Amazon Primed

 The Amazon Synod is approaching wherein the Argentinian apostate of the Vatican II sect, Jorge Bergoglio, looks primed and ready to decimate the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It is widely believed that he will make de jure what has been the case de facto, namely, to allow those divorced and "remarried" adulterers to receive their invalid "communion" as long as the adulterer subjectively feels alright about it.  According to the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators authored by Kenneth C. Jones [pub. 2003], in 1968, the nascent Vatican II sect granted just 338 annulments to its U.S. members. Thirty years later, in 1998, there were 50,498 granted in the United States. (See pg.70). These were divorces euphemistically referred to as "annulments;" if  someone could pay the price you got the worthless piece of paper that declared a marriage null and void.

The reason behind the dramatic increase came especially after 1983, when the Vatican II sect's "Code of Canon Law," based on the heresies of the Robber Council, added "psychological immaturity" (whatever that means) as a reason to abandon your spouse and commit adultery. My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, an approved pre-Vatican II canonist, sounded the alarm through the media (even making an appearance on NYC talk radio) that this would wreak havoc on the institution of marriage and cause many divorces in the name of "religion." It happened exactly as he said it would. Not being content with phony annulments, which declare marriages as non-existent at the time of their inception, Bergoglio seeks to undermine marriage by allowing adulterers who don't even pretend their first marriage was invalid to receive "communion." He has already done so in Amoris Laetitia (2016), and that will most likely be "ratified," so to speak, at the Amazon Synod; perhaps even made more radical.

The apologists for the Vatican II sect claim that this abandoning of Church teaching concerning the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is merely a "development of dogma." On April 8, 2016, The Washington Post published an opinion piece by one Stephanie Coontz, who made the following ignorant and unsubstantiated claim:

The Catholic Church did not make marriage a sacrament until the 13th century, and only began to enforce strict religious conformity in marriage in the 16th century — in part as a reaction to criticism from Protestants that Catholics were insufficiently enthusiastic about the institution. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/04/08/the-catholic-church-didnt-even-consider-marriage-a-sacrament-for-centuries/)

While I understand this is an opinion, I also agree with a former New York politician who said, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts." The article contains no citation to any relevant authority for the purpose of even attempting to make this lie seem plausible. It merely stands on the author's own ipse dixit.

The purpose of this post is to explain what is (and what is not) a true development of dogma, showing the truly Catholic meaning with the heretical Modernist understanding which holds sway over most people today.

The "Evolution" of Dogma is Condemned by the Church

What Vatican II apologists refer to as "development of dogma" is in actuality an "evolution" into something altogether different. One need only refer to what happened on August 2, 2018.  Bergoglio announced that he was changing the Vatican II sect's stance on capital punishment. According to the Modernist Vatican's Congregation for the [Destruction of the] Doctrine of the Faith:

Ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes. This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people.

Compare with the true teaching on capital punishment:

Theologians McHugh and Callan teach, "Killing human beings is lawful in two cases. (a) It is lawful when when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment)" (See Moral Theology 2: 100). They also assert, "Though lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means." (See Moral Theology, 2: 101).

Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas taught, "It is lawful to kill an evildoer insofar as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the communities welfare...[to] lawfully put evildoers to death." (See ST II-II, 64, 3)

Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori taught, "...if it is necessary for the defense of the republic...[or] in order to preserve the order of law" the death penalty is licit." (See Theologia Moralis III, 4, 1).

How is it possible to go from a position that capital punishment is in principle licit (although not mandatory to use), to a position where it is "inadmissible" in principle, and not call it a denial of Church teaching? This is not, in any way, a "development" of doctrine. If capital punishment really were, after all, always and intrinsically immoral, this would be an admission that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium can teach error and give evil---a denial of the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church.

This is the most recent and concrete denial of dogma disguised under the Modernist conception of "development of dogma."

The Church teaches:


From the letter Quantum presbyterorum of Pope St. Simplicius to Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, January 9, 476]:

Because, according to the extant doctrine of our predecessors of sacred memory, against which it is wrong to argue, whoever seems to understand rightly, does not desire to be taught by new assertions, but all [matters] in which either he who has been deceived by heretics can be instructed, or he who is about to be planted in the vineyard of the Lord can be trained, are clear and perfect; after imploring trust in your most merciful leader, have the request for calling a synod refused. I urge (therefore), dearest brother, that by every means resistance be offered to the efforts of the perverse to call a synod, which has not always been enjoined in other cases, unless something new arose in distorted minds or something ambiguous in a pronouncement so that, if there were any obscurity, the authority of sacerdotal deliberation might illumine those who were treating the ambiguous pronouncement in common, just as first the impiety of Arius and then that of Nestorius, lastly that of Dioscorus and also of Eutyches caused this to be done. And --may the mercy of Christ our God (and) Savior avert this--it must be made known, abominable [as it is], that [the purpose is] to restore [to their former positions] in opposition to the opinions of the priests of the Lord of the whole world and of the principal rulers of both [scil., worlds] those who have been condemned. . . .

This letter clearly instructs the bishop to oppose summoning a council on the grounds that said council was intended to teach new doctrine, whereas the Church already possessed all true doctrine in its entirety and used councils only for the condemnation of new heresies or for the clarification of ambiguities. Compare to Roncalli, Montini, and Vatican II.

From the Vatican Council of 1870, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius:

 For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding "Therefore […] let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.'' [Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, 23, 3]. (Emphasis mine)

Canon III: If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

From the Anti-Modernist Oath of Pope St. Pius X (1910):

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

From Lamentabili Sane of Pope St. Pius X (1907):

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION 21: Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.

True Development of Doctrine

Dogma cannot change. This is made absolutely clear by the Church, as cited in the section above. However, there is an authentic, Catholic, non-Modernist way in which doctrines can be said to "develop." This will be outlined below.

1. A doctrine can be formulated more clearly than it had been previously. The term Transubstantiation was adopted by the Church in the Middle Ages as the most precise way of expressing the manner in which the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ during the Consecration at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

2. A doctrine may be defined by the Church, which was part of the Deposit of Divine Revelation, but that was not recognized as such by all. Two such examples are the Immaculate Conception, and the Particular Judgement.

3. When heretics put forth statements incompatible with Catholic belief, the controversy that ensues exposes them as errors. Their solemn condemnation increases the number of beliefs Catholics are bound to accept. However, that simply means that the implications of the unchanging Deposit of Faith have been manifested by the Church; the infallible Guardian and Teacher of that Divine Deposit of Revelation. The condemnation of the errors of the Modernists by Pope St. Pius X is a good example of this type of development.

Notice that none of these three ways constitutes a change in doctrine. The first way is a linguistic improvement to make something more lucid. The second way gives a Divine guarantee as to their apodictic certainty. The third way establishes the logical consequences of doctrines. Notice it is not a true change in meaning, nor an addition or deletion of what has always been believed since public revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle in 100 A.D. 

The Spurious "Defense" of Giving "Communion" to Adulterers by the V2 Sect

 Given all the above, how can V2 sect apologists claim giving their "communion" to divorced and "remarried" adulterers is not a change in doctrine, but a permissible development? One such lofty sounding defense was offered by Paul Fahey on the blog Where Peter Is (See https://wherepeteris.com/communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried-a-defense-of-amoris-laetitia/). 

The article begins thus:

In chapter eight of Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis teaches that individuals in objective situations of sin (being divorced and remarried), but who are not subjectively culpable because of mitigating factors (insufficient knowledge and/or consent) may, in certain cases, receive Communion...This is entirely in line with the Church’s teaching concerning mortal sin. The [Vatican II sect] Catechism says that mortal sin prevents one from legitimately receiving Holy Communion (CCC 1415). However, the Catechism also says that "Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice” (CCC 1859). Further, the Catechism states that, "Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors" (CCC 1735).

Here, Fahey is trying to circumvent the idea of a change by claiming that the Church forbids Her members in mortal sin from receiving Communion (this is true). He then reminds his readers that mortal sin requires full knowledge that the act is wrong (and the act must be a grave matter), as well as full consent of the will. (This also is true). From these starting principles he will try to make a case that in certain instances the necessary consent of the will to make living in adultery a mortal sin is absent. If there is no mortal sin, then there is nothing stopping that adulterous person from receiving Communion. I will demonstrate why his theory falls flat on its face. 

Someone who is divorced and contracts a second phony "marriage" is living in adultery, a mortal sin against the Sixth Commandment and may not be admitted to Communion. If they wish to be forgiven and admitted to the sacraments, the adulterer must separate bed and board from their partner. If, because of children and/or lack of financial ability to do so, they must live as brother and sister. In addition, the admission to Communion must avoid the appearance of scandal. It is thought that the Amazon Synod will allow those living in open adultery (having sexual relations) to receive Communion. Bergoglio allowed it in "certain cases" in Amoris Laetitiae (2016). Even if the Amazon Synod enshrines Amoris with the same qualifier of "certain cases" it cannot escape the charge of heresy. Amoris is a heretical change of doctrine. 

Fahey doesn't claim the person living in adultery doesn't have full knowledge. This is good because Amoris Laetitia talks about people no longer being barred from Vatican II sect "sacraments." Hence, they had knowledge of the sinfulness of their living in adultery since they had been publicly denied the Novus Bogus "communion." Fahey gives us two examples that center on "full consent of the will." 

Say there’s a woman who is divorced and civilly remarried. She is Catholic and has recently gone through a personal conversion and wants to be reconciled to the Church. However, her "second husband" who is also the primary breadwinner for the family, threatens to leave her and the kids if she stops having sex with him for the twelve or more months it will take for their annulment to come through (this is assuming that they live in an area that has a functioning tribunal). Because of the threat to her and her children’s well being, she is not fully able to say no to the objectively sinful act of having sex with her civil husband...Another possible example could be a situation where there’s a Baptist couple who have been married several years and have multiple children. After attending Mass with a friend the husband finds himself intrigued and attracted to Catholicism and begins RCIA [Vatican II sect's "Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults"] with the intention of joining the Church. During those classes he learns that he and his wife aren’t really married because she was previously married to someone else for six months when she was in his early 20s. Thus, in order for the husband to receive Communion, he and his wife must abstain from sex for the rest of their lives because they live in a diocese that does not have a tribunal. The wife simply refuses to submit to Catholic teaching on this matter and won’t accept living with her husband in total abstinence.

As we learned in law school, "hard cases make bad law." In other words, trying to make a principle of general applicability based on difficult, rare cases, leads to a faulty principles. Here, when dealing with God's Law, the cases are meant to (a) appeal to the emotions and (b) make "compulsion" reduce adultery from the status of mortal sin. As the unanimous teaching of the approved theologians tells us, there are five (5) factors that mitigate the seriousness of a sin: ignorance, concupiscence (or "passion"), fear, habit, and violence (See theologian Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], 1:11-16; See also theologian Davis [1934], Moral and Pastoral Theology, 1:16-30).  As already demonstrated, ignorance cannot be a mitigating factor

What about concupiscence? Theologian Slater says concupiscence "signifies the inclination to evil, which in human nature is a result of the Fall of our First Parents." Further, it is a strong feeling and "movement of the sensitive appetite" towards some perceived object of desire. Concupiscence may be antecedent or consequent. Only antecedent concupiscence diminishes moral culpability. (See Slater, Ibid, pgs. 13-15). Example: A man find's out his wife has been having an affair with his neighbor. He sees the neighbor, and in a fit of spontaneous rage, beats him severely. His passion (anger) temporarily deprived him of right reason. Nothing even remotely analogous applies to those persistently living in adultery.  Hence, concupiscence is not a mitigating factor.

What about habit? According to theologian Jone, a habit is "a facility and a readiness of acting in a certain manner acquired by repeated acts." (See Moral Theology, [1962], pg. 10). A bad habit would be, e.g. consenting to impure thoughts. Habits mitigate culpability only if a person would "strive earnestly to rid himself of a bad habit," and "does not sin in doing the evil deed by force of habit without advertence [full knowledge] to its sinful character." (Ibid, pg. 10). Living in a state of adultery can in no way be deemed a "habit."

What about violence? If you are violently compelled to do something evil, there is no culpability provided one offers as much resistance as possible externally, and does not consent internally. (See theologian Jone, Ibid, pg. 7). However, if one is not simply passive, but cooperation is offered (or no external resistance is given when possible), the action will be voluntary and imputable to that extent. (See Slater, Ibid, pg. 18). Therefore, as the adulterer chooses to stay in that situation and consent to an intrinsic evil, violence cannot be a mitigating factor. Here, you'd basically be discussing forcible rape. No one should stay in such a situation. Take the children (if any), go to a shelter, and have the perpetrator arrested and prosecuted. There are also people to help such victims get back on their feet.

What about fear? This is one of the driving factors used by Fahey in his hypotheticals quoted above.  According to theologian Davis, "Fear is defined as a shrinking from impending evil." (Ibid, pg. 27). Fear, unless it "deprives a person of the use of reason" does not excuse from an intrinsically evil action. That's why fear of death is not an excuse for apostasy. (Ibid, pgs. 27-28).

What about "...inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors" (CCC 1735)"? Pure Modernist claptrap that was never considered "mitigating factors" prior to Vatican II. Since it is Modernist drivel, it need not be considered.

Therefore, "communion" for divorced and remarried adulterers is not a "development of doctrine." It is the heretical denial of the Indissolubility of marriage.

Conclusion

Bergoglio seems primed and ready to continue Modernist decimation of any last remnants of Catholic teaching from his sect. Holy Matrimony is under attack as never before from both the world and the Vatican II sect. Sodomite "marriage," so-called domestic partnerships, no-fault divorce, easy to obtain phony annulments, and now "communion" for open adulterers, makes a sham of true marriage. There are more broken families than ever before, and the number of psychologically scarred children grows steadily. 

The Amazon Synod will attempt to portray any heresy, like the one in Amoris Laetitia, as another "development of doctrine." It has been demonstrated that this idea of "development" is a heretical, Modernist concept solemnly condemned by the Church. One of the many sickening implications of this teaching in regards to marriage, is that King Henry VIII was right and St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher both died in vain. They didn't realize that living in a persistent state of open adultery might not be seriously sinful if done for the social factor of wanting a male heir; it's a doctrinal development. I'm sure it will be extra hot in the Amazon during the Synod--not to mention the stench of brimstone. 

Reclaiming Halloween

 October is around the corner, and that means Halloween will be upon us soon. At this time of year evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants send out stern warnings that no one should participate in this "Satanic holiday." Members of the Vatican II sect (and even some Traditionalists) will say that there's nothing wrong with Halloween celebrations at all. So who is right? In this case, I happen to believe both to be wrong. As Traditionalists, we know that Halloween is a contraction of the words "All Hallow's Eve" or the day/evening before the great feast of All Saints Day on November 1, a Holy Day of Obligation in many countries, including the United States.

Here is the terse, yet excellent background to the celebration of All Saints Day taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913:

In the early days the Christians were accustomed to solemnize the anniversary of a martyr's death for Christ at the place of martyrdom. In the fourth century, neighboring dioceses began to interchange feasts, to transfer relics, to divide them, and to join in a common feast; as is shown by the invitation of St. Basil of Caesarea (379) to the bishops of the province of Pontus. Frequently groups of martyrs suffered on the same day, which naturally led to a joint commemoration. In the persecution of Diocletian the number of martyrs became so great that a separate day could not be assigned to each. But the Church, feeling that every martyr should be venerated, appointed a common day for all. The first trace of this we find in Antioch on the Sunday after Pentecost. We also find mention of a common day in a sermon of St. Ephrem the Syrian (373), and in the 74th homily of St. John Chrysostom (407). At first only martyrs and St. John the Baptist were honored by a special day. Other saints were added gradually, and increased in number when a regular process of canonization was established; still, as early as 411 there is in the Chaldean Calendar a "Commemoratio Confessorum" for the Friday after Easter. In the West Boniface IV, 13 May, 609, or 610, consecrated the Pantheon in Rome to the Blessed Virgin and all the martyrs, ordering an anniversary. Gregory III (731-741) consecrated a chapel in the Basilica of St. Peter to all the saints and fixed the anniversary for 1 November. A basilica of the Apostles already existed in Rome, and its dedication was annually remembered on 1 May. Gregory IV (827-844) extended the celebration on 1 November to the entire Church. The vigil seems to have been held as early as the feast itself. The octave was added by Sixtus IV (1471-84).

What about the day before; our current Halloween? Is it Satanic? Harmless and good fun? This post will examine the controversy surrounding the celebration of Halloween and my thoughts on what we, as Traditionalists, should do.

Satanic Origin Or Guilt By Association?

It is generally agreed that, in Church history, Halloween took the place of a special day celebrated by the ancient Druids, who were the learned or "priestly class" of the Celtic religion. The Celts were the first Aryan people who came from Asia to settle in Europe. In fact, we can see certain similarities between Druidism and the religion of India: "Celtic religion, presided over by the Druids (the priestly order) presents beliefs in various nature deities and certain ceremonies and practices that are similar to those in Indian religion. The insular Celts and the people of India also shared certain similarities of language and culture, thus indicating a common heritage." (See Celtic Religion, Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia, vol. 3). 

According to Ronald Hutton in The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain, Samhain referred to Celtic Halloween and its customs all the way up until the 19th century ([1996], p. 369). The powerful Druid priests were deemed kings of the occult practitioners, and were known for worshiping evil spirits and sacrificing humans to their demon gods. The Celts celebrated the day of death (i.e., Samhain) in anticipation of the dark, cold winter months. The eve of Samhain marked the special time of the year when the Druids taught that demons, souls and gods were unleashed on the world to bring blessing or wreak havoc and destruction on unsuspecting souls. Samhain therefore begins on the evening of October 31 and ends in the evening of November 1st. Interestingly, many credible sources cite the phenomenon of "crop circles" as overwhelmingly happening (some say over 90%) within the geographical proximity of the ancient and possibly druidic ruins of Stonehenge. Some of these phenomena are considered to be of supernatural origin. (See, e.g., Jeremy Northcote of Edith Cowan University,Australia; file:///C:/Users/Guest1/Downloads/Northcote06.pdf)

Druid priests began their New Year on November 1, which marked the beginning of Winter. They apparently believed that on October 31, the night before their New Year, and the last day of the old year, the Lord of Death gathered the souls of the evil dead who had been condemned to enter the bodies of animals. He then decided what animal form they would take for the next year. (Like the Hindu pagans, the Celtic pagans believed in reincarnation. The souls of the so-called good dead were said to be reincarnated as humans.) The Druids also believed that the punishment of the evil dead could be lightened by sacrifices, prayers and gifts to the Lord of Death.

On this night, evil or frustrated ghosts were also supposed to play tricks on humans and to cause supernatural manifestations. As part of the celebration, people donned grotesque masks and danced around the great bonfires often pretending they were being pursued by evil spirits. And while these bonfires were lit to scare away evil spirits, food was put out to make the ghosts or souls of the good dead that Samhain had released feel welcome and at home.

Because Samhain marked the beginning of a new year, an interest in divination and fortune-telling became an important part of this holiday. For example, the Druids believed that the particular shape of various fruits and vegetables could divine the future. Victims of human sacrifice were used for the same purpose. When the Romans conquered Britain, some of their customs were added to those of the Druids while others, such as human sacrifice, were banned. (See Robert J. Myers, Celebrations: The Complete Book of American Holidays , [1972], p. 259; See also, Becky Stevens Cordello, Celebrations, [1977], p. 112).

Today, Halloween is a truly occult holiday for many Celtic Neo-Pagans, Wiccans (witches) and Satan worshipers. Many who are involved in the occult view Halloween as a religious holiday and are acutely aware that it is rooted in pagan worship. (See Ronald Hutton, The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy, [1991], pp. 327–341). According to Anton LaVey, who founded the Church of Satan in 1966 and authored The Satanic Bible in 1969, Halloween is the third highest day on the demonic calendar for Satanists. LaVey wrote in The Satanic Bible:
"After one’s own birthday, the two major Satanic holidays are Walpurgisnacht (May 1st) and Halloween." (See The Satanic Bible,  p. 96).

However, the question remains,does this make Halloween evil, pagan,and Satanic? The One True Church has often replaced days that were used for evil with feasts to celebrate the holy. The most recent example, of which I can remember, is May 1st. It is the second highest day for Satanists, and was "May Day" for the atheistic Communists to show their military might for use against all those who opposed its tyranny. Pope Pius XII  replaced the feast of Sts. Philip and James on May 1st with the Feast of St. Joseph the Workman. (May is also dedicated to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary). The holy Pontiff wanted the true Christian meaning of labor, as exemplified by St. Joseph, to be celebrated against and in place of  the false and evil system of Communism. 

Let us also not forget the aforementioned Roman Pantheon mentioned in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia cited above. The Roman Pantheon is the most preserved and influential building of ancient Rome. It was a Roman temple dedicated to all the false "gods" of pagan Rome. As the brick stamps on the side of the building reveal, it was built and dedicated between A.D 118 and 125. Pope Boniface IV converted it into a Catholic Church and consecrated it to St. Mary and the Martyrs on May 13, 609. (Some sources say the year was 610 A.D.). This idea of Halloween being evil because the day has been associated with evil is no different from Jehovah's Witnesses who claim celebrating your birthday is wrong because when the Pharaoh and King Herod celebrated their birthdays, they murdered someone. I do not believe Halloween is evil per se. 

How Halloween Has Become Evil and How Traditionalists Can Reclaim It 

In my opinion, one of the worst things that happened to Christmas was Santa Claus. This is a ploy by the enemies of Christ to take away from the Christian meaning of Christmas. It requires parents to  lie to their children about the existence of a mythical creature with God-like characteristics (he knows who's good and bad, can be everywhere in the world in one night, etc), and when the kids realize their mother and father lied about it, it lessens their belief in other things their parents tell them; like the existence of God. Such was my own personal experience as a child. Telling the children about St. Nicholas, and being truthful with presents, is a very Traditional Catholic way to celebrate the birth of Our Lord.  In like manner, the true meaning of Easter has been obfuscated by eggs, rabbits, and candy; the Resurrection of Jesus Christ has, for many children, no real connection to Easter.

Now, consider modern day Halloween.  Since the emergence of the Vatican II sect, how many children understand what it means in relation to All Saints Day? As a matter of fact, the sect has eliminated the precept of attending their Novus Bogus "mass" on November 1st. It is abolished whenever the day falls on Saturday or Monday. In Hawaii, their "bishop," with approval of the Modernist Vatican, eliminated all Holy Days of Obligation except the Immaculate Conception (December 8th) and Christmas. Far worse is the revival of pagan customs. These will be described below and Traditionalist substitutions recommended.

1. Dressed to Kill?

There is nothing wrong with getting dressed up in costumes, but it does matter if evil is celebrated thereby. I've heard V2 sect apologists for immoral and evil costumes say "it's a way to mock evil." Dressing up as something evil thereby "mocks" it? To children, it will be less of a "mockery" and instead be seen as  a glorification of things they should not be contemplating in their young and impressionable minds. Below are some of the most popular costumes from last year. Can any parent worthy of the title "Traditionalist Catholic" read the list and think there's nothing wrong with these costumes? 

• Ghostbusters. This is a girl's costume from the 2016 reboot of the 1984 mega-hit starring John Belushi and Dan Akroyd. The protagonists travel through time and space to combat a host of demonic and supernatural threats using silly "science methods" to dispatch of these threats. All mention of exorcism or fighting evil in the name and by the power of Jesus Christ was excluded from the movie by Dan Akroyd.  Akroyd (b. 1952) was baptized in the True Church and wanted to be a priest until Vatican II came along, and he renounced Christianity in 1969 at the age of 17.  "It's well-documented that original Ghostbuster and screenwriter Dan Aykroyd doesn't just enjoy the paranormal, but is a full-fledged believer in parapsychology and comes from a long line of followers of spiritualism. His father, Peter H. Aykroyd, wrote a book all about it. Modern American Spiritualism is the formal way to describe followers of the Spiritualist Church, and it goes back to the mid-19th century, when a small group of people began the spiritualist movement and, with it, paranormal investigation." (See https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/real-life-science-based-religion-inspired-ghostbusters; Emphasis mine)

• Star Wars. Costumes of characters for both boys and girls. The entire Star Wars franchise is about a war in a galaxy "far, far, away." The Jedi Knights in this galaxy have practices that the first movie (now with the prequels it's renumbered the fourth movie; "A New Hope") that are directly referred to as "religion" no less than three times. A character named Tarkin states to Darth Vader, "The Jedi are extinct...you, my friend, are all that's left of their religion." The Force is an impersonal and universal energy field that permeates all things in the universe. It is neither good nor evil in itself, but it can be used for either purpose. While not omnipotent, it is the source of great power to perform feats that defy natural laws, such as gravity. All religions have an Ultimate of some kind. The Force is an omnipresent, supernatural power that surrounds all things and to which all things return. The Force is, therefore, the equivalent of God or a Supreme Being. Eastern pantheism and pagan practices permeate every movie

• Wonder Woman. A very immodest and immoral costume for girls. Extremely revealing and tight fitting, no young girl (especially young teens) of any decency should wear this costume.

• Deadpool. As one source accurately describes this anti-hero; "...[Deadpool] is neither good nor bad. He works on both sides, but is not loyal to either. He is a mercenary and assassin who would alter the world to bring down his target, for a price. Deadpool is a psychopath, a hero, a villain, and the most mysterious madman you could ever chance to encounter."(See https://www.quora.com/Is-Deadpool-a-good-guy-or-a-bad-guy)

Add to this list the horror movie characters of Jason and Freddie Krueger (both fictitious serial killers), and the evil supernatural characters of witches, vampires, and demons. What can be done? Have children dress up as a saint, and have your child learn all he can about this saint. These are the role models children should aspire to be. Does your son like things medieval? Dress up as King St. Louis IX! Want to be a lawyer? St. Thomas More will fit the role. For girls, there is the martyr of purity, St. Maria Goretti, and the equally brave St. Joan of Arc. Parents should take their kids trick-or-treating so they can explain the costume with their children to others who inquire.

Consider "All Saints Day" parties at home instead of trick-or-treating; have a parade of saints and fun in the house!

2. Give sanctity instead of sugar. When children come to the house for candy, give some money with a Holy Card. On the back, inscribe the Traditionalist Church or Chapel that is closest. You never know when curiosity upon finding this card will get some parent to go there. Instead of a "jack-o-lantern," carve some holy scene in the pumpkin or put a holy candle in the window.

3. Have a reading from the life of a saint to end the night and pray for the Holy Souls in Purgatory before going to bed and attending Mass on November 1st. A child should be "wowed" by the fascinating life of one of the saints. Let them know they can and should become saints too, and then others will be celebrating them on November 1st. In anticipation of All Souls Day, say a decade of the Rosary together for the Poor Souls waiting entrance into Heaven. Remind them that going to Mass is the real highlight ending Halloween. 

Conclusion

Halloween has become the antithesis of what is was meant to be. Instead of detracting from paganism, the world, lead by the Vatican II sect, has made Halloween just as pagan as it once was by taking all emphasis off of the true meaning. Let a Traditionalist reclaiming of the day begin! Celebrate saints and things holy, not killers and the occult. Instead of sugar, give out a chance to read about a saint and attend a real Mass for those who come to your house. Do these things and make the day a Christian revival culminating in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Do this, and one day, with God's grace, we may all celebrate November 1st as saints together in Heaven.  

Vatican II, Invincible Ignorance, And Salvation

 Most "conservatives" in the Vatican II sect are (ironically) ignorant of invincible ignorance, and what it means in relation to God's plan of salvation.  Their warped ideas come from the heretical ecclesiology contained in the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. In paragraph number 8, we read: "This Church [the Church of Christ], constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." (Emphasis mine).

In simple terms, this "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," as it is called, teaches that there is an entity known as "the Church of Christ" which is distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. (The true ecclesiology always taught that the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same). The Church of Christ is found in its "fullness" in the Roman Catholic Church because She contains all the "elements" of the Church of Christ, which subsists (in greater or lesser degrees) in other religions too, depending on how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good too and leads to salvation. This heresy denies that there is only One True Church, and it makes a farce of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ("Outside the Church No Salvation"--hereinafter "EENS").

The "conservative" defenders of the Vatican II sect will protest that Lumen Gentium upholds EENS in paragraph number 14. It states: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it." (I will return to this sentence later). In paragraph number 16, it declares, "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too many achieve eternal salvation." The text cites to the letter of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office Suprema Haec Sacra [1949] to the Archbishop of Boston regarding the errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney who denied Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). It is interesting that the letter does not expound the Catholic teaching on BOD and BOB as fully and comprehensively as other sources which the Robber Council simply ignored.

In response to their defense of Lumen Gentium, I can easily point out glaring departures from EENS, such as in paragraph number 16 where it teaches "... the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." God's plan of salvation includes the followers of the murderous madman Mohammed? Worshiping the false moon god "Allah" is the same as the Triune God of Catholicism? I could go on, but the purpose of my post is to bring to light the false ideas held by "EWTN" types in the Vatican II sect, who give a heretical interpretation to invincible ignorance based on the above cited sentence from Lumen Gentium: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it."

Those Who Know Nothing About Ignorance

 From the sentence cited in Lumen Gentium, the V2 sect apologists reason as follows: No one can be damned for not joining the Catholic Church unless the failure to join is deliberate. The Church teaches that all who do not join Her are damned. Therefore, "Outside the Church No Salvation" only applies to those who recognize the Catholic Church as the True Church and then deliberately refuse to join Her. Now if you apply this totally false and heretical idea and label it "invincible ignorance," you have completely eviscerated EENS. There are two necessary factors for being "outside the Church:" First, you must explicitly know that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, and having this knowledge, you nevertheless (out of human respect, fear, or whatever motive) refuse to join Her.

 It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that large numbers of people have no knowledge of the Catholic Church, or don't realize Catholicism is the true religion, due to factors they can't overcome (like poor Chinese pagans who don't know any better and have never heard of Catholicism in many cases. I won't even discuss those who mistake the Vatican II sect for the Catholic Church). Add to the mix Lutherans living in Scandinavian countries, and since they were surrounded by non-Catholics, they had no way to understand the Catholic Church is the One True Church. Hence, nearly all the world is saved.  Feeneyites will rightfully condemn this heresy, but then they go on to reject the true teaching on invincible ignorance as taught by Pope Pius IX. The heretical implications of the V2 sect apologists are:

1. The Divine and Catholic Faith are not always necessary for salvation.

2. Those who are not deliberately outside the Church because of ignorance, and those who fail to recognize Her as the One True Church, will ipso facto be united to Her through BOD.

3. There is a "presumption of salvation" for non-Catholics. This comes directly from Vatican II which discussed Moslems as a whole (and many other false sects) as being "in the plan of salvation." 

The Teaching of the Church

I) Outside the One True Church, There is no Salvation

"There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

"We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302).

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino, 1441). 

The Syllabus of Errors (1864):

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION 16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. 

The position of the Church is clear.

II) Ignorance does NOT save you
In his Allocution Singulari Quadem [1854], Pope Pius IX teaches, "On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God."

As theologian Fenton teaches, "He [Pope Pius IX] stated simply that God will blame no man for invincible ignorance of the Catholic Church, any more than He will blame anyone for invincible ignorance of anything else...non-appurtenance to the Catholic Church is by no means the only reason why men are deprived of the Beatific Vision. Ultimately, the only factor that will exclude a man from the eternal and supernatural enjoyment of God in Heaven is sin, either Original or mortal." (See The Catholic Church and Salvation In the Light of Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, [1958], pgs. 45-46).

The same holy Pontiff, in his encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore [1863], teaches:
Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of Divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. (para. #7 and 8; Emphasis mine).

Notice that Pope Pius IX affirms the absolute necessity of Church membership for salvation twice, and between these affirmations, he discusses those in invincible ignorance of the true religion who "are able to" (not "will") attain eternal life. Unless you are a Feeneyite, it is apparent that a pope cannot teach error to the whole Church, even when not speaking infallibly. Nor was he schizophrenic; contradicting himself in the same document by affirming the absolute necessity of Church membership and invincible ignorance. Therefore, invincible ignorance is not an exception to Church membership.

First, who are those that Pius IX indicates "may be saved" despite (not because of) invincible ignorance? Certainly not all who are invincibly ignorant as "conservative" V2 sect members seem to think. There are several stringent requirements. The person must:

• be invincibly ignorant of the Catholic religion
• carefully observe the natural law (the duty to "do good and avoid evil" as recognized by human reason)
• observe all the precepts of natural law, which are those specific obligations of the natural law and are known to all people who have not extinguished the light of true conscience within them. Such obligations include, but are not limited to, adoring God, not to steal or kill, to reserve sex for marriage, etc. 
• "lead a good and upright life" thus striving to to inform and obey his conscience in regard to every action
• be "ready to obey God" by being disposed to do whatever He may want Him to do, and "lead an honest life" thereby having perfect contrition for sin

If a person meets these requirements, is he/she assured of salvation? In a word: No. They need "Divine light and grace." What does this mean? God can, before death, enlighten the mind by infusing the basic truths of Faith and imbue sanctifying grace in the soul. The person thereby is within the Church with grace and can be saved. St Thomas Aquinas in De Veritate, question 14, article 11, discusses whether it is necessary to have explicit Faith to be saved. The Angelic Doctor answers in the affirmative, and this comports with implicit faith being changed to explicit Faith by Divine Light. Aquinas teaches:

"For if anyone thus brought up [someone raised in the woods or among brute animals] were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, even as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10). (Emphasis mine).  Hence, theologian Lacroix teaches that "...the faithlessness of those who have heard nothing of the Faith [not even by internal inspiration]...is not a sin, but the penalty of sin; because if they had done what lay within their power, God would not have concealed the faith from them." (See Theologia Moralis, De Fide, cap. 5, dub 1). 

Conclusion

The Vatican II sect exalts ignorance as a condition that automatically saves you. Nothing could be more wrong and wicked. Ignorance, even when invincible and thereby inculpable, does not save anyone. If that were the case, the Church should not carry out the Great Commission by sending missionaries, because if you leave someone in invincible ignorance they will be saved, but if you tell them the truth and they reject it they will be damned. You thereby put non-Catholics in a potentially worse position by preaching to them. 

If someone in invincible ignorance meets many stringent requirements, it is possible that God can bring him into the Church through BOD before death. It is a rare miracle of grace. Therefore, we must pursue the Great Commission with full vigor. Just as God has miraculously allowed certain saints to survive by ingesting nothing but the Holy Eucharist, we can't take a rare miracle like that and use it to justify not feeding the poor because "God can feed them by a miracle." We must follow Church teaching on invincible ignorance and all other matters, avoiding both denial of God's saving work (Feeneyites), and professing universal salvation via ignorance (Vatican II sect). 

Blasphemy As Humor

 Beginning in the 1990s, a new weapon was launched against the majesty of God. Since the emergence of the Vatican II sect, the forces of evil have done everything possible to detract from God's honor, and eradicate Him from the minds and hearts of men. Ecumenism gave us the idea that "one religion is as good as another," and beliefs just don't matter. The One True Church and Her Founder were thus made "equal" to the false moon god "Allah," and the demonic "gods" of Hinduism. The sense of the sacred was gone and replaced by seeing God as obsolete, inconsequential, and no One Who commands respect.

By the 1990s it became fashionable to make jokes about God. Moral degenerates like Howard Stern became more emboldened to laugh at God. Atheist "comedians" like the utterly detestable Bill Maher grew large followings by blaspheming God under the guise of humor. Humor (so-called) became Satan's best weapon. If anyone objects to these blasphemies, the predictable response is, "What's the matter, it's only a joke!" You could get away with the most vulgar attacks on God by posing as a comedian. Those who can be cajoled into laughing not only sin, but they also begin to think offending God is "no big deal" as long as you can get a laugh out of it.

Last year, the depraved Stephen Colbert (another "comedian") who claims to be a practicing member of the Vatican II sect, launched a most horrific attack on Christ during Easter. Showtime aired an animated show by Colbert entitled Our Cartoon President. In it, Our Lord, Our Lady, and St. Joseph are degraded and blasphemed. (WARNING! The following description is vile and blasphemous. I have censored the worst parts, but reader discretion is advised---Introibo).

According to several news sources, the episode, which aired on Easter Sunday, was entitled "Church and State" and depicts a fictional Trump grappling with his loss of support among evangelical voters. On an open microphone, he is heard committing a religious "gaffe."

"Was that Joseph guy a p**z or what? Clearly, he wasn’t taking care of Mary’s needs. I mean, if God knocked up my wife, He’d never d***k again. I’d cut off God’s p***s," Trump says. The "funny" insults continued with Trump saying, "You think your great-grandfather hunted dinosaurs. How do grown adults still worship Jesus? I mean, where was Jesus when the Taj Mahal was at a standstill with the unions?"

Finally, after the gaffe hits the news, Trump tells the public, "Don’t believe the dishonest media. I would never cut off God’s p***s, unless God begged me, like, ‘Please, son! Slice off my d**g!’ I’m like Jesus, only with twice as many prostitutes." If you think this "practicing Catholic" was denounced or asked to repent by the Vatican II sect "bishops," guess again.

While this "humor" is clearly despicable, there's more subtle attempts to denigrate God. One of the worst will be discussed in the next section. It's a show that was just approved for a second season, and was the impetus for my writing this post.

"Miracle Workers"

The Bible tells us, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Hollywood has done just that. In 2015, the show Lucifer came out. We were told "the TV series centers on Lucifer who, bored and unhappy as the Lord of Hell, resigns his throne and abandons his kingdom for the gorgeous, shimmering insanity of Los Angeles, where he gets his kicks helping the LAPD punish criminals." (See http://deadline.com/2015/02/lucifer-pilot-order-len-wiseman-director-jerry-bruckheimer-producer-fox-1201376635/). I wrote a post about the show, warning about how it attempted to make a "hero" out of ultimate evil. (See my post, http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/06/satan-goes-prime-time.html).

One of the most heinous lies the show Lucifer promotes is that Satan was somehow redeemed by God, and that his redemption shows that all of us have hope––no matter how wicked we choose to be. This is blatant universalism; the belief everyone is saved.  Maybe Bergoglio was a consultant? In the third season, Lucifer’s angelic wings are restored and the (made-up) angel Amenadiel, the "older brother" of Lucifer, says in the season three premier, "Perhaps Father [God] is trying to show you that you’ve been forgiven. Brother, if you can be redeemed, that means that anyone can. Now isn’t that divine?" (See, e.g., https://www.fox.com/lucifer/). In 2 Corinthians 2:14, we read: "No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light."(Emphasis mine).

Whereas Lucifer has a serious setting making evil into good, the show Miracle Workers, has God as a buffoon. The TBS series casts actor Steve Buscemi as "God," and Daniel Radcliffe, a professed atheist and a fan of militant atheist Richard Dawkins, as an "angel." Radcliffe played Harry Potter in the movies which promoted both witchcraft and moral relativism. The show is careful not to portray God as blatantly evil, as if Richard Dawkins were writing the script, because that might pull down the ratings and those who claim to be Christian would not be so easily taken in.  Instead, Miracle Workers portrays God as evil by depicting Him as totally indifferent to the suffering of His creatures. "God" is represented as a drug addict Who is so obsessed with ridiculous hobbies, like pretending to be a rock star, that He couldn’t care less about the prayers of His suffering creatures.

Atheist Radcliffe says, "The answering of our prayers is very low priority in this version of Heaven." (See http://collider.com/miracle-workers-daniel-radcliffe-interview/). Radcliffe admits that the show can be very dark, and just like in Harry Potter, "the ends justify the means." He says, "We do some bad things to people who are getting in our way in order to try and save the world." Radcliffe further admits "our depiction of God is kind of crazy."  God (their blasphemous caricature of Him) is the punchline in most of the wicked "jokes." (Ibid). The pilot episode is called "2 weeks" because "God" decided He’s going to blow up Earth because there’s no point to it. Feeling unsettled by this, Eliza [an angel played by Geraldine Viswanathan] challenges Him by making a wager with God that if she can answer one of the "impossible prayers," he can’t blow up Earth. "God" agrees. She teams up with Craig [angel played by Radcliffe], to answer a young couple's prayer for intimacy. God wants the unmarried couple to have "full sex" in order for Eliza to win the bet, making "God" a promoter of fornication. The series mocks God’s real mercy and His sending Jesus to save humanity. Eliza is pretty much the "God-character." Her desire to save humanity gets the audience on her side and not "God."

The creator of this piece of garbage posing as a "comedy," Simon Rich, wrote another diatribe against God--a short story entitled The Book of Simon. It is the twisting of the Book of Job in the Bible.  Job was a good man dedicated to God, and whom God allows Satan to visit misfortune on him to test his faith. Job remains faithful to God. In this short story, Simon Rich is dedicated to Satan and doing his work. One day when Satan is boasting of what a wicked man he has made of Simon, God wagers with Satan that if He pours out even more blessings on Simon’s life, that he will surely become a devoted believer: "Let’s go double or nothing on the Job thing. I’ll bless Simon and give him reward upon reward until his cup runneth over. And you will see that he starts to believe!" Then "God" says, "Maybe Simon would believe in Me if his life were more blessed?’ And Satan laughed and said, ‘How?’ For Simon had been raised in luxury and had never experienced hardship of any kind."

"Now, Simon had graduated from an expensive college, but he had almost no skills. All he liked to do was sit around in his underwear, making up jokes and then laughing at them. So God said, “Fine,” and let Simon do that as his full-time job. But, instead of praising God for this miracle, Simon took everything for granted, and even began to write some jokes that made fun of God. And Satan would read these jokes out loud to God, in a funny voice." In the end we are told Simon "wrestled deeply with the question of faith. He thought about all the blessings he’d been given while other, more deserving people had suffered. And the mad injustice of his life convinced him, unequivocally, that God did not exist. Because if God existed then surely by now he would have got some horrible comeuppance."

In the story, God tells Satan, "You win." "God" is so defeated that even Satan feels sorry for God, "And Satan tried to gloat, but he couldn’t enjoy the victory, because God was so visibly upset." (See Simon Rich, "The Book of Simon," The New Yorker, September 2016). This is really the life story of Simon, making blasphemous "jokes" about God as in Miracle Workers. If your spouse, children, parents, or friends were so mocked would you find it funny? How much more should we be offended by this attack on Our Lord!

Conclusion

Why is blasphemy so evil? According to theologians McHugh and Callan, blasphemy is "...the denial to God of something that is His, or the ascription to God of what does not belong to Him." (See Moral Theology, [1929], 1:338). It is insults or calumnies offered to God. The works of Simon Rich fit this category well, yet we should not view it as blasphemy (so the world tells us) because it's "just humor."

A story is told about an African-American man in the 1930s who was riding the bus "too close" to the white section for some passengers in segregated Alabama. The man wore a large overcoat, a hat, and was stooped over. He just wanted to get to his destination in peace. Two punks began taunting him to either get his "black a**" back further in the bus, or they would give him a beating. No one spoke up for the poor man who just sat there quietly taking this abuse. The bus came to his stop, and the gentleman arose from his seat. He was much bigger than anyone expected and his body was incredibly muscular and toned. The two cowards grew quiet when they saw his size and strength. As he made his way to the bus door, he handed one of them his card. It read: Joe Louis: Boxer. They had tempted fate with the future Heavyweight Boxing Champion of the World. The moral of the story is simple yet profound; how we evaluate a person surely affects the way we treat them and how we behave in their presence.

If we have a healthy respect and reverential fear of God, we will not laugh at "jokes" which detract from his honor. We will not watch any shows, read any books, or patronize any place that mocks God. The blasphemers like Simon Rich, Steve Buscemi, Daniel Radcliffe, and "Catholic" Stephen Colbert, had better heed the warning of our first pope:

"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation" (2 Peter 3:3-4; Emphasis mine). The mockers of God will soon discover their punishment is not asleep, but will come upon them "like a thief in the night." (1 Thessalonians 5:2).

Addendum

We would all do well to have ourselves, and all in our household, take the discarded Pledge of the Legion of Decency (and add the TV to its condemnation).  I have reprinted it below with my suggested additions.


+ In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. I condemn all indecent and immoral motion pictures and television shows, and those which glorify crime, criminals, as well as sins against the sixth and ninth commandments. I promise to do all that I can to strengthen public opinion against the production of indecent and immoral films and TV shows, and to unite with all who protest against them. I acknowledge my obligation to form a right conscience about movies and TV shows that are dangerous to my moral life. I pledge myself to remain away from them. I promise, further, to stay away altogether from places of amusement which show bad movies as a matter of policy, and from all homes that show indecent TV shows as a matter of accepted practice. Amen.

When Strangers Come Knocking

 It's a scene to which most of us can relate. On a Saturday morning, you want to sleep in after a hard week of work. At about somewhere between 9 and 10 am the doorbell rings, usually followed by loud knocking. You're not expecting any visitors, so you get out of bed and go to peer through the window and see who's interrupting your sleep. In front of your door stands two well-dressed people (usually, but not always, a man and a woman), with a book in their hand and/or a briefcase. You groan to yourself, "Jehovah's Witnesses waking me up! Just go away and leave me alone." You ignore the knocking and go back to bed. Without realizing it, you did a great disservice to Christ. You read that last sentence correctly--you did a great disservice to Christ. Two (or more) people came to your door trying to convert you to a false, non-Christian sect, and you did nothing to defend the One True Church and try to convert them. 

In 1 Peter 3:16, our first Pope writes, "But in thy hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks thee to give the reason for the hope that thou hast. But do this with gentleness and respect,..." Before the Great Apostasy, the Church would send missionaries to the ends of the Earth to make as many converts as possible. Yet, some people in desperate need of the truth came knocking at your door, and you did nothing to help them save their souls. Not only Jehovah's Witnesses, but Mormons, and other false religions actively seek converts door-to-door. If only we had the same zeal for the truth as they do for falsehood! We need to convert all, not just those in the Vatican II sect.

This is the first in a series of posts, to be published the first Monday of each month. Those in false religions don't always come (literally) knocking at your door. It may be a Hindu at work who wants you to try yoga. It could be a "Christian Scientist" who lives next door and invites you to come to their reading room. Each month, I will present a false sect. Unlike the Vatican II sect, I do not see them as a "means of salvation" or possessing "elements of truth" that lead to salvation. That is heresy. They lead to damnation, and the adherents of the various sects must be converted so they may be saved.

In each post, I will present one false sect and give an overview of:

• The sect's history
• Their theology
• Tips on how to share the True Faith with them

It is also imperative that you be strong in your faith first. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons (to give but two examples) spend hours each week studying their false theology along with various debate techniques in order to attack all others outside their sect. You might doubt your own faith if you do not know it well enough. Therefore, I hope you will spend time each week reading some of the great approved theologians, in order to know your faith better. When you feel secure in the faith, you may want to try converting those who "come knocking" on the door to your life.

Jehovah's Witnesses

1. History
The Jehovah's Witnesses (hereinafter "JWs") was founded by a Protestant turned skeptic, named Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916). Born in Pennsylvania, Russell attended both Presbyterian and Congregational sect churches as a child. At age 16, he became skeptical of religion because he could not accept the existence of Hell. After a brief period with the Adventist denomination, 27 year old Russell founded the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. The "Watchtower" soon had established itself in both Pennsylvania and New York.

Russell's magazine, Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, taught that Christ had invisibly returned to Earth in 1874 and that His presence would reach its apex in in 1914, with God's Judgement on the nations of Earth (which he called the end of the "Gentile times") and the establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth. Russell died in 1916, believing himself correct, and that World War I was the beginning of Armageddon.

Upon Russell's death, there were a significant number of his followers, and many began a "power grab," vying to replace him. At the end of the fray, Joseph Rutherford (1869-1942) was elected the leader. He was quick to expel dissidents and consolidate his power. In 1931, Rutherford officially changed the sect's name to the "Jehovah's Witnesses." Rutherford changed and "updated" most of Russell's teachings. Christ didn't return to Earth invisibly in 1874, but rather 1914, corresponding to WW I. He taught that in 1925, various people from the Bible would be resurrected, such as Moses, Abraham and others. Rutherford also made Brooklyn, one of the five boroughs of New York City, the international headquarters of the JWs. Later, JWs would be told that since 1914, Jesus was invisibly present in the Brooklyn headquarters. Most significantly, the JWs started learning their theology in places called "Kingdom Halls" and going door to door trying to convert people before Armageddon and the end of the world.

The most significant changes came after the death of Rutherford and the election of Nathan Knorr (1905-1977) in 1942. Knorr placed the leadership in a Board of Directors known as the Governing Body (of which the President is the head), located in Brooklyn. Under his leadership, the JW's had two sophisticated "study guides" for the Bible; magazines called The Watchtower, and Awake! both of which interpret the Bible for the JW, despite protestations to the contrary. Most importantly, he made their own version of the Bible, The New World Translation. This "bible" is not only denounced by language scholars, but it was purposely made to distort what was actually written so as to conform with the JWs theology.

One of the biggest challenges came over the organization's false prophesy of 1975 (not to mention the false prophesy of resurrections in 1925). In the 1960s, their magazines taught that 1975 would be exactly 6,000 years since the creation of Adam and Eve, and that Armageddon would take place. As a result, many JWs sold their homes and quit their jobs to preach door to door full time. This is similar to the false May 21, 2011 doomsday prophesy of Protestant preacher Harold Camping. As a result of the 1975 debacle, in 1976, a large number of JWs left the organization. Since that time, Brooklyn has been careful about rigid date setting.
 

2. Theology

• There is no Trinity. God the Father is Almighty God, known as Jehovah. 

• Jesus Christ is the Archangel Michael; they call Him the "Son of God" because the "first spirit person God made was like a firstborn son to Him (Jehovah)" (See Watchtower booklet, Enjoy Life on Earth Forever! [1982], pg. 14). Christ is "a god"--hence they changed the familiar Last Gospel we hear at Mass to read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."(St. John 1:1, New World Bible; Emphasis mine). Ironically, they fancy themselves "Christian" and they don't even believe in the Divinity of Christ.

• The Holy Ghost is simply an impersonal force Jehovah uses to do His will

• Our current condition is the result of the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden and their disobedience caused death to enter the world. They also believe this was against God’s plan to make the entire earth a paradise. 

• Christ was born of the Virgin Mary and died on a "torture stake"--a pole with no cross beam. JWs hate crosses and crucifixes so much, they will physically break and throw out any that may come into their possession. When Jesus died He became non-existent and was raised as an angel--He no longer has His body.

• Humans souls will die when we die, and those who are saved will have their souls recreated at the point of the resurrection. Those who are not believers will simply be annihilated (no Hell)

•  The purpose of life is to earn the right to participate in the future Kingdom of God. The JWs headquarters (aka "The Watchtower Society" in Brooklyn) is necessary to salvation. Only those obedient to the "wise servant" of Jehovah can escape annihilation. Most will live in an earthly paradise, but exactly 144,000 JWs will go to be with Jehovah in Heaven. If the Society "disfellowships" you (akin to excommunication) other JWs must avoid you and you can't be saved unless you ask the Society for re-admission and forgiveness

• JWs may not participate in the "things of this world." Hence, voting, military service, celebrating any holiday or your birthday are all banned. They claim "Biblical proof" for these bans. Blood transfusions are considered akin to cannibalism. It is the worst thing anyone can do because "your spirit" is in your blood. JWs are expected to deny blood transfusions even if they (or someone under their care) will surely die  

(Information for the last two sections taken from several sources and condensed, Most notably, Handbook of Denominations in the United States by Roger Olsen).

3. Proselytizing JWs

• JWs always start with a question where they can get easy agreement, such as, "Wouldn't you love to live in a world where there are no wars?" You should answer, "Yes, and my faith provides the answer." This will block their line of questioning. 

• When they ask what your faith is don't say "Catholic" because they will think of the Vatican II sect and start talking about pedophilia, etc. Call yourself a "Traditionalist." 

• When they ask, "What's a Traditionalist?" Don't explain, but just say "The true Christianity, not like the Watchtower Society." This will throw them completely off

• Never accept their literature, because they will not accept anything to read from you because they are taught it is coming from "apostates." If you accept their literature, they think it is "proof" you don't consider them "apostate." 

• Then ask them a few well-placed questions about the JWs' Watchtower Society; get them thinking about its legitimacy

• Always use the New World Bible (quotes from which I'll provide here) so they can't reject your premises based on a "faulty translation" of the Bible

(a) Attacking the Watchtower Society's View of Christ

The following is taken from Protestant philosopher Dr. Clay Jones, to whom I give full and exclusive credit. I met Dr. Jones once while at a conference. While I (obviously)  do not share his beliefs, he is very open to the True Faith, as was evident when we talked. A true scholar and gentleman, I have hope for his conversion. Having said that, this exchange he had with a JW was brilliant and left his visitor speechless. "C" stands for Dr. Clay or any True Catholic wanting to engage a JW. Of course, "JW" indicates the member of the false sect, Jehovah's Witnesses. Let's hope and pray that Dr. Clay joins the One True Church as well.

C: Let me ask you only one question and after you answer it, I’ll answer any question you want. First I need to clarify a few things. In the New World Translation, John 1:1 reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Then in Isaiah 9:6 (NWT) we read: “For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” So then, does Jehovah equal almighty God?

JW: Yes.

C: Now Jesus isn’t Jehovah, right?

JW: That’s right.

C: Jesus equals a Mighty God?

JW: That is correct.

C: Is Jehovah a true God or a false God?

JW: Jehovah is a true God.

C: Is Jesus a true God or a false God?

JW: Jesus is a true God.

C: Okay, here’s my question: How can you believe there are two true Gods when the Bible says there is only one God? After all, it says in Isaiah 43:10-11 (NWT), “Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none.” And Isa: 44:6 (NWT) says: “I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.”

JW: That passage is teaching that there are no capital “G” gods.

C: Hebrew doesn’t have capital letters so the capitalization of the “G” in those passages is an insertion by the NW translators to make us believe there are two categories of gods. It is equivalent to their just inserting the word “almighty” in the text. If the Lord had wanted to proclaim that “besides me there is no Almighty God” instead of what it really says, “beside me there is no god,” He could easily have had Isaiah insert the word “Almighty” in those passages. But He didn’t.

JW: Well, we only worship one God.

C: If I only loved one wife but was married to two women, I would still be a polygamist and your believing there are two true Gods even though you only worship one of them still makes you a polytheist. The Bible says there is only one God.

JW: But the Bible calls Satan a God.

C: Is Satan a true God or a false God?

JW: A false God.

C: You still have two true Gods.

JW: But in Ex. 4:16 (NWT) it says that Moses “will serve as God to him [Pharaoh].”

C: It says Moses will serve “as God.” In other translations of this verse it says Moses will be “like God” to him. Do you see a difference between serving “as” God or “like” God and really being a god? For example, if I said an older woman was “as a mother to me” it wouldn’t mean that I actually came out of her womb, right? Do you see the difference?”

JW: But the word “God” is just a title that can be used for those on the side of God.

C: Then there would be lots of true Gods, but John 17:3 (NWT) says “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” If that’s true, how could you say that Jesus is a true God?

JW: As I said, we only worship one God.

C: But I’m not asking about how many Gods you worship, I’m asking about how many Gods you think are true. Can you think of a time when someone says that ‘X’ is the ‘only true’ ‘X’ that it doesn’t make everything else in that category false? If their God is the ‘only true’ God then any other god must be a false god, but you have already said that Jehovah and Jesus are both true Gods and that makes… count them… two true Gods.

JW: 1 Cor. 8:4-6 says “…there is no God but one. For even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.” See, the Father is God, not Jesus.

C: But you’ve already agreed there are two true Gods and this passage says there is only one God.

JW: You’re talking about the Trinity.

C: No, I’m pointing out that Jehovah’s Witnesses are polytheists who believe there is more than one true God, even though the Bible tells us there is only one true God.

JW: We didn’t come here to argue. [What?]

C: Okay, well, if you want to bring someone back, I’ll be glad to talk with them. [That hasn’t happened yet.]

(b) Attacking Some Specifics

The Ban on Birthdays

The JWs don't allow birthday celebrations because in Genesis 40:20-22, the Pharaoh hanged the chief baker when it was the ruler's birthday, and in St. Matthew 14:6--as well as in St. Mark 6:21, Herod beheaded St. John the Baptist when it was that pagan ruler's birthday. Therefore, JW reasoning claims that since pagans had someone murdered on the occasion of celebrating their birthday, JWs must not celebrate their birthdays. This is a most silly "guilt by association." 

Nevertheless, point out that in Job 1:4, it says of the holy patriarch's family, "And his sons went and held a banquet at the house of each one on his own day; and they sent and invited their three sisters to eat and drink with them." (New World Bible; Emphasis mine). That "his own day" refers to each one's birthday is made clear when we read further, "It was after this that Job opened his mouth and began to call down evil upon his day. Job now answered and said: 'Let the day perish on which I came to be born..."(Job 3:1-3; Emphasis mine). Finally the JW Bible's own translation says of St. John the Baptist: "And you will have joy and great gladness, and many will rejoice over his birth." Isn't rejoicing over the day of someone's birth, celebrating a birthday? Hence, if faithful Job's children celebrated their birthdays, and St. John The Baptist's birthday is an occasion of celebration (rejoicing), the fact that Herod and Pharaoh celebrated their birthdays cannot be a reason to hold birthday celebrations intrinsically "pagan" or "evil."

Is Christ really St. Michael the Archangel?

Invite the JWs to compare these verses in their own Bibles. 

• Jesus has the authority to rebuke Satan in St. Mark 8:33; St. Michael cannot do so in St. Jude 9
• Jesus receives worship and God’s future Kingdom: Hebrews 1:6; St. Michael rejects worship and is declared NOT to be God's Son in Hebrews 2:5
• Ask, "How can they be the same if they are opposite of one another in Scripture?" 

Conclusion

I've used most of these arguments against the JWs at my door. Once, I really shook two gentleman, such that they were visibly exasperated, and I never saw them again. They probably went to one of the senior JWs who convinced them to put it out of their minds. Or maybe not--maybe the seeds I planted bore fruit and they left the JWs. Maybe they will be led on to join the One True Church. Christ only expects us to try our best; leave the rest in His Hands. Don't be discouraged as you never know what good your efforts will do. Don't turn away people at your door, and in your life, who need to join the Church. 

Learn the faith. Learn the falsehoods all around us as you grow in faith. Try and proselytize others. In so doing, not only may you save others, but the soul you ultimately save may well be your own.