Missing Books

 The Protestant heretics believe in what they call "sola scriptura," or the Bible alone as the "sole rule of Faith." However, their "rule of faith" is incomplete as it lacks seven inspired books. The Traditionalist Catholic Bible (the true version) has 27 New Testament books and 46 books in the Old Testament, for a total of 73 books in the Bible. Protestants have only 39 books in the Old Testament for a total of 66 books which comprise their Bible. The Holy and Ecumenical Council of Trent infallibly determined the Canon of Sacred Scripture (i.e., the precise books in the Bible). In regard to the sacred and inspired books of the Old Testament, Trent decreed:

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second.

The seven books which are missing in Protestant Bibles are called the Deuterocanon, or "second canon" since the sixteenth century Protestant revolt. They are the books of Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. The "second canon" are all the other books. The Protestants refer to the Deuterocanon as the Apocrapha, a term used to indicate non-inspired books that are closely related to Scripture, but are not part of it.

In this post, the inspiration and importance of the Deuterocanon will be explained and defended.

The Controversy

 The Deuterocanon (hereinafter "DC") was accepted by the earliest extant complete copies of the Bible; the Great Codices. The Jews at the time of Christ, and the Church Fathers (with a few notable exceptions) accepted the DC as canonical. (See e.g.,theologian Breen, A General Introduction to the Study of Sacred Scripture, [1909]).  The first Father to call into question the inspiration of the DC was St. Jerome, whose Vulgate became the definitive Catholic Bible. His opinion on everything biblical was echoed by medieval  theologians; hence why more than a few rejected the DC. However, several North African councils condemned his idea that those seven books were not divinely inspired when he first announced it. Remember, the Canon of Scripture would not be defined until Trent. 

The issue soon died down, with the DC left in Scripture. In 1519, heretic Martin Luther debated theologian Johann Eck on the doctrine of Purgatory. Eck cited a number of passages in support of the teaching, most notably, 2 Maccabees 12: 45-46, which reads "And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." This is a clear and direct reference to Purgatory. Luther responded that the books of Maccabees were part of the DC and not inspired. Eck countered with references to St. Augustine and the Church local councils who accepted the DC. Luther stated the position of St. Jerome, and ever since, Protestants have made sure to keep the DC out of their bibles. If Purgatory is admitted, other Protestant heresies on grace, justification, sin, and Penance would likewise fall.  

Four Lines of Argumentation That Prove the Inspiration of the DC

1. The DC is quoted as Scripture in the New Testament

 One of the biggest lies leveled against the DC by Protestants is that the New Testament never references the DC. Not only is this false, but the earliest Protestant Bibles written in English show that they themselves did not hold to such an erroneous view. Many of the earliest Protestant Bibles contained cross-references, in the notes to the New Testament, to the DC ( to give but two examples, Matthews Bible [1537] and the King James Bible [1611]). When the redacting of the DC began in earnest, the cross-references in the notes were removed as well. This is where the false notion of a "New Testament free of DC references" took root.

Let me begin by saying that just because a book of the Old Testament is cited in the New Testament is not proof of divine inspiration, and its absence of citation in the New Testament is not proof it is merely a human work. If that were true, the Book of Esther, which is not referenced in the New Testament, would not be considered part of the Canon of Scripture despite its universal acceptance as such. That is patently absurd. However, if the Old Testament book is used authoritatively by the Jewish religious leaders, that would show it is not considered a mere human writing. 

St. Matthew 27:43 states, "He trusted in God; let him now deliver him if he will have him; for he said: I am the Son of God." This was the taunt of the Jewish leaders while Our Lord was dying on the cross. Protestant Bibles cross-reference Psalm 22:8, "He hoped in the Lord, let Him deliver him: let Him save him, seeing He delighteth in him." This does not do the passage in St. Matthew's Gospel justice.  The Jews thought that God should deliver Christ not simply because He trusted in God, but more to the point, He claimed to be the Son of God. The early Protestant Bibles correctly referenced the DC Book of Wisdom 2:18, "For if he be the true son of God, He will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies." Clearly, the Jews accepted Wisdom as inspired because they expected Christ to be the recipient of God's deliverence if He were the Son of God as He claimed. There are other examples but time limitations (and trying to keep my posts somewhat terse) will restrict me to this solitary instance. 

2.  The Jews at the time of the Early Church accepted the DC

 Most modern Scripture scholars (no friends of Traditionalist Catholics) will admit that most Jews of the first four centuries after Christ continued to copy the DC in their Scripture, even after most Jews came to repudiate them (for many reasons that I will not expound upon). This would show that the Jews did originally accept them. Analogous to this is the copying and retention of the DC by the early Protestants who nevertheless denied their inspiration and derided them as the Apocrapha. The reason for this can be found in heretic Ulrich Zwingli's Preface to the Zurich Bible (1531). He wrote that the DC was retained "so that no one may complain of lacking anything, and each may find what is to his taste." (See Neusner The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA [2011], pg.91). 

3. The use of the DC in Churches established by the Apostles

The North African bishop councils, following St. Augustine, affirmed that the the DC was read as Sacred Scripture in churches that had been established by the Apostles themselves (See St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 2:12) Pope St. Innocent I, in his letter Consulenti tibi (2/20/405 A.D.), addressed to the bishop of Toulouse reaffirmed using the Canon as given at Hippo and defended by St. Augustine.

4. St. Jerome was proven wrong

St. Jerome based his rejection of the DC on his belief that only those books should be accepted as authentic parts of the Old Testament if they conformed to the Hebrew Masoretic Text ("HMT"). The HMT was the single normative text for Judaism by the fourth century A.D. So when the great saint was commissioned by Pope St. Damascus I to make a definitive Latin Bible, the HMT is what guided him, because all other Hebrew manuscripts in circulation had been lost. St. Jerome though that the HMT was a direct descendant of the inspired original writing. This all changed with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1946-1956), and showed that the Hebrew Masoretic Text was not a direct descendant of the inspired original as St. Jerome erroneously believed. These manuscripts show earlier Jewish texts accepting the DC, and give secular proof to the veracity of the Council of Trent.

Conclusion

 The term "heretic" literally means "to choose" what you will believe. The DC is a perfect example of picking and choosing beliefs. When Luther was confronted with evidence that Scripture confirmed Purgatory, he removed the DC from the Bible so he could keep the beliefs he invented as he saw fit. There are those, even today, who hide their heads in the sand from the evidence, and choose to follow Bergoglio as "pope" even as he "celebrates" Martin Luther and the 500th anniversary of his rejection of the One True Church and the complete Bible. 

Mormons, Masons And Moslems

 Judge Roy Moore is running for the United States Senate in Alabama. He was elected to the highest court in the state twice, and was removed from office both times for standing up for his beliefs. Moore, a Protestant, first refused to remove a monument in honor of the Ten Commandments from the courthouse in violation of a federal court order. He was removed from office, only to be reelected by the people of Alabama. He then refused to allow marriage licenses to be issued to sodomites, in violation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. He resigned after being suspended and announced he was running for Senator. Before the allegations of sexual impropriety with a minor (coming in with the timing and credibility of Anita Hill), one of Moore's most controversial statements was that Moslems should not hold public office. According to Worldnetdaily, he stated, "...common sense alone dictates that in the midst of a war with Islamic terrorists we should not place someone in a position of great power who shares their doctrine."

When Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota (b. 1963) was elected as the first Islamic member of Congress in 2006, he insisted on taking the oath of office on the Koran (Ellison was a member of the Vatican II sect and graduated from a Jesuit school before converting to Islam--way to go Vatican II). Roy Moore protested by saying, "In 1943, we would never have allowed a member of Congress to take their oath on Mein Kampf, or someone in the 1950s to swear allegiance on the Communist Manifesto,.." You'll get no argument from me on that score.

Moore's biggest detractor, on the Republican side of the aisle, is U.S. Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona.  According to The Hill, Flake refused to endorse Moore from the start because, "A guy who says that a Muslim member of Congress shouldn’t be able to serve, that’s not right." (See http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/357332-flake-says-he-won%27t-back-roy-moore). It's not surprising at all that Flake, a Mormon, would make such a statement. To be certain, every country should be a Catholic country, with Catholicism as the state religion. "Error has no rights." The United States Constitution is a Masonic document, and no one would want the Masonic principle of separation of Church and State more strongly enforced than a Mormon.  Most people think of Mormons as nice people from Utah with strange beliefs, especially regarding polygamy. Few people know that Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, was a Freemason, who incorporated the Craft's Satanic beliefs into his new sect.

 What is the Mormon-Masonic connection? Is it dangerous? These questions will be explored in this post.

The Strange Beliefs of Joseph Smith and His Mormon Sect

Mormonism was founded in New York State, the United States of America, on April 6, 1830 by one Joseph Smith (b. 1805). Smith claimed an angel named Maroni directed him to a buried book of golden plates inscribed with a Judeo-Christian history of an ancient American civilization. Only Smith with the help of two "seer stones" could translate it from the "reformed Egyptian" language in which it was written. (Scholars unanimously agree that there is no such language, or even any evidence of any derivation of Egyptian which would qualify). No one except Smith and possibly his brother Hyram allegedly saw these golden plates which were "returned" to Maroni after he translated them into the Book of Mormon. 

Mormon beliefs are many and bizarre. Mormons teach that God used to be a man on another world, and that he became a "god" by following the laws and ordinances of his god on his home-world.  He brought his wife to this world, a woman he had married on the other world (a "goddess").  In Mormonism, men and women have the potential of becoming gods. A saying of Mormonism is, "As god once was, man is. As God is, man may become."  

According to "Mormonism In A Nutshell":

Since god and his wife are both exalted persons, they each possess physical bodies.  In their exalted states as deities, they produce spirit children that grow and mature in the spiritual realm.  The first spirit born was Jesus.  Afterwards, Lucifer was born along with the rest of us.  So, Mormonism teaches that we all pre-existed in the spirit realm - having been produced from the union of god and his goddess wife.  Therefore, we all existed in spirit form before coming down and entering the bodies of human babies that are being born on earth.  During this ‘compression' into the infant state, the memories of our pre-existence is 'veiled.'

God the father, who is called Elohim, was concerned for the future salvation of the people on earth. In the heavenly realm, the Father had a plan for the salvation of the world.  Jesus endorsed the Father's plan.  Lucifer did not.  Lucifer became jealous and rebelled.  In his rebellion, he convinced a large portion of the spirits existing in heaven to side with him and oppose god.  God, being more powerful than they, cursed these rebellious spirits to become demons.  They can never be born in human bodies. Those who refused to take sides were cursed with being born having black skin. (This racist tenet was only officially changed in 2013). The president of the sect is considered to be a living prophet, and whatever he says is a new revelation from God.

In the Mormon plan of salvation there needed to be a savior: Jesus.  But Jesus was a spirit in Heaven.  For him to be born on earth, Brigham Young, the second prophet of the Mormon church, said that instead of letting any other man do it, God the Father did it with Mary.  He said that the birth of our savior was as natural as the birth of our parents.  Essentially, what this means is that Brigham Young taught that God the Father came down and had relations with Mary, his spirit daughter, to produce the body of Jesus.  Though many Mormons will not entertain such incestuous, blasphemous thoughts about God and Mary, this is what Brigham Young (the leader of the sect after Joseph Smith died) taught; and as far as is known, this has not been denied by the Mormon church.

Nevertheless, Jesus was born, got married, and had children.In order to reach this exalted state of godhood, a person must first become a good Mormon, pay a full ten percent tithe to the Mormon church, follow various laws and ordinances of the church, and be found worthy.  At this point, they receive a temple recommend, whereupon the Mormon is allowed to enter the sacred temples in order to go through a set of secret rituals: baptism for the dead, celestial marriage, and various oaths of secrecy and commitment. This was all taken from Freemasonry.

Smith was a Mason

 Joseph Smith admitted to being a Mason in his History of the Church, volume 4, page 551. Under the date of March 15, 1842 it reads: "In the evening I received the first degree in Free Masonry in the Nauvoo Lodge, assembled in my general business office." The record for the next day reads, "I was with the Masonic Lodge and rose to the sublime degree" (page 552). 

The Mormon houses of worship are known as temples, just as Masons call their dens of evil. Mormon ceremonies and secret handshakes are taken from the evil Craft. Smith was involved in many occult practices, including "money digging." This involved special rituals and ceremonies which were performed for the purpose of obtaining buried treasure thought to be guarded by evil spirits. The "seer stones" he used to "translate" the alleged golden plates, were claimed to have supernatural powers. Maroni, the alleged angel, was actually the name of a dead pagan Indian warrior. 

According to one source, "During this period from 1827 to 1830, Joseph Smith abandoned the company of his former money-digging associates, but continued to use for religious purposes the brown seer stone he had previously employed in the treasure quest. His most intensive and productive use of the seer stone was in the translation of the Book of Mormon. But he also dictated several revelations to his associates through the stone." (See Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, D. Michael Quinn, Signature Books, SLC, [1987], p. 143).

Joseph Smith was one of the biggest frauds and deceivers in history. He made up a religion from Masonry and added other occult practices. He wanted to make himself rich and powerful by adding a "new arm" to the Masonic temple. He considered the U.S. Constitution to be "divinely inspired" just like the Bible, and taught that when God established His Kingdom, it would be multi-denominational and democratic.

Conclusion

Mormonism is really just an offshoot of Masonry, and works towards a one-world religion, in a one-world government. Sound familiar? According to Mormon authority W. John Walsh, "...we do not believe that you must be a member of our Church to go to Heaven.  However, we believe that all men are rewarded in heaven based on their works and the type of lives that they lived in mortality.  There are certain blessings in Heaven which are only available to Latter-day Saints who have been true and faithful to the sacred covenants that they have made with God." You don't receive "godhood" but everyone is saved and is happy. Walsh even states, "Those sent to Hell are released into Heaven as soon as they repent and are cleansed from their sins." So you can do what you want, suffer for a time, and then be happy forever. 

 Is it any wonder that Jeff Flake, a Mormon, is aghast when he hears someone claim that there are absolute standards of right and wrong and not all religions are true and lead to Heaven? Roy Moore is a heretic, and I pray for his conversion. He does, however, believe in absolute truth, and realize the danger that idolatrous sects like Islam pose to the world. Not so with Jeff Flake, the Mormon. This is why Mormons, like their Masonic and Modernist brethren, pose a real threat to the world.  

Distorting Sedevacantism

 The arguments against sedevacantism have grown increasingly weaker over the years. Having been a Traditionalist for 36 years, I've seen the arguments come tumbling down as more and more evidence proves that the See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII. The apologists for the Vatican II sect have increasingly had to resort to "straw man arguments," i.e., "when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished. By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that the real man (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well." (See Hurley, Patrick J. "Informal Fallacies." A Concise Introduction to Logic. 9th ed. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, [2006], pg. 121).

 One of my readers sent me a link to an article entitled, "The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism." (See http://www.saintdominicsmedia.com/against-sedevacantism/).

It is a masterpiece of sophistry. The author, Mr. David L. Gray, has done the only thing left for Vatican II sect apologists to do, especially in the era of Bergoglio: (1) misrepresent our positions, (2) attack and tear down the position/argument they fabricated, and then (3) claim sedevacantism to be proven false.  It's harder and harder for me not to ascribe bad motives to these apologists. In the 1980s, when all this information (and its accessibility)was not available, I could understand how someone might construct poorly sourced and badly conceived arguments in favor of the Vatican II "popes" and then propagate them.  In 2017, the same cannot be said, and in the case of Robert Siscoe and John Salza, they are definitely not in good faith given their education and purposeful deceit in arguing.

I've decided to expose this particular article to (a) show just how much our enemies must misrepresent Traditionalism, and (b) possibly prevent someone doubting the Vatican II sect from staying there due to such false attacks on the True Faith. I would also like to call my readers' attention to the fact that Mr. Gray is what passes as a "theologian" in the Vatican II sect. According to the St. Dominic's media website:  Mr. David L. Gray is an American Catholic Theologian and a Historian on Black Fraternal History. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BS) from Central State University (Ohio) and a Masters of Arts in Catholic Theology (M.A.T.) from Ohio Dominican University. David is a convert to Catholicism by the way of Agnosticism and Protestantism. He currently resides in Columbus, Ohio with his wife and daughters, and is the President and Publisher of Saint Dominic's Media Inc. To learn more about Mr. Gray visit davidlgray.info

The "Four Fatal Errors" Exposed

 1. Disordered Mass Nostalgia. 

Mr. Gray (correctly) contends that sedevacantists hold the New "Mass" ("Novus Bogus" as I like to call it) to be evil and harmful. However, what he says next is incredulous:

Essentially, what Sedevacantists are arguing is that the Mass is evil because it’s not how it use to be. It’s really quite a sophistic and myopic argument once you follow the logic through to is reasonable conclusion. Their argument begs the question whether the Mass prior to the Tridentine Mass was also evil and harmful. Being that the Mass of Saint Paul that we find in 1 Corinthians 10 also lacked the form of the Tridentine Mass, what it also evil and harmful? That Mass, which seems to be very similar to what Justin Martyr (100-165) described in his Apology, seems to have been a simple blessing/consecration of the species; perhaps using same formula of words that the priest uses today from Luke 22:17-20.

I don't know of any sedevacantist (clergy or layman) who holds this preposterous view. The argument that the "Mass is evil because it's not how it used to be" is sophistic and myopic. Luckily, sedevacantists don't advance any such argument; it was manufactured by Mr. Gray. Notice that he doesn't cite to any sedevacantist claiming that the Mass cannot deviate from its structure imposed by Pope St. Pius V without being evil and harmful. The pre-Vatican II Eastern Rite Liturgies were very different from the Roman Rite, but every bit as Catholic. We reject the Novus Bogus for the evil and harmful elements introduced into it. Had "theologian" Gray read the rejection of the New "mass" authored by Cardinal Ottaviani and a group of (real) theologians (in 1969), now famously referred to as The Ottaviani Intervention, he would have discovered the following about the "new mass (sic):" 

• A new definition of the Mass as an "assembly" rather than as a sacrifice offered to God

• Omissions of elements emphasizing the Catholic teaching (utterly repudiated by Protestants) that the Mass makes satisfaction for sins

• The reduction of the priest's role to a position approximating that of a Protestant minister

•  Implicit denials of Christ's Real Presence and the doctrine of Transubstantiation

• The change of the Consecration from a sacramental action into a mere re-telling of the story of the Last Supper

• The fragmenting of the Church's unity of belief through the introduction of countless options [in prayers and rubrics--Introibo]

• Ambiguous language and equivocation throughout the rite which compromise the Church's doctrines

(See The Ottaviani Intervention, Philothea Press, [2010], pgs. 11-12).

Mr. Gray responds to the Sedevacantist objection regarding the change in the Words of Consecration over the wine from "for many" to "for all" and back to "for many" in 2011 as follows:

  Although this issue would now seem to be resolved with the updated English language version of the Novus Ordo liturgy in 2011, in pressing the issue here, Sedevacantists would argue, using quotes from Pope Leo XII, Pope Eugene IV, Pope Saint Pius V., and the Council of Trent about what form of words must to be used to validly consecrate the Holy Eucharist. They argue that originally changing the form to “for all” changed the audience of the sacrifice, which changed the meaning of it, thereby, invalidating the sacrifice. While their issue would seem to have been corrected now, and was NEVER an issue outside of the English language versions of the Novus Ordo Mass, this doesn’t resolve their claim that only a false council could produce an invalid consecration formula. Of course the counter-argument to their time machine case is that the bad English language translation never intended to say something that was not union with the Universal Church or something other than what had been said in Latin prior to the Novus Ordo. Nor could they prove that Jesus stopped coming to the English language Novus Ordo Mass for 45 years as the Holy Eucharist, while that bad translation was in place.

Where to begin? First, since all the sacraments have been invalidated in the Vatican II sect except (some) baptisms and (some) marriages, there are very few valid priests left, so it doesn't matter what words a layman recites; they're all invalid. Second, it's just plain false that the translation of the Consecration was never an issue outside English speaking countries. Italy (to give but one example) also changed the words to "per tutti" (for all). Third, pre-Vatican II treaties on invalidating defects that occur in the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist, insist that the Words of Consecration must not be recited as part of an historical narrative. This is exactly how it is now done in the Novus Bogus "Institution Narrative" of the "Eucharistic Prayer." 

According to theologian/rubrician O'Connell: "Defects in the Form of the Sacrament...Any change in the form, by omission, addition or interpolation which would alter the meaning would make the consecration invalid...The Words of Consecration have to be said not merely as an historical narrative of words once used by Our Lord---as the Celebrant recites them, e.g., in the accounts  of the Last Supper which are read in the Mass during Holy Week.....but in a present affirmation, speaking in the person of Christ, and intending to effect something here and now, by pronouncing these words."
(See J. O'Connell, The Celebration of Mass: A Study of the Rubrics of the Roman Missal   [Milwaukee:Bruce Publishers], 1941), pgs. 225-226)

Mr. Gray's objection might work against the "recognize and resistors" of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), who recognize Bergoglio as pope and his sacraments as valid. You could try and paint their Mass as nostalgia, because if a true pope promulgates a valid mass, all you have is a matter of preference, or you're claiming that a true pope can give a valid yet evil Mass (which is impossible due to the Indefectibility of the Church). However, his argument has no applicability to sedevacantists whatsoever.

 2.  Repetition of the Protestant Error

Here, Gray means the Protestant error of a non-visible Church. His objection is brief (and citation free!):

It appears to non-Sedevacantists that this teaching of theirs is essentially arguing that Jesus lied; that the Gates of Hell (Cf. Matthew 16:18) actually did prevail against the Church. Sedevacantists would attempt to sidestep that clear conclusion of their teaching by saying that the true Church is still without error, but that Church is no longer the institutional Church that is in union with the Pope.

By using that defense to avoid their first conclusion of their teaching against Vatican II, Sedevacantists only then fall into an even more grave conclusion. That is, if the true Church of Jesus Christ was not prevailed against by the Gates of Hell, but is actually still here, then where is it? Certainly, if the Catholic Church still contains the four theological marks of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, and still contains the seven historical marks, then Sedevacantists should be able to point to it and say ‘there it is’.

Being that Sedevacantists cannot point to the true Church of Jesus Christ and tell us where it is now, then errantly they fall into the Protestant false teaching of the unscriptural invisible church.

It is theological ignorance to suggest that you need a living pope on the throne of St. Peter as a  necessary requirement to have a visible Church. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)


 Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

 Moreover, there was a de facto interregnum for 51 years during the Great Western Schism from 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff. Prior to this, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or none) could be the true pope. Which one was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit? Was the Church a "three headed monster" during this time? If you chose wrongly (in an age of limited education with no Internet or daily papers) are you "schismatic" and damned to Hell? There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith.

 Finally, let's not forget the Great Apostasy foretold in the Bible, and taught by the Church. According to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119; Emphasis in original) Having no pope is therefore not incompatible with the visibility of the Church. Wherever the True faith and sacraments exist, there is the Church until the papacy is restored.

3. Sedevacantism is Unlikely to be Resolved

Here, Gray rejects the position because he doesn't like the result. If the position is true, we must deal with the consequences as they are, not reject a correct position itself and put our heads in the sand. He writes:

If Sedevacantism wants to tell us that it is a reformation movement, then it also has to tell us why it is quite different than every other just reformation movement of the Church. It is different in the first place because it breaks unity, and it is doubly different because it offers no path to heal the disunity it caused. That is, by holding that the Second Vatican Council was in error, the only resolution for Sedevacantism is for some future Pope or Ecumenical Council to decree that the Second Vatican Council and/or its particular documents and the new Mass were in error. That seems quite unlikely.

First, Traditionalists are not a "reform movement," we are what is left of the One True Church of Christ. Second, the Church never lacks unity because others fall away. Third, sedevacantism will be resolved either by the restoration of the papacy via imperfect general council, or perhaps sedeprivationism proves true, OR Christ will come again if these prove to be the end days. God resolves all problems eventually.

4. Repetition of Claimed Evil

Gray writes:

Sedevacantism posits that the new Mass is evil, but then it goes ahead and purports another evil itself by telling its adherents to avoid going to Mass and receiving the Sacraments in a Church that is in union with the Pope.

Am I the only one who sees the utter stupidity of this statement? It can be reduced to this: "People who reject Bergoglio as pope for sound theological reasons are themselves evil for telling people not to go to the Churches of Bergoglio, because he is the pope." If  Bergoglio is rejected as pope, why would his churches be considered in union with the pope? Gray claims sedevacantists are evil for rejecting the churches "in union with the pope" which begs the very question as to whether Bergoglio is pope, and he makes no attempt to refute the theological arguments that he cannot be pope. 

He then goes on:

Of course Sedevacantists would argue that the Sacraments of the institutional Catholic Church are no longer valid since Vatican II was in error and the new Mass is evil and harmful, but being that there is no way for them to prove that God hasn’t sustained His Sacraments (ex opere operato) even if the council was invalid, then there is no just cause for them to teach Catholics to avoid them. In fact, it makes this teaching of Sedevacantists the gravest of all evils.

Ex opere operato, means the sacraments work "by the very act of correctly performing them" and not on the beliefs or moral disposition of the minister or recipient of the sacrament. It does not mean that you can change the matter, form or intention of the sacrament (as the Vatican II sect did), and God will still make the sacrament valid. If this novel principle were true, then a priest who uses chocolate chip cookies and milk in place of bread and wine at Mass would offer a valid Holy Sacrifice, and the milk and cookies would become the Sacred Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. I know of not one theologian who teaches this absurdity, except "theologian" Gray himself.

Finally, sedevacantism is the "gravest of all evils"?  Really? How about:

• "communion" for adulterers
•  praying with witch doctors and all the false religions for "world peace"  
• stating atheists can go to Heaven
• claiming proselytism is nonsense

I guess they're not so bad! 

Conclusion

The ersatz "theologian" of the Vatican II sect, David Gray, has distorted sedevacantism beyond recognition. Traditionalists do not reject the Novus Bogus "mass" because it is not "like the Mass used to be." We do not repeat the Protestant  error of an invisible Church, as the teachings of the pre-Vatican II theologians clearly show. The situation will be resolved someday, and the fact he doesn't like the consequences does not make sedevacantism untrue. Lastly, how can we be guilty of telling people to stay away from churches in "union with the pope" when we reject Bergoglio as pope in the first place? 

Ironically, Mr. Gray's "Four Fatal Errors" are themselves fatally flawed.  Before the Great Apostasy, theologians could only be clerics of the highest learning. Now, a married layman with a Masters degree can purport to be a "theologian." He misrepresents his opponents' position, and has almost no citations to any authorities except a couple of Bible passages and his own ipse dixit.  Does Mr. Gray really think as poorly as his slipshod article? I don't know, but I actually (and charitably) hope he does. If he falls into the bad faith category with Siscoe and Salza, I wince thinking of their fate when I recall the words of Our Lord, "He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God." (St. John 8:47). 

Singing For Satan---Part 4

This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.

Eminem

 Without question, the undisputed king of rap/hip-hop is Eminem (b. Marshall Mathers III in 1972). From his humble start in music during the mid-1990s, Eminem became the best selling artist of 2000-2010, having sold an incredible 47.4 million albums in the United States alone, and he is listed as #83 in Rolling Stone magazine's "100 Greatest Artists of All Time." He was born to a dysfunctional family. His father left home when he was young, and his mother Debbie (whom Eminem despises), raised him. Eminem spent most of his youth growing up in a very poor, predominantly African-American community in Detroit, referred to by some as "8 Mile" because of 8 Mile Road that separates the poor from the rich. 8 Mile would become the title of his box office smash movie in 2002, basically telling his story. He derives his stage name from his initials, "M and M." Recently, Eminem made headlines when he denigrated U.S. President Donald Trump at the BET Hip-Hop Awards with a profanity filled rant he called "The Storm." 

I took an interest in Eminem when he started and followed his career. He is one of the most vile, obscene, anti-Christ artists in the world. He embodies all seven of the evil elements in today's music. He is friends---and collaborated with---open Satan worshipper Marilyn Manson. WARNING! The lyrics of this artist are extremely vile and disturbing. I've censored them as much as possible.

Channeling A Demon

 His first album in 1996, Infinite, didn't do too well, and some suggested that since he was Caucasian, he should try rock and roll music and not attempt to make it in the overwhelmingly African-American hip-hop genre. His burst into fame came after he created an "alter-ego" he named "Slim Shady." In Spin magazine's cover story ("The Devil and Mr. Mathers..."), the rapper admits that he encountered an "entity" in his bathroom mirror which identified itself as Slim Shady. When Slim Shady started writing his lyrics, he became a superstar. In his song My Darling, he raps about his encounter:

And the dark shall emerge from the fiery depths of hell
Then swallow the shell, all the hollow who dwell
In the shadows of all who are willing to sell their souls
For this rap game and it g-g-goes
One-two-three, chk-chk, one-two-three
Chk-chk, one-two-three, that ain't the hook, now follow me
There's nothing else for me to say, my public adores me
Everybody bores me, they're just so corny
So at night before I sleep, I look in the mirror
The mirror grows lips and it whispers: "Come nearer!"...

He then tells of the price he had to pay. Slim Shady speaks to him as follows:

You remember that night you, prayed to god (sic)
You'd give anything to get a record deal, well Dre signed you
This is what you wanted your whole life Marshall, right through
Look at this house, look at these cars, I'm so nice, wooo!
Oh, but you didn't know, fame has a price too

Just a publicity stunt? According to Marcia Dawkins' biography, Eminem: The Real Slim Shady, Some scholars believe that Eminem uses his music to dramatize a deep and intense spiritual battle. He admits as much in "Must Be The Ganja" (2009) where he confesses he can identify with both the Dalai Lama (good) and Jeffery Dahmer (evil). As he seeks deeper spiritual commitment, Marshall Mathers, the redeemed or spiritual Everyman wrestles against the sinful Slim Shady persona. In Rap and Religion: Understanding the Gangsta's God, Ebony A. Utley suggests that the Slim Shady persona is downright demonic. Utley writes that, 'In the introduction to the Slim Shady EP, a foreboding voice not unlike the one attributed to the Devil in 'My Darling' taunts Eminem even though he repeatedly states, 'I thought I killed you,' 'What do you want from me?' and 'Leave me alone." (pg. 81; Emphasis mine). The Dalai Lama is evil, leading souls to Hell, and so is Dahmer for obvious reasons. There is no one Eminem identifies with who is truly good. Dawkins writes, "In fact, as Slim Shady, Eminem is known for being at odds with everything sacred and being passionate about anything profane." (pg. 79).

While Spin magazine reported that he first met the spirit of Slim Shady when he was in the bathroom, in his song, Low, Down, Dirty, he sings about "Hearing voices in my head while these whispers echo, 'Murder Murder Redrum" (redrum is murder backwards and made famous in the movie The Shining, where actor Jack Nicholson portrays a writer whom is driven insane by demonic forces).

In his song Guilty Conscience, Slim Shady battles with different characters encouraging them to commit robbery, rape, kidnapping, and murder. In one stanza, a man finds his wife cheating with another man, and Slim Shady advises:

F*** that sh**, you just caught this bi*** cheatin'
While you at work she's with some dude tryin to get off?!
F*** slittin' her throat, CUT THIS B****'S HEAD OFF!!! (Profanity censored by me).

In The Monster, Eminem raps:

Cause I need an interventionist / To intervene between me and this monster… / Keep knocking, nobody’s home, I’m sleepwalking / I’m just relaying what the voice in my head’s saying / Don’t shoot the messenger, I’m just friends with the.

Rihanna then sings the hook: I’m friends with the monster that’s under my bed \ Get along with the voices inside of my head.

Finally, Eminem writes in Demon Inside that what he is doing comes from demons and will land him in Hell:

I’m possessed by evil demons that torture me while I’m sleeping \ I keep dreaming of death and I’m hearing people screaming \ The devil’s spirit’s trapped inside me and I want it out… \ It got silent, then all these voices said \ ‘Come follow me into the pits of Hell’… \ And told me that’s just for starters, Satan’ll be in to see me later \ To see if I’m interested in being partners.

Tongue in cheek, or a man driven mad by demons as an unbelieving world just  laughs and thinks he's "cool" and to be imitated?

More Violence and Drugs

In his song I'm Back, Eminem praises the Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, in the following words:

I take seven kids from Columbine, stand 'em all in line /Add an AK-47, a revolver, a nine
A Mack-11 and it oughta solve the problem of mine /And that's a whole school of bullies shot up all at one time /Cause (I'm Slim) Shady, they call me as crazy

Eminem tries to justify the lyrics by saying that no one ever looked at Columbine from the point of view of the kids who were bullied. Yeah. Let's write a song that looks at things from the point of view of Charles Manson or Adolph Hitler. Just because they "have a point of view" doesn't make it accurate, correct, or laudable.

Role Model asks his listeners to emulate him:

You can try this at home, you can be just like me…Follow me and do exactly what the song says: smoke weed, take pills, drop out of school, kill people and drink… Now follow me and do exactly what you see.

He raps about catching his wife, Kim, cheating on him and then brutalizing her with graphic sounds of domestic violence in the song of the same name:

Sit down b****! You move again, I'll beat the sh** out of you/ Don't make me wake this baby/ She don't need to see what I'm 'bout to do/ Quiet b****/ Why you make me shout at you…

The song ends with a vivid fantasy of the rapper slitting his wife's throat:

Don't you get it b****, no one can hear you?/Now shut the f*** up and get what's comin' to you
You were supposed to love me/Now bleed! b**** bleed!/Bleed! b**** bleed! bleed!

Conclusion

Foul-mouthed, demon possessed Marshall Mathers channels demonic forces to propel him to fame while dragging others to Hell. Those who scoff at his being possessed, consider this; do you want teens listening to this garbage? It desensitizes them to murder, domestic violence, profanity/vulgarity, drug and alcohol abuse, and a host of other evils (including spiritism). In his song Who Knew? Eminem mocks those who claim to be surprised at the negative influence of his music:

Cause I never knew I, knew I would get this big. I never knew I, knew I'd affect this kid. I never knew I'd, get him to slit his wrist. I never knew I'd, get him to hit this b****

Pray for Marshall Mathers that he might turn to Christ and His One True Church, receive exorcism, and be rid of Slim Shady. If you listen to his garbage music, when the demon influences you, you won't be able to say, "Who Knew?"