A Neutered Christianity

On Tuesday, October 22, 2019, a group of feminists protested at the Amazon Synod to allow priestesses. According to The Guardian:
Campaigners have gathered in Rome to call for the lifting of a ban on female priests that would “save the Catholic Church” where it is failing to ordain enough men.

Activists from the Women’s Ordination Worldwide (WOW) group protested outside the Vatican on Tuesday as the church’s hierarchy pondered the idea of allowing married men in the Amazon to become priests in order to plug the shortage in the region. The activists argue that ordaining women priests would solve the issue as effectively and should be prioritized. The revolt at the Vatican shows the church is still failing women. 

‌"Empowering women would save the church,” said Kate McElwee, a Rome-based representative of WOW. “Our church and our Earth are in crisis – and empowering women in roles that they are already serving in their communities is a solution. We’re advocating for equality and that includes ordination.” 
(See www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/22/catholic-church-lift-ban-on-female-priests-activists-say).

These women are no longer part of the"lunatic fringe" in the Vatican II sect. According to Life Site News:

 The final document of the Amazon Synod calls for allowing women’s ministries at Mass, specifically saying that women can “receive the ministries of the Lector and Acolyte, among others to be developed.” While it does not specifically call for a permanent “diaconate” for women, it refers to the Commission set up by Pope Francis to study the question and says Synod Fathers will share their observations with the Commission and await the Commission’s report (para 103).

“It is urgent for the Amazon Church to promote and confer ministries for men and women in an equitable manner,” says the document (para 95). Quoting Pope Francis' exhortation Evangeli Gaudium, the synod document (para 99) calls for the Church “to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church.” Quoting again from Pope Francis (from a 2013 speech), it says, “Let us not reduce the commitment of women in the Church, but promote their active participation in the ecclesial community.”...

The document asks the Pope to create a specific ministry for women in the Amazon called “woman community leader.”
(See https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-amazon-synod-final-doc-calls-for-official-womens-ministry-at-mass).

A "woman community leader"---whatever that means---is just the next step to deaconesses, and finally, priestesses.

 The One True Church has always been pro-female, but anti-feminist. God created both male and female, who both have the same calling to reach Heaven. However, men and women have separate functions. Using the same Masonic formula of "liberty, equality, fraternity (sorority?)," the feminists demand that God-given distinctions between male and female be eliminated.  It is interesting to note how the whole feminist movement seems inextricably tied into the pagan worship of nature/ecology, and (ironically) the practice of lesbianism which is unnatural. In this post, I will give a brief introduction to three of the "founding mothers" of the "women's ordination movement," and the Church's teaching on why only men can be validly ordained.

The Mothers of All Heresy

1. Rosemary Radford Ruether (b. 1936) is the daughter of a Protestant father and Catholic mother. Her father died when she was twelve, and her mother raised her as secular humanist with religious overtones. Rather than leave the Church, she stayed to subvert Her and spew her venomous hatred. She attended college and received an MA in classics and Roman history, and later a doctorate in classics and patristics at Claremont School of Theology; Ruether considers herself a "theologian." She was Carpenter Professor of "Feminist Theology" at the Pacific School of Religion and Graduate Theological Union, and retired from her long-term post as Georgia Harkness Professor of Applied Theology at the Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary (a Methodist seminary). 

Ruether is a proponent of murdering children, and since 1985, has served on the Board of Directors of "Catholics (sic) for Choice," which advocates the murder of unborn children by abortion. ("Catholics for Choice" makes about as much sense as "Vegetarians for Meat"---Introibo). Ruether first came to notoriety in 1964, the year the Vatican II sect was spawned from Hell, when she wrote that Church teaching on contraception makes a woman "an unwitting slave of biological fecundity." She refused to have more than three children because it would interfere with her career. Here are just some of her pagan-Satanic beliefs, culled from her writings (See Women-Church, [1986], Sexism and God Talk [1993], Goddesses and the Divine Feminine [2006]):

• There is no immortal soul
• There is no need to worry about moral rules because Vatican II has made Protestantism the theology of the Catholic Church, therefore pluralism is in, and there's no going back
• Women must reject Jesus Christ as Redeemer, and seek a "female substitute"
• The image of God as Father makes women "inferior" and is to be rejected
• Androgyny must be embraced as a way to escape "gender dualism"

2. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (b. 1938) was born in Romania and was raised in Germany after her parents fled the incoming Russian Communists in 1944. She subsequently earned the degree of Doctor of Theology from the University of Munster, and also considers herself a "theologian." She supports murdering unborn babies, and in 1984 was one of 97 members of the Vatican II sect who signed the infamous "A Catholic (sic) Statement on Pluralism and Abortion." The statement declared, "A Diversity of Opinions Regarding Abortion Exists Among Committed Catholics." The purpose was to help apostate Catholic Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first female running for Vice-President on a major party ticket, and she supported abortion while claiming to be a "good Catholic." While a few Vatican II sect "bishops" denounced Ferraro (most notably "Cardinal" O'Connor of NYC), she was not excommunicated, nor denied "communion" by "Bishop" Francis Mugavero of the Diocese of Brooklyn.

Fiorenza is a co-founder of the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, and teaches at Harvard Divinity School, where she teaches the equality of all religions, and in 1992, coined the word " kyriarchy," i.e., the alleged suppression of classes of people extending beyond women, to include " sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, xenophobia, economic injustice, prison-industrial complex, colonialism, militarism, ethnocentrism, anthropocentrism, and speciesism." (See Kwok Pui-lan (2009). "Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Postcolonial Studies". Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. Indiana University Press. 25 (1): 191–197).

3. Elizabeth A. Johnson (b. 1941) is a nun of the Sisters of St. Joseph. Born and raised in Brooklyn, she refuses to be called "sister" since the end of Vatican II. She earned a doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Catholic University in America in 1981, the first woman to do so, and claims to be a "theologian" (N.B. only clerics can be theologians pre-Vatican II, and her degree is under the Modernist Vatican's non-Catholic theology).

Some teachings of Johnson:

• In her 2007 book, Quest for the Living God: Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God, Johnson promotes pantheism. The book was enthusiastically received by the Episcopalian sect
• She denigrates Christ as "God walking around in clothes"
• Johnson denies the Blessed Virgin Mary was "humble and obedient" 
• In her 2009 book entitled, Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love, Johnson writes about God's "relationship with non-human inhabitants of Earth." It came out in honor of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of the Species; Darwin's book promoting evolution

It should be apparent that "feminist theology" and those who support "women's ordination" are far removed from anything even remotely resembling Christianity. However, what are the theological reasons that women are barred by Divine Law from Holy Orders? 

The Teaching of the Church on the Exclusion of Women from Holy Orders

Canon Law. Canon 968, section 1 of the 1917 Code is clear, "Only a person of the male sex who has been baptized can validly receive the Sacrament of Orders." As the eminent canonist Bouscaren comments, "...the constant practice of the Church from the earliest days as well as the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have excluded women from the reception of Orders..." (See Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, [1951], pg. 422). 

It is established that the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law. 

Proof: According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). 

According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."

(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI teaches: "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (See Mirari Vos, para. #9).

This alone is sufficient to prove a male only hierarchy, but there are reasons from both Scripture and Sacred Tradition. 

2. Sacred Scripture. 

1 Corinthians 14: 34-35 states "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." In 1 Timothy 2: 11-12, we read, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." According to theologian Haydock, commenting on the last passage:

It would appear from this regulation..as well as from the writings of the earliest Fathers, that the practice and condemnation of women interfering in spiritual affairs is not new. Tertullian says, "We do not permit a woman to teach, to baptize, or to arrogate to herself any part of the duty that belongs to man." ...The woman has tried once to teach, when she persuaded Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, and has woefully failed. Let her now be content to remain in silence, and subjugation to man. (See New Testament Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, pg. 1567).

3. Sacred Tradition. 

The approved theologians and canonists have always held the ordination of women to be invalid. So too, the eminent Fathers and Doctors of the Church held the same.  Here are just some Church Fathers:

St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 79. 304 wrote: “If women were ordained to be priests for God or to do anything canonical in the church, it should rather have been given to Mary… . She was not even entrusted with baptizing… Although there is an order of deaconesses in the church, yet they are not appointed to function as priests, or for any administration of this kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex [at nude baptisms]. Whence comes the recent myth? Whence comes the pride of women or rather, the woman’s insanity?” In 49. 2-3 St. Epiphanius tells of the Cataphrygians, a heretical sect related to the Montanists. The Cataphrygians pretended that a woman named Quintillia or Priscilla had seen Christ visiting her in a dream at Pepuza, and sharing her bed. He took the appearance of a woman and was dressed in white.”Among them women are bishops and priests and they say nothing makes a difference’ For in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, ” [Gal. 3:28]

St. John Chrysostom, in On the Priesthood 2. 2 points out that Jesus said “Feed my sheep” only to Peter. “Many of the subjects could easily do the things I have mentioned, not only men, but also women. But when there is question of the headship of the church… let the entire female sex retire.” And in 3. 9 St. John wrote: “Divine law has excluded women from the sanctuary, but they try to thrust themselves into it.”

St. Augustine, On heresies 27 also speaks of the Pepuzians mentioned by St. Epiphanius. “They give such principality to women that they even honor them with priesthood.”

As to deaconesses, this was a mere sacramental, not a Sacrament. According to theologian Pohle, "The deaconess gives no blessing, she fulfills no function of priest or deacon...

If ever there was a woman who deserved the honors of the priesthood, it most assuredly was the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. But our Divine Lord Himself debarred her from the altar." (See Dogmatic Theology, [1924], 11: 126). 

4. Theological Reasoning.

From the Sources of Revelation, and the Magisterium, we see that women can never be validly ordained as deacon, priest, or consecrated as bishop. However, we must ask "why?" 

(A) The Different Roles of Men and Women. 

In marriage, women are the heart of the home, while the man is the head of the household. This in no way makes women inferior; the greatest human being was the Blessed Virgin Mary. (Christ was both True God and True Man, Mary was only human).God set up a specific order, and men are not to be subject to the authority of women in the home or in the Church. Yet, Holy Orders would put women in a place of precedence over men, so they cannot assume such a role.

(B) The Image of God. 

Although God is Spirit, He created man in His image and likeness. Woman was created from man. Therefore, men are directly in the image of God, and women are indirectly in the image of God. St. Bonaventure, Doctor of the Church, explains that Orders does not look to the soul alone, but to the soul united to the body, and by this reason the signification [of God's image] is produced which must be a visible sign.  Men are therefore directly in the image of God, Who has called Himself "Father," and Whose Son [masculine reference] took on a male body. Men can therefore signify the Image of God and Christ in a direct manner, which women cannot do. (See theologian Wahl, The Exclusion of Women from Holy Orders, CUA Press, [1959], pgs. 45-55). 

(C) The male sex signifies the Image of God directly and is necessary for valid reception of Holy Orders.

From (A) and (B) above, it is demonstrated that the male sex is a requirement to the validity of the reception of Holy Orders, just as a healthy person cannot validly receive Extreme Unction. 

Conclusion

The feminists who scream for ordination, seek to invert the God-given natural order. Perhaps the reason we have so many broken marriages is that men refuse to take care of their wives and respect them, and women want to have absolute equality; being more interested in a career like a man, and less interested in being the heart of a home and family. The "female theologians" want to be "equal to men," making Holy Orders more about a "power grab," and not about service to Christ. They want power, not service. They do not want to serve God or man. Like Satan in his prideful rebellion, their battle cry is "Non Serviam!" ("I will not serve!), and Bergoglio will help them advance. 

Mother Earth, Father Satan

What do you think is the most important issue endangering the world? From a Traditionalist Catholic perspective, you could expect to hear issues like: the rise of militant Mohammedanism, the proliferation of false sects and beliefs [especially the Vatican II sect], the murder of innocent unborn children by abortion, advancing atheistic/secular ideologies which want believers marginalized/persecuted, and sexual perversion being accepted in society which will erode and destroy what's left of traditional God-fearing families. I can only imagine what Pope St. Pius X would say today. I'm sure he would not only agree with the issues just cited, but have many more to condemn. Of paramount importance for a Traditionalist, are those things which imperil the eternal salvation of souls. As Our Lord Jesus Christ stated, "For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?" (St. Matthew 16:26).

The leader of the Vatican II sect, Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis), sees things very differently. He's coming out with a book to be entitled Our Mother Earth. According to Zenit news service, the book will be published this coming October 24th and "With a Prologue written by the [Schismatic] Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, the work is a compilation of the addresses, messages and homilies in which Pope Francis refers to the defense of the environment and appeals for the promotion of a worthy life for all peoples." The news agency also published an excerpt from Bergoglio's book:
I sincerely hope for growth in awareness and true repentance on the part of us all, men and women of the 21st century, believers or not, and on the part of our societies, for allowing ourselves to be carried away by logics that divide, create hunger, isolate and condemn. It would be good to ask the poor and the excluded for forgiveness. Then we could repent sincerely, including for the harm done to the earth, the sea, the air, the animals . . .

What's really important for His Wickedness is not the faith ("believers or not"), but to ask forgiveness of poor people (a "societal sin") and "the excluded" (adulterers who don't get "communion"; transgender perverts, etc) so we can "repent" for using Styrofoam cups. Bergoglio is not concerned with the salvation of souls because, like Freemasons, he's an adherent of Naturalism, "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted." A serious evil Naturalism engenders is Indifferentism. This is the heretical idea that one religion is as good as another (positive indifference) or the idea that one religion is just as bad as another (negative indifference). He adopts the pagan idea of deifying humans and nature with false and exaggerated claims of "human dignity" and "human rights." There was even a pagan ritual held at the Amazon Synod. For the best and most accurate analysis of that event, See https://novusordowatch.org/2019/10/golden-calf-vatican-idolatry-francis/.

In this post, I will expose the dangers of false environmentalism, the pagan connection, and the evil forces that promote it.

Global Warming or Hot Air?

 One of the most fraudulent ideas perpetrated by political agendas in the name of "science" is "global warming" or "climate change." I remember as a 12 year old in 1977, the fear-mongers were warning of a "second ice age." It was even the topic of a Time magazine cover story. Why do I call global warming fraudulent? There are several reasons:

First, the models used to predict Earth's future under global warming are unreliable. While it is true that the sun, clouds, gases, glaciers and oceans are responsible for weather, so, too, are other factors, including some we don't currently understand. If we can't accurately predict the weather a week from now, how can we predict the global climate in 100 years?

Second, The annual temperature between 1998 and 2007 actually decreased, despite the 4 percent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during that same period. 

Third, although weather data, like temperature, have been actively collected since 1850, it wasn't until the relatively recent access to detailed weather satellite photography that scientists were able to see changes in the Greenland ice shelf that global warming believers say is in such danger. So how do we know exactly how long the ice has been receding? 

Fourth, around the 9th to 14th centuries, regions around the world experienced an increase in temperatures, similar to what we see today. Following this period, the Earth experienced a Little Ice Age where global temperatures cooled. It is conceivable that the Earth is currently experiencing something similar. (See https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data; for points one to four, culled from many sources, most especially See Dr. Robert Balling, The Heated Debate, [1992]). 

There have been past "chicken-little-the sky-is-falling" impeding ecological disasters predicted before:

• By 1989, "contamination of the planet" will destroy the Earth https://www.nytimes.com/1969/08/10/archives/foe-of-pollution-sees-lack-of-time-asserts-environmental-ills.html

• There will be an ice age by the year 2000, as reported in the Boston Globe https://www.newspapers.com/image/435402308/

• In the 1970s, "Ozone Depletion" would wreak havoc by the 1990s, now hardly discussed, See https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/annual_data.html

Now, global warming is the latest "Eco-pocalypse" with a purpose; to bring all people into a worship of nature and a One World Religion.

"Eco-Theology"

Carl Sagan (d. 1996), the famous astronomer, was also a pantheist; as his son Dorian said, "My father believed in the God of Spinoza and Einstein, God not behind nature but as nature, equivalent to it." It was Sagan who helped to popularize nature worship. In his book, Cosmos (1980, pg. 243), he quipped, "If we must worship a power greater than ourselves, does it not make sense to revere the Sun and stars?" No, it doesn't. We worship not some impersonal "power" but the personal, omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent Creator of the stars and all things. 

 In his book, Earth in the Balance, former Vice-President Al Gore suggests that we return to the worship of nature and upholds various nature worshiping sects and Native American religions as a model:

"This pan-religious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization’s responsibility for the earth is concerned…Native American religions, for instance, offer a rich tapestry of ideas about our relationship to the earth…All things are connected like the blood that unites us all." (Al Gore, Earth in the Balance – Ecology and the Human Spirit, 1992, p. 258-259).

Gore goes on to declare that we need to find a new nature-based religion and quotes New Age, censured theologian, Teilhard de Chardin, in support of the “new faith” of the future:

"This point was made by the Catholic (sic) theologian, Teilhard de Chardin, when he said, ‘The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future.’ Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to re-sanctify the earth." (Ibid, p. 263). Teilhard was born in south central France on May 1, 1881 and was censured by the Church in 1936. He died in 1955, still censured, but not excommunicated. His secret disciples, who praised him openly after Vatican II, included Karol Wojtyla (JPII) and Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI). His writings were considered so dangerous, even Roncalli (John XXIII) refused to allow any of his works to be used in the seminaries as late as 1962. Teilhard bragged about high ranking Modernists who were using their influence to prevent his excommunication, even though he could neither teach or write, and all his works were declared to contain errors.

Here are some interesting ideas of Teilhard that his proponents, like Al Gore, would like us to ignore:

"Rome does not want me to return to my professorship. They do not seem to have taken a dislike to me, far from it; but they want to save Religion…..I would take enormous delight in breaking all ties" (the reference here is to breaking all ties to traditional Catholic belief, and the Church as a whole – from letter written Feb. 14 1927)

"I do not think God should be worshiped" – from a conference given in 1947

"What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself, and to diffuse around me, a new religion (let’s call it an improved Christianity if you like) whose personal God is no longer the great neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the Soul of the world……"(Letter to Leontine Zanta, Jan 26, 1936; Emphasis mine)

"Christ saves. But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by evolution?" (Le Christique, 1955;Emphasis mine)

"Our century is probably more religious than any other. How could it fail to be, with such problems to be solved? The only trouble is that it has not yet found a God it can adore." (The Phenomenon of Man; Emphasis mine).

"No humane hopes for an organized society must cause us to forget that the human stratum may not be homogeneous. If it were not, it would be necessary to find for the Chinese, as for the Negroes, their special function, which may not (by biological impossibility) be that of the whites." (April 6, 1927 letter--pure racism).

Carl Sagan was a major proponent of Teilhardian ideas. Before his death in 1996, he quoted one religious leader quite favorably, "St." John Paul the Great Apostate, a Teilhardian disciple. He quotes Wojtyla:  "Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish….Such bridging ministries must be nurtured and encouraged. Nowhere is this more clear than in the current environmental crisis…. It has the potential to unify and renew religious life. " (See Parade, March 1, 1992; Emphasis in original).

False ecological cataclysms have been manufactured to scare people into submitting to more government regulation in their lives, and worst of all, to adopt the false and pagan idea of nature worship and pantheism to unite the planet. The stage was set for Bergoglio to enter next.

"Eco-menism"

At the end of his encyclical Laudato Si ("On Care of Our Common Home") 2015, Bergoglio sets forth two prayers:

At the conclusion of this lengthy reflection which has been both joyful and troubling, I propose that we offer two prayers. The first we can share with all who believe in a God who is the all-powerful Creator, while in the other we Christians ask for inspiration to take up the commitment to creation set before us by the Gospel of Jesus. (Emphasis mine). This shows his desire to have all religions, all beliefs, all opinions unite and mobilize against the "ecological threat" and engage in ecumenical prayer. 

Bergoglio has  done away with the First Commandment, the worship due to the true God. It started with Paul VI's heretical ecclesiology, embodied in Vatican II. It continued with "Saint" John Paul the Great Apostate and his ecumenical abomination at Assisi, visiting Lutheran churches, praying in synagogues, and kissing the Koran. It progressed with "retired pope" Ratzinger's statement that the papacy (which he never held anyway) was the greatest hindrance to "ecumenical progress." It goes even further with Francis wanting all false sects to unite as one ecumenical denomination behind a one-world police state enforcing global ecological sanctions. Remember: Saving the environment, not your soul, is what really matters.

Laudato Si also tells us "our common home" is the Earth. Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that our true home is Heaven, and while we must be good stewards of this planet, we must strive to get to humankind's ultimate purpose--the Beatific Vision.The only way to do this is by being good members of the One True Church, and making as many converts as possible so they can hopefully join us there. Not so, saith "Pope" Francis. In paragraph #175, the false pope also tells us: The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions. In other words, a One World Environmental "Police Force" putting us another step closer to a One World Government, with a One World Religion dedicated to recycling cans and praying to "Mother Earth." 

Conclusion

Another false ecological doomsday is predicted, and being used to foster more governmental regulation of our lives. Simultaneously, the forces of evil are using it to further advance ecumenism and jettison Christ from society, replacing Him and His One True Church with a pagan One World Religion dedicated to "saving the planet," while its members lose their souls. Don't let Bergoglio and his false Vatican II sect lead you down that garden path; for those who worship "Mother Earth" would do well to remember the words of Christ, "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do." (St. John 8:44)

Multiplication Problems

 This past week, a Feeneyite came and engaged me on a recent post regarding Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). The exchange can be read at the bottom of the comments section at the following post:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/07/feeneyite-follies.html. Besides the same old script I've come to expect from the followers of Fred and Bobby Dimond's "Most Holy Family Monastery" (MHFM), there is another disturbing error they propagate which causes no small amount of angst among married Traditionalist couples; the absurd notion that the married are bound (by the natural law and Divine positive law) to have the most children possible.  In response to the Feeneyite's attack on BOD and BOB, I cited Pope Pius XII's 1951 Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives:

"If what We have said up to now deals with the protection and the care of natural life, it should hold all the more in regard to the supernatural life which the newly born infant receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..."(Emphasis mine).

In response, the Feeneyite had this to write: "Pope Pius XII was wrong in his Address to Midwives, it's normal, he was not protected by infallibility. Pius XII and theologians considered "limiting children" using natural family planning even though Pius IX wrote against this. Even though this is not natural. It's not natural to limit the number of children, but Pope Pius XII thought it was, he also thought in that case BOD could fit his desire to explain what he wanted, but he was also wrong."

This is so loaded with errors, it's sad. First, they believe it possible for a pope in his official capacity to teach error as long as it's not ex cathedra. Second, the followers of MHFM don't follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion: If Pope Pius XII taught heresy as a private theologian, he would by Divine Law fall from the pontificate; yet Fred and Bobby consider Pope Pius XII a true pope.

What I really want to revisit is Church teaching on the use of periodic abstinence ("PA") sometimes called "the rhythm method," or "Natural Family Planning" (NFP). I am talking about authentic Church teaching and not the NFP taught by the Vatican II sect. In Genesis 1:28 we read about Adam and Eve: "And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth." (Emphasis mine). However, does this mandate require married couples to have as many children as physically possible? Was Pope Pius IX against PA? Is it "unnatural" to use PA, and a mortal sin as claimed by Fred and Bobby Dimond? The answers to these questions will be examined.

Church Teaching on Marriage

1. Marriage is of Divine Institution

Pope Leo XIII:

"God thus, in His most far-reaching foresight, decreed that this husband and wife should be the natural beginning of the human race, from whom it might be propagated and preserved by an unfailing fruitfulness throughout all futurity of time. And this union of man and woman, that it might answer more fittingly to the infinite wise counsels of God, even from the beginning manifested chiefly two most excellent properties - deeply sealed, as it were, and signed upon it-namely, unity and perpetuity. From the Gospel we see clearly that this doctrine was declared and openly confirmed by the divine authority of Jesus Christ. He bore witness to the Jews and to His Apostles that marriage, from its institution, should exist between two only, that is, between one man and one woman; that of two they are made, so to say, one flesh; and that the marriage bond is by the will of God so closely and strongly made fast that no man may dissolve it or render it asunder. "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." (See encyclical Arcanum Divinae para. # 3; Emphasis mine).

2. Marriage was Raised by Jesus Christ to the Dignity of a Sacrament

From the Council of Trent:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the New law, instituted by Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.

3. The Primary Purpose of Marriage is the Procreation and Education of Children

The Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 1013 section 1 states, "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children.  It’s secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence."

4. The Secondary Purpose of Marriage is Mutual Help and Allaying of Concupiscence

In addition to the Code just cited, we have the teaching of Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Arcanum Divinae:
"Secondly, the mutual duties of husband and wife have been defined, and their several rights accurately established. They are bound, namely, to have such feelings for one another as to cherish always very great mutual love, to be ever faithful to their marriage vow, and to give one another an unfailing and unselfish help. The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity." (para. #11)

Is Periodic Continence The Same As Artificial Contraception and Thereby Evil?

Periodic Abstinence (or "PA" as above) is the practice of purposefully limiting the marital act to sterile periods. Feeneyites, and others who hold to the absurd idea that PA is the moral equivalent of contraception, fail to make various distinctions. First and foremost, they reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). The unanimous teachings of the approved theologians is to be discarded, and only private interpretations of ex cathedra statements is to be believed. They fall under the condemnation of Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors:

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #22:The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.

The UOM is equally infallible to the Extraordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, we are bound in conscience to believe e.g., teachings of papal encyclicals, decrees of Roman Congregations, etc., with reverential acceptance. Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter :

"But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure."

The Church has always held artificial contraception to be intrinsically evil. Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:
"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (para. #54; Emphasis mine).

The dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church guarantees that the Church cannot give to Her members that which is evil or erroneous. Hence, if PA was equivalent to artificial contraception, it would indeed be against both the Natural Law and Divine Positive Law. The Church would be incapable of sanctioning PA if it were intrinsically evil. Yet, as will be shown below, the Church has sanctioned PA, therefore it is not the equivalent of artificial contraception, nor in any sense "intrinsically evil."

1. Three Times the Holy Office of the Sacred Penitentiary Approved PA
The Sacred Penitentiary, the official Church body that decides definitively questions of morality, especially as they pertain to the sacrament of Penance, rendered three decisions on PA under three different popes.

March 2, 1853. During the reign of Pope Pius IX, the Sacred Penitentiary was asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?"

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation."

This gives the lie to the Feeneyite who claimed Pope Pius IX condemned PA.

June 16, 1880. During the reign of Pope Leo XIII, two pertinent questions were submitted to the Sacred Penitentiary:
1. Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?
2. Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism (i.e., "withdrawal") of her husband but cannot correct him; or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism."

June 20, 1932. Under Pope Pius XI, the Sacred Penitentiary was asked, "Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons."

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880." [It reaffirmed the 1880 decision in full].

2. The Teachings of the approved theologians give the green light to PA
The decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary should end the matter. However, we also have the testimony of the approved theologians who teach in favor of PA. None of them were ever censured for their teachings. Had PA been against Natural and Divine positive Law, the popes would have an obligation to condemn those teachings and the theologians who taught them. What good is a Magisterium that can't teach and allows error to go unchecked? The Church would be allowing Her children to believe and practice something evil; but the Indefectibility of the Church will not allow such. Here is a sampling of some of the major approved theologians of the 20th century before Vatican II:

According to theologian Jone:
 "Abstaining from intercourse during this [infertile] period has come to be known as the Rhythm Method of Birth Control [later NFP]. For a proportionate reason and with the mutual consent of husband and wife it is lawful intentionally to practice periodic continence, i.e., restrict intercourse to those times when conception is impossible...[it is subject to three conditions] (1) Both parties must freely agree to the restrictions it involves; (2)The practice must not constitute an occasion of sin, especially the sin of incontinence; (3) There must be a proportionately grave reason for not having children, at least for the time being." ( See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 542).

According to theologian Prummer:
"To make use of the so-called safe period has been declared lawful..." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1955], pg. 413).

According to theologians McHugh and Callan:
"(b) If birth control refers to a means of family limitation, it is lawful when that means is continence or abstinence from marital relations, not if it is onanism or the use of mechanical or chemical means to prevent conception." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:604; Emphasis in original).

The primary theologian who drafted the monumental encyclical Casti Connubii (1930), which condemned artificial contraception, was Fr. Arthur Vermeersch. The encyclical was a response the the Anglican sect which became the first denomination calling itself "Christian" to allow artificial contraception among married couples. I mention Vermeersch because one of the biggest complaints by MHFM supporters against PA is that the intention and purpose of PA is the same as artificial contraception.

Let us remember that the intrinsic end of an action is that which tends towards it's very nature. (For example, almsgiving has the intrinsic purpose of giving relief to one in need). Extrinsic motives don't change the nature of an action. For example, someone might engage in the act of almsgiving to flaunt his wealth and to receive praise from people rather than caring for the poor. However, the nature of the act is unaffected--the poor do indeed obtain relief. (See e.g., theologian Prummer, Ibid, pg. 5).

Vermeersch and canonist Bouscaren, in What is Marriage?(1932), a catechism based on Casti Connubii, point out:
"As long as the [marital] act takes place normally it remains objectively directed towards its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception. (pg. 44; Emphasis mine)

Who better would understand the intent of the encyclical than the theologian who wrote it under the direction of Pope Pius XI? However, is it the purpose of marriage to have as many children as physically possible? In a word: No. This will be discussed in the next section.

3. The Practice of the Church
That the Church has not "defined" marriage as a Sacrament meant only and exclusively to be used as a vehicle by which the marital act must produce as many children as physically possible is proven by: (a) the fact that the Church does not prohibit couples past their fertile years from engaging in the marital act, and (b) She has never condemned or prohibited senior citizens (e.g., a 70 year old widower and a 68 year old widow) from getting married even though it is obvious the union cannot produce any children.

To those who object that married couples are required to have as many children as physically possible (usually citing St. Catherine of Sienna who was the 25th of 25 children), the Church teaches no such thing. Married couples should be generous and have many children. However, God's plan is different for each couple. According to theologian John O'Brien, "Contrary to the impression that prevails in some quarters, there is no obligation on any couple to beget any specific number of children, much less to give birth to the largest number possible." (See Lawful Birth Control, [1934], pgs. 61-62).

The proper principle is to use the sacrament of Matrimony as God intended; to bring the man and woman closer to each other and closer to Him; begetting children insofar as the couple may be able to do so under their circumstances in life.

Conclusion

Married couples should be as generous as possible in having and properly educating children. PA should be used for serious reason after consulting a Traditionalist priest. The reasons for using PA may be explored in a future post. For now, I want to dispel the errors of MHFM and their followers who reject Church teaching in yet another area, and burden the conscience of married couples unnecessarily. Married couples should multiply and fill the Earth with good Traditionalist Catholic children; but do so only after you add the true teaching and wisdom of the Church to your actions, divided from the errors of MHFM and their followers.  

When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 2

This is the next installment of my series to be published the first Monday of each month.

There are members of false sects, like Jehovah's Witnesses, that come knocking door-to-door hoping to convert you. Instead of ignoring them, it is we who should try and 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. 

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 month's 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

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka "Mormons")

One of the most confusing sects is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (hereinafter referred to as the Mormon Sect and their members Mormons). Their history is so complex and their theology so bizarre, it's hard to compress it into one post; but I will try my best. There are actually three branches of Mormonism, but I'll stick with the first and largest branch founded by Joseph Smith and continued by Brigham Young. The Mormon sect began in New York, and now is not just limited to the United States. They proselytize all over the world. As of 2018, there are approximately 16 million Mormons worldwide, and almost 60% live in the U.S. Much of Mormonism comes from Masonry, as Joseph Smith was himself a Mason and incorporated many Masonic teachings; they also refer to the place they assemble as "temples." They are polytheistic.

On March 9, 2019, Jorge Bergoglio met with top Mormon leaders on the occasion of the opening of the first Mormon temple in Rome. I found it supremely ironic that Rome had polytheistic pagan temples when Catholicism began, and now the false "Catholic" Vatican II sect welcomes back polytheistic pagans to reopen a temple, with a smiling Bergoglio acting as "pope."
 (See   https://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2019/pope-meets-top-leaders-of-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints.cfm).

1. History
Joseph Smith, Jr. was born on December 23, 1805 to Joseph and Lucy Smith of Vermont. He was the fourth of nine children. When Joseph was 12, his parents relocated to a farm in Palmyra, New York. Both his parents were deeply involved in the occult and were nominal Protestants. They suddenly decided to join a local Presbyterian church. This was the religious environment in which young Smith was raised. In 1820, there was an attempt to recruit new members by the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist sects in New York. Smith didn't want to join any of them, and instead questioned which religion, if any, was true.

After reading St. James 1:5 in his Bible ("If any of thee lacks wisdom, thou should ask God, Who giveth generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to thee."), Smith claims he went into the woods to pray, and received a vision of Jesus Christ and God the Father. He asked them which religion he should join, and they allegedly told him, "Join none of them, for they were all wrong,..."all their creeds were an abomination..." (See Pearl of Great Price, by Joseph Smith, 1:19).

On September 21, 1823, an angel named Maroni appeared to Smith and showed him golden plates buried in a hill called Cumorah, that were written in "Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics." (There is no such language). He was given two special stones called Urim and Thummim. By looking through these special stones he would be able to translate the golden plates into English. Three of his friends, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, claimed that, while in the company of Smith, Maroni appeared and showed them the golden plates. Some accounts claim Smith used a third stone to translate the plates. Now married, Smith stayed behind a curtain calling out to his wife and friends the "correct translation." He would never allow his wife (the first of "up to 40" according to the Mormon sect) or his friends to see the plates, or how he translated them by looking through the stone. When the Book of Mormon was complete, he "returned the plates" to Maroni.

The Book of Mormon was completed in 1830, and Mormonism was formally declared to be the true religion restored on April 6, 1830. Smith's never ending private revelations resulted in a second book, Doctrine and Covenants in 1835. Some of his writings were published posthumously as Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Mormon is the alleged history of Jews who came to America roughly 1700 years prior to Columbus.

Smith soon gained many followers and he established a Mormon presence in Missouri, and Illinois. Later, Brigham Young would succeed Smith and lead the Mormons to the Utah territory. The Mormons were persecuted by some for their strange, unorthodox, and heretical beliefs, and for still calling themselves "Christian." Mormons, considered "peaceful" have a very violent history, and would brutally retaliate against anyone who got in their way (e.g. the "Danites" who were formed as "destroying angels" to seek revenge and brutally murder opponents; the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857 when Mormons, disguised as Native Americans, slaughtered 120 innocent people on a wagon train as revenge for persecution [even though the people on the wagon train never did anything]--they then tried to pin the blame on the local Native Americans).

In 1844, Smith, who had been elected mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois (which had a sizable Mormon population) was jailed, along with several other Mormon leaders, on charges of rioting. He had ordered a newspaper critical of Mormons to be destroyed. An angry mob stormed the jail. Smith and his cohorts had smuggled guns into the jail cell and fired into the mob, which returned fire, thereby "martyring" Smith on June 27, 1844, at the age of 38.

2. Theology
The theological position of Mormonism is so utterly strange, it's hard to know exactly how it should be presented, and which parts are most important. I have tried my best to condense it all below.

• God the Father was once a man, and is still made of flesh and blood. Mormons quote Brigham Young, their second leader (or "prophet") as saying, "What you are, God once was. What God is now, you may become." 

• They have four "inspired books" given by God, the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. The Book of Mormon is of the highest authority over the other three

• There is an infinite series of previous gods. Each god gave birth to another and each rules over a separate world or universe

• The Trinity is actually three gods. The Father and Christ have bodies, but the Holy Ghost currently has a "spirit-body"

• God the Father has a physical wife with whom he had intercourse and gave birth to a "spirit-child" who was Christ. All the rest of angels and humans came after as spirit-children. Lucifer is Christ's brother (!) God the Father then took Mary as a "second wife" to give Christ his human form

• There is no Original Sin. We stand condemned for our own personal sins exclusively

• Christ had three wives and many children before his crucifixion, and was exalted to Godhood at the Resurrection 

• As a result of Christ's death all humanity will be resurrected, and sets all people on the road to godhood, so they can rule a world or universe of their own with their family

• Since spirit-children need to be born of flesh, it is imperative that you get into many marriages and have many children (Mormons have since suppressed the polygamy part)

• Since there was universal apostasy until Joseph Smith, you can baptize dead people (vicariously, by proxy) and make them Mormon
• All will eventually be saved. Jesus Christ will reign on Earth, the righteous will go to one of three Heavens. Those in the highest Heaven become gods of their own world; these are Mormons who were devout and attended the temple ceremonies and obeyed all teachings fastidiously. The evil will go to Hell, but can eventually repent and get to the lowest Heaven

• The Church is ruled by the President who is successor to Joseph Smith, and a "prophet." Any revelation he gets binds all Mormons. "God" can, and has, contradicted himself through his alleged revelations to the Presidents (e.g., polygamy)  

(The above two sections were compiled from several sources and condensed, most notably James Allen and Glenn Leonard, The Story of the Latter Day Saints, (1976), and Handbook of Denominations in the United States by Roger Olsen).

3. Proselytizing Mormons

Mormons have two weak points upon which they are most vulnerable: The Book of Mormon, and their founder Joseph Smith. Each will be examined in turn.

The Book of Mormon (BOM)

• There were no witnesses to the so-called golden plates except for Smith himself. The first group of friends (Cowdry, Whitmer, and Harris) were later denounced by Smith as "men of low character." Their stories did not agree, and before his death, Harris admitted that he saw the plates "with the eyes of faith," not literally. There was a second group of eight people who claimed to have seen the plates--all related to Whitmer. Later, Smith would expel the entire family as unreliable apostates. Hence, no witnesses

• The BOM has over 25,000 words plagiarized from the Protestant King James Version of the Bible. The words of St Paul are placed in the mouths of people who are alleged to have lived centuries before Christ

• Over 2,000 "corrections" were made to the BOM since 1830, and altered the meaning. How could it be in need of correction if Smith wrote under divine guidance? Yet Mormons claim the BOM is "more accurate" than the Bible

• There is no such thing as "Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics"--nor is there any evidence of anything even remotely like Egyptian hieroglyphics in ancient North America

Joseph Smith, Jr.
It is not an ad hominem attack to show that someone is a proven liar. If Smith lies and his prophesies are false, they could not come from God.

• Smith claimed as prophecy that by 1891, the Earth would be burned up, New York, Albany, and Boston would be desolate, and Smith would be alive for the Second Coming (See Doctrines and Covenants, 29, 112). The Bible tells us, "But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death. You may say to yourselves, 'How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?' If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed." (Deuteronomy 18: 20-22; Emphasis mine)
• In Journal of Discourses, a collection of other Smith prophesies, he predicted the 10 lost tribes of Israel would be found in the Arctic with copies of the Bible. He also believed men who were six-feet tall and looked like Quakers lived on the moon

Some Other Talking Points

• If people evolve to become gods, where did the first person begin? People are not almighty, so the Mormon idea of an infinite regression of gods has many problems. If there were a first God then He must subsist by necessity and does not "progress." He is superior to all.

•  If the Mormon Church were truly a "restored Church," one would expect to find first-century historical evidence for Mormon doctrines like the plurality of gods and God the Father having once been a man. Such evidence is completely lacking. Moreover, the Bible warns the Great Apostasy shall be a majority, but not a totality. "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." (1 Timothy 4:1; Emphasis mine). 

• The Trinity cannot be three gods. Trusting in or worshiping more than One True God is explicitly condemned throughout the Bible (e.g., Ex. 20:3; "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.").

(See also LaTayne Scott, Why We Left Mormonism, [1990], and Leaving Mormonism: Why Four Scholars Changed Their Minds, by Miller, et. al. [2017]). 

Conclusion

The Mormons are modern day polytheistic pagans, masquerading as "Christians." Their doctrines are wacky and convoluted in the extreme. The Mormon sect founder, Joseph Smith, Jr., was raised in a home teeming with the occult, and became a Freemason early in his young adulthood. He incorporated Masonic doctrines with his own lies. He beguiled many into following him and making him powerful. Like Satan, he was a liar and a murderer, preaching violence and revenge to any that stood in his way. May your attempts at converting members of his false religion be fruitful. 

As the modern day heathens place a Masonic-polytheistic temple in once Catholic Rome, Jorge Bergoglio greets them with smiles and hugs. Not a word of condemnation for their errors. No warning to the people of Italy to stay away. No imploring them to join the One True Church. Yet he is "pope?" As Rome is officially re-paganized, the "recognize and resist" crowd join the Vatican II sect in calling this miserable apostate the "Vicar of Christ."