Contraception to Abortion

Contraception leads to abortion in three ways: (1) certain methods kill the unborn child after fertilization, (2) abortion will be the "back-up plan" when contraception fails, and (3) it de-humanizes life by excluding God as the Author of Life. 

1. Methods that kill the unborn.

 Both the IUD and the "Pill" (to give but two examples) prevent a zygote (unborn baby at its earliest stage) from implanting in the uterus. These are "silent abortions" as life begins at conception. 

2. A Murderous Back Up

When a couple is not open all the time to conception, and birth control fails, abortion becomes the logical (and murderous) consideration. 

3. God is excluded 

Humans, not God, decide when (and if ) life is created. God is banned from the public square. To justify the abortion option, the unborn child must be de-humanized. If the unborn child is not outside the womb, it is considered "part of the woman's body" and her alleged "right to choose."

From Abortion to Euthanasia

 Euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing") can be defined as "the (alleged) painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable or painful disease, or in an irreversible coma." Notice that life is not sacred and suffering has no value. All hope of a comatose patient waking up or a disease being cured (even miraculously) is jettisoned, even though there are such cases. Euthanasia may be either (a) active, when the patient is given something to make them die, or (b) passive, when life support (or in some cases basic needs like food and hydration) are withdrawn. 

The connection between abortion and euthanasia was well made by prolife365.com:

"Ask yourself, why does euthanasia bother our consciences?

After all, we have already codified into law that a mother may see to it her own child be murdered (through abortion). Thus, we have accepted the legal and immoral precedent that someone may murder someone else.

Given that our culture has accepted this immoral premise, it has no legal, moral or other argument against euthanasia.

Where the unborn child represents a threat to the mother’s socioeconomic well-being, the terminally-ill patient serves as a drain on finances. Where the unborn child’s right to life is usurped by those older than her, the terminally-ill patient’s right to life is surpassed by those more physically healthy.

Where the unborn is killed for eugenics motivations from having Down Syndrome or other abnormalities, the terminally-ill patient has the plug pulled for becoming a physically- or mentally-unfit inconvenience, as well."

 And what about the elderly? When does the so-called "right to die" become a "duty to die" that may one day be imposed on the elderly and "unfit"? It may affect you or someone you love sooner than you think. Remember in the not too distant past, what was considered repugnant may become the "new normal":

"Not surprisingly, given his core belief in the notion of the ‘survival of the fittest’, Hitler embraced the ideas of ‘conventional’ eugenics, but wanted to take them to an extreme level.  In a propaganda film like ‘Opfer der Vergangenheit’ (Victims of the Past), shown in 1937, the Nazi vision was made clear. Patients in mental asylums were revealed as suffering in their own minds, whilst the commentary made clear the cost to the state of keeping these people in care. The implication was obvious – if these people did not exist then the Nazi state would be much better off.  

The route by which this ideological notion – that it would be better to remove the seriously disabled  – became a practical reality reveals a great deal about how policy could be made in the Nazi state. Sometime early in 1939 the father of a severely disabled child wrote a petition to Hitler asking that his son should be killed – a so called ‘mercy’ killing. The petition landed in the Fuehrer’s Chancellery, controlled by an ambitious Nazi called Philipp Bouhler and staffed by his no less ambitious underlings. The petition was chosen from thousands of others to be seen personally by Hitler. When he saw it he ordered Dr Brandt to consult with the child’s doctors and then, subsequently, the child was killed. Hitler then authorized other children to be dealt with the same way. Eventually, around 8,000 children were killed, mostly by poisonous injections." (See http://ww2history.com/key_moments/Holocaust/Hitler_authorizes_killing_of_disabled)

 All this is possible when humans usurped the right of God alone over human life. Through contraception, and the rejection of Traditionalist Catholic teaching, we move to abortion, then to euthanasia. As Dostoyevsky famously wrote, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted!"