The Glories Of St. Joseph

 As this post will be published on Christmas Day, I wish all of my readers a Blessed Nativity of Our Lord, and God's blessings throughout 2018. While I was meditating about Christmas this Advent, it occurred to me that the one person that seems to get the least recognition is the great St. Joseph, foster-father of Jesus Christ. There are Christmas hymns and carols that exalt Our Lord, Our Lady, and even the Magi--but not St. Joseph. St. Joseph, being the exemplar of humility, is no doubt happy that this is the case. However, in this week's post, I wish to bring to everyone's attention the glory that rightfully belongs to St. Joseph, and encourage all to be more devoted to him.

 Patron of the One True Church

 On the feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1870, Pope Pius IX decreed that St. Joseph was to be made Patron of the Catholic Church, and raised his feast day (March 19) to the rank of Double of the First Class. The decree Quemadmodum Deus, was published by the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and the text at the end seems like it could be written especially for our times:

On account of this sublime dignity which God conferred on His most faithful Servant, the Church has always most highly honored and lauded the Most Blessed Joseph next after his spouse, the Virgin Mother of God, and has implored his intercession in all her great necessities.

And now that in this most sorrowful time the Church herself is beset by enemies on every side and oppressed by heavy calamities, so that impious men imagine that the gates of hell are at length prevailing against her, the Venerable Prelates of the whole Catholic world have presented to the Sovereign Pontiff their own petitions and those of the faithful confided to their care, praying that he would vouchsafe to constitute St. Joseph Patron of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, when at the Sacred Ecumenical Council of the Vatican they renewed still more fervently this their petition and prayer, Our Most Holy Lord, Pius IX, Pope, moved thereto by recent deplorable events, was pleased to comply with the desires of the Prelates, and to commit to the most powerful patronage of the Holy Patriarch Joseph both himself and all the faithful and solemnly declared him Patron of the Catholic Church, and commanded his festival, occurring on the 19th of March, to be celebrated as a double of the first class, but without an octave on the account of Lent.

Patron of A Happy Death

 St. Joseph has always been venerated as the Patron of a Happy Death, i.e., a death in the state of sanctifying grace assuring us of Heaven. There are three very good theological reasons for so designating St. Joseph:

• As the foster-father of Christ, St. Joseph can plead for us before Christ's Throne more effectively than anyone except his Immaculate Virgin Spouse

• St. Joseph is the only saint to have an official Litany of the Church in his honor. In the litany of St. Joseph, he is called "Terror of demons." When Satan and the hordes of Hell make a last assault on our soul, who better to drive them away? In the book Begone Satan, which chronicles a dire case of demonic possession in Iowa during the year 1928, it is revealed that the exorcist was almost killed in an accident. When he resumed the exorcism, the demons revealed it was their intention to kill him in the accident, but "your powerful Patron" stopped us (St. Joseph)

• His death was most happy, having Jesus and Mary at his deathbed to comfort and console him. He can be there for us, at the hour of our death, with his Immaculate Virgin spouse and Divine Foster Son.    

The Special Prerogatives of St. Joseph Considered

 There are several great privileges that many pre-Vatican II theologians believed could rightfully be ascribed to St. Joseph. Since the Great Apostasy, these issues cannot be decided. One of the leading "Josephite theologians" was the great Fr. Francis Filas. Theologian Filas was Chairman of the Theology Department at Loyola University in Chicago. He had published five books and twenty-four (24) scholarly articles on St. Joseph. The Oratory magazine lauded him as "one who has probably said more about St. Joseph than any other man in history." I have compiled the material below, about the most recent (pre-Vatican II) theological opinions on St. Joseph from the book St. Joseph and Daily Christian Living, The McMillan Company, NY, [1959], by theologian Filas. 

1. St. Joseph Pre-Sanctified in the Womb
 Joseph's holiness as second only to the Blessed Virgin Mary, goes hand in hand with his dignity. The theology of St. Joseph begins on the basis that his dignity surpasses all humans except the human nature of Jesus Christ and the Blessed Mother. The reason for this principle lies in God's providential choice of the Saint as the virginal husband of the Mother of God, and as Foster-Father of the God-Man Jesus Christ. His intricate closeness to Jesus and Mary means he was privileged above all other men.

 In the 15th century, certain theologians began to discuss whether or not Joseph was conceived without Original Sin. By the early 19th century, it was admitted by all he was not, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as a unique privilege of Mary confirms this conclusion. The theologians' opinion had evolved to claiming that St. Joseph was pre-sanctified in his mother's womb, just as is commonly taught regarding St. John the Baptist who "leaped for joy" in St. Elizabeth's womb when the pregnant Virgin Mary visited.

As there should be complementary virtues between spouses, it befits St. Joseph's vocation to have been pre-sanctified. St. Joseph is so intimately linked to the absolute purity of heart that existed in Jesus and was mirrored so faithfully in the Immaculate Heart of Mary. If Joseph had sinned at any time in his life, even in the slightest degree, this would have been a disgraceful flaw in one so close to God. It is therefore piously believed that St. Joseph was freed from Original Sin in his mother's womb, and never committed any actual sins, mortal or venial for his entire life. 

 Some object that only St. John the Baptist received this grace because Christ said, "Amen I say to you, there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is the lesser in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." (St. Matthew 11:11). The theologians teach that Christ was using hyperbole to make a point that John's holiness was truly great. If we were to take Christ's words literally, that means St. John would be greater in holiness than either the Blessed Virgin Mary and even Jesus Himself, both born of a woman. This conclusion is manifestly false.

 St. Luke 7:28, gives a more faithful rendition of those words, "For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist. But he that is the lesser in the kingdom of God, is greater than he." In the absence of Magisterial authority to decide the issue, all we can say is if  this privilege was necessary and fitting to St. Joseph for his great vocation, then God bestowed it upon him. Beyond this point, we cannot go.

2. St. Joseph Assumed Body and Soul into Heaven

 Whereas the Immaculate Conception was a privilege unique to Mary, her Assumption was not.  A rather enigmatic text in the Gospel of St. Matthew (27:52) implies that at the resurrection of Christ, there were other bodies that rose from the dead united with their souls. "And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose,.." This would imply the Old Testament "saints" who achieved salvation (i.e., Isaiah). There are some theologians that teach these people had to die again, but there are difficulties with this opinion. If reception of Christ's Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist is a pledge of our future resurrection, how much more so should be the pledge for the man who protected and loved Him as He grew into Manhood? Should he not be given an anticipated resurrection and be united (body and soul) with Jesus and Mary in Heaven? Theologian Filas calls the Assumption of St. Joseph "a probable theological opinion."

The Honors Bestowed on St. Joseph by the Church

•  He is the only individual saint to have a public Litany

• He has a feast (March 19) and "baptized" the Communist "May Day" when Pope Pius XII made May 1st, the feast of St. Joseph the Workman, thereby showing the true Christian meaning of Labor 

• He is the only saint with a month (March) and a day of the week (Wednesday) dedicated in his honor

• He is regarded as a "Universal Patron Saint" because you can turn to him in all your needs for efficacious help as Patron of the Catholic Church

• He has been lauded by several popes in Magisterial documents; Quemadmodem Deus and Inclytun Patriarcham (Pope Pius IX); Quamquam Pluries and Neminem Fugit (Pope Leo XIII); Bonum Sane (Pope Benedict XV), and  Divini Redemptoris (Pope Pius XI).

Conclusion

 In a world of dead-beat dads, single parent homes, and sodomite "marriages," we need St. Joseph's example of what true fatherhood and being a real husband is all about. In the time of the Great Apostasy, let us not fail to call upon him to see us through. Wear the Cord of St. Joseph, use St. Joseph's Oil, pray the Chaplet of St. Joseph and the Litany of St. Joseph (especially on Wednesdays, during March, and on his feast day) for all your spiritual and temporal needs. 

As the great Herbert Cardinal Vaughan remarked, "Of old it was said to the needy and suffering people in the kingdom of Egypt: 'Go to Joseph, and do all that he shall tell you.' (Genesis 41:55)...The same is now said by the Sovereign Pontiff to all needy and suffering people in the kingdom of the Church: ITE AD IOSEPH"  Indeed! Let us all remember to GO TO JOSEPH!  

The Science Of Prayer

 There is a definite method or "science" to prayer. The Church, and all Her great saints, remind us that prayer has four ends, or purposes, namely; to adore God, to atone for sin and beg forgiveness, to thank God for all He has done, and to petition Him for our needs and wants. I try to remember this at Mass and when I pray the Rosary. I remember to pray for the needs and spiritual goods of all my readers. Recently, a good friend of mine asked me to pray for his parents who are, sadly, both very ill. He is not even Christian, but believes in the power of prayer. I have hopes for his conversion one day. Unlike my friend, there are those who disparage prayer as "useless" and an "excuse not to do something."

 In 2006, there was what is now known as the "Benson Study," named after the chief medical and scientific researcher on the project, Dr. Herbert Benson. It was a large-scale statistical study purporting to show whether petitionary prayer for recovery from illness has any effect. Talk about "putting God to the test"! (See e.g., Deuteronomy 6:16, and St. Luke 4:12). Patients who had had coronary artery bypass graft surgery at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to one of three patient groups.One patient group received intercessory prayer (for an uncomplicated recovery) after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; one patient group did not receive prayer after being so informed; and one patient group received prayer after being informed that they would receive prayer. Individuals were prayed for by their first names only, and their identity was not known to those praying. Those praying belonged to one of three Christian groups. Complications occurred to 52 per cent of the first patient group, to 51 per cent of the second group, and to 59 per cent of the third group. The virtually identical figures for the first and second group, both of whom were uncertain whether they would receive prayer, was regarded as a "negative result" showing that intercessory prayer has no effect. (See Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567). 

Does the Benson Study Prove Prayer is Useless?

 While atheists and agnostics are cheering, the study does absolutely nothing to confirm prayer is useless or give credence to the alleged non-existence of God. Certainly, to want someone healed is a laudatory objective. However, that doesn't make prayer some kind of "magic" whereby God is bound to do what we want.  God hears our prayers, and answers them (if it is good for us) in a way best for us. Yet when we pray for another person, God knows far better than we do whether it will be best for that person and others affected by him, that he should recover immediately or later or not at all. According to theologian Ott, "The Fathers assert Divine foresight of conditioned future things when they teach that God does not always hear our prayers for temporal goods [such as the restoration of health], in order to prevent their misuse; or that God allows a man to die at an early age in order to save him from eternal damnation [due to God's foreseen knowledge that the man would abuse his free will in old age and die in mortal sin]." (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, The Mercier Press [1955], pg.42; Parts in brackets are mine). 

It is also a truth that God uses suffering during our short stay here on Earth to make us better people. Suffering provides me the opportunity to become courageous and patient, as well as a chance to strengthen my faith in God despite of the suffering--like Job. My suffering gives others the chance to develop sympathy and help me both temporally and spiritually. Society has the chance to invest in ways to help suffering people like me, and choose to invest money to find a cure and give other means of support. Lastly, I can unite my suffering to the Suffering Savior Whom I follow and expiate for my sins and those of others. 

The Benson Study operates on the assumption that prayer, if efficacious (and assuming a Good God exists), should produce positive results whenever used by anyone. Besides the mistake of thinking that healing is the only (or greatest) good, the study also sees no merit in suffering. In addition, there are other problems which I will explore next.

Confounding Variables

 As a former NYC science teacher, I found this definition of a confounding variable to be both simple and right on target:

 Simply, a confounding variable is an extra variable entered into the equation that was not accounted for. Confounding variables can ruin an experiment and produce useless results. They suggest that there are correlations when there really are not. In an experiment, the independent variable generally has an effect on the dependent variable. For example, if you are researching whether a lack of exercise has an effect on weight gain, the lack of exercise is the independent variable and weight gain is the dependent variable. A confounding variable would be any other influence that has an effect on weight gain. Amount of food consumption is a confounding variable, a placebo is a confounding variable, or weather could be a confounding variable. Each may change the effect of the experiment design.(See http://www.softschools.com/examples/science/confounding_variable_examples/479/). 

First Confounding Variable: Putting God to an Explicit Test
According to theologian Jone, the essence of the sin of tempting God is to make an experiment of one of the perfections of God (His Wisdom, Power, etc.) God is tempted explicitly if one does something or asks something for the purpose of ascertaining whether He possess a certain power or here and now uses it. The sin of tempting God is always mortal sin. (See Moral Theology, The Newman Press, MD, [1962], pg.100).Don't expect God to answer prayers that are motivated by sinful desires.

Second Confounding Variable: Dishonest Prayer
According to philosopher of religion, Professor Richard Swinburne, why would God answer prayers to test someone's hypothesis? They are not really praying out of compassion for the afflicted, but to further some experiment. In the Benson Study, people were not praying out of genuine love and compassion for the afflicted. They didn't even know for whom they were praying. This might be called "dishonest prayer" or prayer from insincere/non-compassionate reasons. (See  Science and Theology News, April 7, 2006; Swinburne, Richard, Response to a Statistical Study of the Effect of Petitionary Prayer ).  

Third Confounding Variable: All Prayers Are Not Equal
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Rosary are by far superior to all other prayers. Were these used? Were there any Traditionalists? God will only help non-Catholics to dispose them to eternal salvation in the One True Church.  The prayer of a devout Traditionalist in the state of grace is most efficacious because "Without faith, it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews 11:6). The only true Faith is that of the Traditionalist Catholic Church.

The True Power of Prayer

 It is a truth that God knows all things with infallible certainty. If that is the case, how is prayer effective? If God knows a certain person will die as the result of a car crash, but people pray for his recovery and the person survives, then God didn't "know" he would die as the result of a car crash; He seemingly "changed His mind." The Bible does speak in such terms, but it's a metaphorical way of speaking, not literal. According to theologian Molina, God has predestined things according to the foreseen merits and demerits of people. Since God already knew you would pray, He took those prayers into account before He ordered the universe (See, e.g. discussion of Molina and predestination in Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 243). We also see in the Bible how God knew how people would react in any given situation. For example we read in St. Matthew 11:21, " “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." God knew how the people would have responded to miracles. 

 So when you pray, remember that God has factored your prayers into His Divine Plan!

Conclusion

We can't have "scientific studies" that will prove or disprove the power of prayer. The true science of prayer has been outlined by the great saints, most notably St. Francis de Sales, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St Alphonsus Liguori, St. Louis de Montfort, and St. John of the Cross (among others). There has been given significance to your prayers from all eternity by Almighty God. I'll never forget (and try to live by) the aphorism Fr. DePauw passed on to me: "Remember! Pray as if everything depends on God--which it does. But then act as if everything depends on you!" 

Francis And The Dark Side Of The Force

 On Friday, December 15, 2017, the latest installment of the Star Wars movie franchise will premiere. The George Lucas films are riddled with pantheism, whereby "god" and the universe are one. The oft quoted "May the Force be with you," is a blasphemous attempt to replace the True God ("The Lord be with you") with an impersonal energy that binds the universe together. The so-called force may be used to perform seeming miracles such as levitation, moving objects, detecting the presence of various persons, being guided without using your senses, and healing. The force can be used for good or evil ("the dark side of the force").

 Outside of science fiction movies, Jorge Bergoglio (aka "Pope" Francis), has been dabbling with dark forces in real life. According to CBS News:

 He [Bergoglio] believes in alternate medicine. Papal biographer Austen Ivereigh says in 2004, the Pope, then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, began treatment with a Taoist monk named Liu Ming.  Regular sessions of massage and acupuncture helped Bergoglio conquer symptoms of diabetes and gallbladder problems. (See http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/09/20/pope-francis-five-facts/amp/; Emphasis mine).

Most disturbing, is that Liu Ming is a Reiki practitioner. The fact that Francis believes in, and uses Reiki, exposes his connection to pagan, demonic forces and teachings. I will put forth the facts in this post, and let my readers draw their own conclusions.

What is Reiki?

 Reiki comes from the Japanese words Ki, (which is alleged to be a "universal life-force energy" that everything supposedly possesses) and Rei, which means "higher power."  Reiki claims that everything in the universe is made up of  this "higher power life-force energy" – even humans.  Thus, when someone is feeling depressed, or sick in any way, it is an indication that their energy is "out of balance."  Therefore, it is the function of the Reiki practitioner to "channel positive energy into the person," bringing them back to "balance and wholeness." The founder of this practice is generally considered to be the Buddhist monk, Mikao Usui, who claims he developed mystical power on a pagan retreat. Reiki energy entered his "crown chakra" (i.e., his head), and enabled him to heal people.

According to www.Reiki.org, "Reiki is a Japanese technique for stress reduction and relaxation that also promotes healing. It is administered by "laying on hands" and is based on the idea that an unseen "life force energy" flows through us and is what causes us to be alive. If one's "life force energy" is low, then we are more likely to get sick or feel stress, and if it is high, we are more capable of being happy and healthy."

Here is the pagan mumbo-jumbo: "The source or cause of health comes from the Ki that flows through and around the individual rather than from the functional condition of the physical organs and tissues. It is Ki that animates the physical organs and tissues as it flows through them and therefore is responsible for creating a healthy condition. If the flow of Ki is disrupted, the physical organs and tissues will be adversely affected. Therefore, it is a disruption in the flow of Ki that is the main cause of illness.

An important attribute of Ki is that it responds to ones thoughts and feelings. Ki will flow more strongly or be weakened in its action depending on the quality of ones thoughts and feelings. It is our negative thoughts and feelings that are the main cause of restriction in the flow of Ki. All negative or dis-harmonious thoughts or feelings will cause a disruption in the flow of Ki. Even Western medicine recognizes the role played by the mind in creating illness and some Western doctors state that as much as 98% of illness is caused directly or indirectly by the mind.

It must be understood that the mind exists not only in the brain, but also through-out the body. The nervous system extends to every organ and tissue in the body and so the mind exists here also. It is also known that the mind even extends outside the body in a subtle energy field 2 to 3 feet thick called the aura. Because of this, it is more appropriate to call our mind a mind/body as the mind and body are so closely linked."  (Emphasis mine).

Here's what's wrong with this doctrine:
1. There is no soul as the animating principle of the body, but some impersonal "Ki energy."

2. Ki nevertheless can respond and be manipulated by thoughts and feelings, yet there is no explanation as to how or why this is known/proven.

3. The claim that "some Western doctors" (not even naming one) state "98% of illness is caused directly or indirectly by the mind" is not only completely unsubstantiated, but terms are not even defined. What does it mean that an illness is caused "indirectly by the mind"?

4. It states the existence of some "aura" which is "known" to exist without any citations to a single relevant medical or scientific source.

Liu Ming, now 49 years old, is a Taoist monk. Taoism is another pagan religion. Their beliefs are:

• Taoism — loosely based on the writings of a mythical figure named Laozi who lived some 2,500 years ago — calls for an adherence to "the way", which practitioners have long interpreted as a return to the natural world. The core of the basic belief and doctrine of Taoism is that "Tao" is the origin and law of all things in the universe. Taoists believes that people can become deities or live forever through practicing certain rituals and austerities

• Taoists stress the importance of harmonizing with nature by balancing yin and yang, and developing chi through meditation and disengagement. The human body is regarded as a source of chi-derived energy, which some people have the power to concentrate and congeal into an essence. Chi (also spelled ch'i or ki) is variously known as the "breath of heaven," “mystical breath," the "breath of nature" and the "quality of spirit" (See http://factsanddetails.com/china/cat3/sub10/item91.html)

When Bergoglio was suffering from various health problems (diabetes, gall bladder, etc), he turned to this pagan healer and his Reiki "energy-force healing."


 In its October 2013 issue, the Spanish language Argentinean magazine TAO ran a story on the association between Bergoglio and Ming. We learn of some additional facts about Ming and Bergoglio. Ming:

• Practices divination, which is the art or practice that seeks to foresee or foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge usually by the interpretation of omens or by the aid of supernatural powers

• Claims Bergoglio will live to be "140 years old"

• Told Bergoglio there is no difference between the Tao and the God of Catholicism

• Manipulated Bergoglio's "life-force" (Reiki)

As a result of Ming's "treatments," Bergoglio claimed he was cured, no longer takes medication, and continues to practice what Ming told him. The then "cardinal" from Argentina gave Ming a Spanish copy of the I Ching, a pagan book also known as the "Book of Changes," which is an ancient Chinese divination text.

The Vatican II sect Condemns Reiki

 Proving the old aphorism, "Even a broken clock is right twice each day" true, the Vatican II sect "bishops" condemned the practice of Reiki in 2009, four years before Bergoglio was elected "pope." The document entitled Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy, has this to say in paragraph #9:

The difference between what Christians recognize as healing by divine grace and Reiki therapy is also evident in the basic terms used by Reiki proponents to describe what happens in Reiki therapy, particularly that of "universal life energy." Neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on "universal life energy" that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will. In fact, this worldview has its origins in eastern religions and has a certain monist and pantheistic character, in that distinctions among self, world, and God tend to fall away. (Emphasis mine)

Their conclusion:
Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki therapy presents insoluble problems...In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers. To use Reiki one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science.
Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, however, a Catholic who puts his or her trust in Reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science.Superstition corrupts one's worship of God by turning one's religious feeling and practice in a false direction.(See paragraphs 10 and 11; Emphasis mine. The term "Catholic" is meant to denote a member of the Vatican II sect).

Bergoglio Could Not Have Been Elected Pope

 Siscoe and Salza (among other Vatican II apologists) will go to great lengths to allege private judgement on the part of sedevacantists, and seek to discredit us through guilt by association (e.g. the deeply disturbed cult leader Richard Ibranyi who puts the date of the last pope at 1130 A.D.). Our detractors all miss the point that it is no longer a matter of "loss of papal office." A heretic cannot attain the office in the first place. 

On February 15, 1559, Pope Paul IV, issued the Apostolic Constitution Ex Cum Apostolatus Officio. Here the Supreme Pontiff decrees that a heretic cannot become pope (it was thought one of the Cardinals was a secret Lutheran). It reads in pertinent part--paragraph # 6:

In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;
(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.(Emphasis mine).

While Bergoglio was "cardinal" he engaged in a practice denounced by the Vatican II "episcopate" in the USA. According--even to them--Bergoglio  "would be operating in the realm of superstition" and "accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science." Yet Bergoglio credits pagan life-force channeling (Reiki) with giving him health and continues to use/promote it today. According to theologian MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g. the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient grounds for juridical presumption of heretical depravity."(See The Delict of Heresy, CUA Press, [1932], pg.35).

What dogma does Reiki contradict? From the First Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius states:

The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, Almighty, Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, Infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, who, as being one, sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual substance, is to be declared as really and essentially distinct from the world, of supreme beatitude in and from Himself, and ineffably exalted above all things which exist, or are conceivable, except Himself. 

3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema. 

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema. 


5. If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema. 

Can Bergoglio claim ignorance of this truth? Again, according to MacKenzie, "...if the delinquent making this claim [ignorance] be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed either as untrue...or at least crass and supine...His ecclesiastical training in the seminary...[will]insure that the Church's attitude toward heresy was imparted to him." (Ibid, pg. 48).

Conclusion

I'll let my readers draw the logical conclusion from this week's post. Could Jorge Bergoglio even have attained the papacy given his involvement with pagan practices that call upon "forces" which contradict the teachings of the Church on the Nature of God? Reiki was condemned even by his own sect's bishops conference in the USA! This is yet another nail in the coffin for those who want to "recognize and resist" Francis. Our Lord said, "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit." (St. Matthew 7:17). The fruits of Reiki are to entrap one in pagan beliefs and practices. It shouldn't be any wonder Bergoglio can say with a straight face, "I believe in God, not in a Catholic God; there is no Catholic God." 

Singing For Satan---Part 5

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.

Fleetwood Mac and Stevie Nicks

 One of the leading super-groups of rock and roll from the mid-1970s through the 1980s was Fleetwood Mac. Still touring today, the band was formed in 1967 by Peter Green, Mick Fleetwood, and Jeremy Spencer. They have sold over 100 million albums worldwide. The group derived their name by combining Mick Fleetwood's surname with that of guitarist John McVie (known as "Mac"), in an effort to have McVie join the band. While the ploy to entice McVie via his ego worked, it wasn't until they added a boyfriend/girlfriend singing duo--Lindsay Buckingham and Stevie Nicks--that they would become a global sensation. What propelled them to fame and fortune was the singing and sensuality of lead singer Nicks (considered one of the most attractive women in rock and roll). It is well documented that Nicks is a Wiccan (witch) deeply involved in the occult. In addition, Nicks would have an incredibly successful solo career, selling over 140 million albums, and in 1998 she was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Stevie Nicks is ranked #98 in Rolling Stone magazine's "100 Greatest Singers of All Time" and # 53 on the "100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time."

Blonde Priestess of the Occult

Stevie Nicks was born Stephanie Lynn Nicks in 1948. She was unable to pronounce her first name as a small child, saying "tee-dee," resulting in her childhood nickname of "Stevie" which she adopted as her stage name. Nicks enjoys dressing in long, flowing witches gowns, usually with a hood. She inserts Wiccan imagery and incantations into the albums of both Fleetwood Mac and her solo endeavors. Her "soft rock" image serves as a cover for the sinister messages she brings through her music.

Nicks believes she is the reincarnation of a Welsh witch named " Rhiannon," and her music is published under the name "Welsh Witch Publishing Co." Although Nicks now denies ever having involvement in witchcraft, her past interviews and song origins/lyrics give the lie to that contention. According to a feature story about Nicks in  The Ringer, Nicks wrote the song [Rhiannon] after stumbling upon Mary Leader’s Triad: A Novel of the Supernatural in an airport bookstore. At the time she just liked the way the name "Rhiannon" sounded, but later she’d grow to feel a kinship with the Celtic deity’s origin story. Ever since, she’s taken to using the word as an adjective: To this day, if someone or something has good vibes, Stevie Nicks considers it "very Rhiannon." (See https://www.theringer.com/music/2017/11/21/16683772/stevie-nicks-book-career-fleetwood-mac).

 Even in her attempt to distance herself from Wicca, we see the name Rhiannon is of a pagan Celtic "goddess" obtained from reading a book on the supernatural; not a very reassuring denial. She claims to have been able to write the song in a mere ten minutes after reading the book (which deals with demon possession).  While touring, Stevie would sometimes open this song by informing the audience the tune is about "an old Welsh witch." Here are the lyrics:

Rhiannon rings like a bell through the night/And wouldn't you love to love her?/Takes to the sky like a bird in flight/And who will be her lover?/All your life you've never seen a woman taken by the wind/Would you stay if she promised to you heaven?/Will you ever win?/She is like a cat in the dark/And then she is the darkness/She rules her life like a fine skylark/And when the sky is starless/All your life you've never seen a woman taken by the wind/Would you stay if she promised to you heaven?/Will you ever win?/Will you ever win?/Rhiannon/Rhiannon/Rhiannon/Rhiannon (Emphasis mine). In live concert, the following lyric was added: "Once in a million years, a lady like her rises. 'Rhiannon' you cry but she's gone, and your life knows no answer, and your life knows no answer."

After the success of the eponymous album Fleetwood Mac (1975) which featured the song "Rhiannon," the follow-up album Rumours (1977), became one of the best selling albums of all time, selling an incredible 40 million copies and staying #1 on the Billboard Charts for 31 weeks. On the cover, you can see Nicks dressed in her gypsy/witch gown and holding a crystal ball in her hand. Her boyfriend, Lindsay Buckingham, has what appears to be two balls hanging down between his legs, a disgusting and occult way of showing "genitalia"and "virility" in the 1970s.

 In her debut solo album Bella Donna (1981), Nicks is seen dressed as a so-called "white witch" holding a cockatoo and with crystal balls on the bottom left hand side surrounded by flowers. Bella Donna is the name of a plant also known as "Deadly Nightshade." It has been used as a cosmetic, poison, and medicine throughout history. It is called "Bella Donna" (Italian for "beautiful woman") because the herb was used in eye-drops by women to dilate the pupils of the eyes to make them appear seductive. It has also been used by witches due to its ability to induce hallucinations. Nicks was a raging cocaine addict (as were all the members of Fleetwood Mac) and was no stranger to hallucinations. Her addiction almost killed her, and to this day she suffers from seizures as a result. She takes large doses of the medication Klonopin to try and control her affliction. 

Songs that Glorify the Occult and Debauchery

The ballad Landslide gets its name from a term for drug addicts who crash (popularized in the 1970s). It talks about "snow covered hills" (cocaine) and a "mirror in the sky" (large mirror used to snort cocaine). She asks, "What is love?" She'll never get the answer to that apart from God. People will use this song at their wedding thinking it's about love, but it's about the pathetic life of a cocaine addict.

I took my love, I took it down
Climbed a mountain and I turned around
And I saw my reflection in the snow covered hills
'Til the landslide brought it down
Oh, mirror in the sky
What is love?
Can the child within my heart rise above?
Can I sail through the changin' ocean tides?
Can I handle the seasons of my life?
Well, I've been afraid of changin'(kicking the drug habit)
'Cause I've built my life around you (cocaine)
But time makes you bolder
Even children get older
And I'm getting older, too
Well, I've been afraid of changin'
'Cause I've built my life around you
But time makes you bolder
Even children get older
And I'm getting older, too
Oh, I'm getting older, too
I took my love, I took it down
I climbed a mountain and I turned around
And if you see my reflection in the snow covered hills
Well the landslide will bring it down
And if you see my reflection in the snow covered hills
Well the landslide will bring it down
Oh, the landslide will bring it down

 Nicks claims that the hit song Sara was written in memory of one of her four aborted children she conceived with different men. This particular child was conceived with Don Henley, the occult practicing drug addict from the band The Eagles. (See my post of September 4, 2017 for more on The Eagles; See also https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/stevie-nicks-confirms-she-wrote-hit-song-about-baby-she-aborted-with-don-he). 

Nicks said she would have named the child Sara if she had chosen not to murder the baby and it was a girl. Henley was going to build a house for them when he found out she was pregnant, but Nicks thought her career was more important, which is why she murdered all four of her unborn babies. She murdered one child fathered by Henley, one by then-boyfriend Buckingham, one by rock star Joe Walsh, and another by whoever she was sleeping around with at the time. The pertinent part of Sara:

Sara, you're the poet in my heart
Never change, never stop
And now it's gone
They say it doesn't matter what for
When you build your house, call me…

All I ever wanted was to know
That you were dreaming
There's a heartbeat
No, it never really died

You never really died 

Yes, your unborn baby really died, and you murdered her. Yet Nicks assures us,"...  It's much more fun to be the crazy auntie [of a child] than it is to be the mom, anyway." (See http://www.theage.com.au/news/music/a-magical-life/2006/02/09/1139465789637.html?page=fullpage).

The song You Make Loving Fun, written by [later] Fleetwood Mac band member Christine McVie (wife of John McVie) sings of the happiness she had during an adulterous affair:

Sweet wonderful you
You make me happy with the things you do
Oh, can it be so
This feeling follows me wherever I go

Nicks and the Occult in Her Own Words

 As I wrote elsewhere in this post, Stevie Nicks now denies she was involved in the occult, but was simply eccentric in her ways. Her interviews in the 1970s and 1980s tell us a much different story.

• "It's amazing 'cause sometimes when we are on stage I feel like somebody's just moving the pieces...I'm just going, 'God we don't have any control over this,' and that's magic." (See Circus Magazine, April 14, 1977, pg. 41)--at the end of the song Gold Dust Woman, Nicks makes an unearthly sound while singing...as if she were possessed.

• Discussing her Wiccan belief in reincarnation she stated, "I think I spent a lot of time in old churches, like a monk. I'm very comfortable around that kind of music, with that kind of creeping around, with being very quiet. My ballet teacher believes that my head was cut off in another life, too. I totally give with my body except for my neck. Even if I go to the beauty salon, I can't put my head back. They have to hold it or it will drop. The same thing happens when I dance or get a massage. It's very weird." (See interview with Playboy magazine, July 1982; I retrieved the interview from another source in the past. I do not now, nor ever did, patronize pornographic magazines. No Traditionalist could ever do so. If you want to read this interview, please seek it through another [non-impure] source as I did.---Introibo).

• "I love Halloween ...[and] I love haunting, haunted melodies. I've never been, and probably never will be, a down-home rock 'n' roll songwriter. I try to add that extra, spooky dimension to whatever I do. I want my songs to sort of step a little bit into the bizarre." (See Us magazine, October 28, 1980).

• Asked why she doesn't discuss her "past lives" more openly, Nicks replied in an interview, "I think that side of your consciousness is sort of its own thing, and I don't want to bring that too much into this life. It's like a quiet inspiration." (See Creem magazine, [I did not record the month] Interview with Stevie Nicks, 1982). 

Conclusion

Once more, we see a "melodic, pop-rock" group peddling such evils as the occult, drug abuse, murder of the unborn for convenience, belief in reincarnation, fornication, and adultery. Fleetwood Mac is lead by a Wiccan. The Bible is clear on what God thinks of witchcraft (there is no distinction between "good" and "bad" witches--they are all evil): "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you." (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Let's pray for Ms. Nicks and the band members of Fleetwood Mac. To borrow the title from one of their songs, you can do things Christ's way through His One True Church, or You Can Go Your Own Way on the wide road that leads to Hell. 

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).