Imaginary Friends

Sometimes there are memories that a person suppresses. This is especially true of childhood recollections that are very painful and/or scary. The story I'm about to relate to you is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief with only minor details changed; moreover, it is the first time I have revealed it to anyone outside my immediate family, and the first time I've even thought about it at length in decades. By "telling the world," so to speak, it might help me face it. Here is what happened: I was ten years old, living in a small apartment with my parents here in New York City. My married neighbors, "Jim" and "Lisa" (not their real names--I will not be using any actual names in this account--Introibo) were going to be having a cramped apartment for the next two weeks. Lisa's brother, Bob, his wife, and their two children (Sarah, age 11, and Timmy, age 5) would be staying in very tight quarters until they could move into their new apartment not too far away. It was cheaper and nicer than the apartment they had, but the timing was off between leaving their old apartment and entering the new one.

They found a storage place for their things and had just enough money to move in, but not anything more for a hotel room. Bob was a nice enough fellow. Like my father, he was a World War II veteran having served from 1944-1948. He was raised in a strict Irish Catholic home, but had no use for religion. While stationed in Occupied Japan, he met Hinata. She spoke broken English, and had a very limited vocabulary--mostly learned from the American soldiers after the war. Bob asked for her hand in marriage. Her parents agreed, and after his honorable discharge, he married her in a civil ceremony in California. In search of a better job, he soon moved to, and settled in, New York.  Hinata was a practitioner of Shinto, a pagan Japanese religion which is basically animistic, meaning they believe in spirit entities that inhabit all things. It is pantheistic and superstitious. They invoke many "spirits." Neither of their children were baptized or taught anything of Christianity.

It was a hot summer day, and I was playing catch in the street with a couple of neighborhood kids. Sarah was watching us with her brother and asked if she could play. We let her play, and she told her extremely well-behaved brother to sit on the curb and watch, because he was not allowed in the street. As it grew dark, we moved onto the sidewalk. Most of the adults were hanging outside as well, since the heat was oppressive and our building had no air conditioning; everyone used window fans. My parents were talking to the four adults who wanted to stay outside as long as possible before "squeezing in" for the night. Timmy was thirsty, and my mother asked me to use my key to enter our apartment and let Sarah, Timmy, and me all drink some milk.

When inside, I turned on the lights, and began serving my two guests milk, before filling my own glass. Timmy had his first bad moment I had ever seen. "I don't want this," he said, pushing aside the glass and spilling the milk. I went to get a towel, and Sarah got upset with her brother. "You had better behave or the Obake will come and get you."  "The what will come?" I asked. "The Obake. My mother tells us when we misbehave he can come for us." Timmy looked scared. I was thinking this was some Japanese "boogeyman" story to scare kids (and of which I strongly disapprove parents telling children). Sarah pointed into the next room and said to Timmy, "See the Obake!" Just then, the lights in my apartment went out, and the door to the apartment, which I had left open, slammed shut. There appeared to be a large shadow in the room. "What are you doing Sarah?" I yelled. She replied, "Nothing! It's him!" I said we needed to get out fast; Sarah picked up little Timmy and was screaming as we all ran towards the door. I tried opening the door, but it was like someone was on the other side pulling it shut. I cried out to Jesus for help, and at the mention of the Most Holy Name, the door suddenly opened and the lights went on. We ran outside, all three of us crying. Our parents and all the adults tried to comfort us. After a long time we told them what happened.

My parents thought we were making things up. No one reported any power outages, and the building superintendent said that the circuit breaker for our apartment was never tripped. My parents were angry with me. My mother wanted to punish me for lying, but my father talked her out of it saying that we were just three kids with overactive imaginations. Only one person didn't make any comment or accuse us of either imagining things or lying; Hinata.  "Obake" is translated as "ghost," but in Shintoism, it refers to a supernatural entity that can "shape-shift" and appear as different things. It is considered evil. Hinata called on such things as part of her religion. When Bob and his family left, I never wanted to speak of the incident again. I didn't want people to think I was a liar, a kid who imagines things, or worst of all, that I was crazy. It wasn't until the following summer that I was able to sleep again without a nightlight. I tried to put it out of my mind and was basically successful. But I know it happened.

As Traditionalist Catholics, we know all about our guardian angels. I had a picture of a guardian angel on the post of my bed as a little kid, in front of which I would say my prayers at night. These angels protect us, guide us, and so much more. However, no one seems to ask what the fallen angels are doing. If our angels are working non-stop to secure our salvation, wouldn't the forces of Hell be working just as hard to secure our damnation, especially now in the Great Apostasy? This post will focus on Catholic teaching regarding false religious practices and the occult. You must be very careful what you allow in your home by means of TV, radio, music, books, the Internet, and any other way. Bottom line: whatever you invite into your life may take you up on the offer. Evil may even come in the guise of a child's "friend."

Imagination or Incantation?

What caused me to write this post was an event told to me by a solid source, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the information. I was told about a young couple who had a five year old son. He was very shy and there really weren't many kids his age with whom he could play. His mother heard him playing in his room one evening and talking as if someone else was there. When she came to put him to bed, she asked him who he was talking to earlier. "Hannah. She's my new friend." His mom thought the imaginary friend was cute, and a way not to feel so lonely. One day, he looked rather sad. His mother suggested that he should play upstairs with Hannah. "I don't want to play with her anymore," he said. His mother inquired why. "She wants me to do bad things." The startled mother asked,"Bad things like what?" The boy said, "She wants me to kill myself." Immediately both parents took him to a child psychologist, who though his suicidal ideations were the result of possible early schizophrenia manifesting itself.

While awaiting testing, the parents left their son at his grandparents' house so they could get rid of cleaning agents, and anything else he could use to hurt himself. The last thing they did was to tie up all the knives in the kitchen and keep them locked up in their bedroom closet. They went and picked up their son. Mom slept in the boy's room. Dad stayed in the main bedroom. The next morning, he said to his parents, "You're trying to make it hard to kill myself; you hid the kitchen knives in the bedroom closet." The stunned parents asked him how he could possibly know that. His answer consisted of three words, "Hannah told me." (The dialogue is reconstructed by me from memory. The quotes are approximations of what the person relating the incident to me claimed was spoken---Introibo). My source would tell me no more, as he said he "wasn't at liberty" to reveal more. I believe the "friend" wasn't mere imagination.

After that story, I began doing some research into experiences like mine. In all of these frightening experiences, I have dug up one common thread: all of them (yes, all) had either the children themselves or the parents involved in pagan or occult practices. The most common experience is in the form of "imaginary friends." Let me be clear at the outset that I am not suggesting that all or most kids with imaginary friends are in contact with something demonic in nature. The Church tells us that we are to assume natural causes and not jump to conclusions causing a "satanic panic." Most imaginary friends are the result of lonely kids or very bright kids having some outlet  for their feelings and giving them harmless fun. In some cases, they are the result of mental illness. However, there are a growing number of disturbing accounts (some very serious) in which it seems there is no other explanation except for a supernatural cause.

The Bible and Church teaching condemn occult/pagan practices such as attempting to communicate with the dead or "spirits." "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.) According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it. Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium." (See Moral Theology, pg. 100; Emphasis mine).

Parents take note of three of the acts mentioned above that are detestable to the Lord; interpreting omens, witchcraft/spell-casting, and consulting spirits. Many parents have engaged in such things by using tarot cards, ouija boards, watching "mediums" on television, allowing their kids to read and watch shows depicting witchcraft (especially the odious Harry Potter), and attending the services of a false religion. Many people (even though calling themselves Traditionalists) will not adhere to Church teaching regarding these things. Do you want your children pretending to cast spells and be witches like Harry Potter?  Do you want them to view this detestable activity as "fun" and "cool"? How about playing with a ouija board? Harmless fun? What about watching your kid roll around on the floor being "slain in the spirit" as he or she imitates what happens in the false Pentecostal sects you let them attend out of human respect? Want your teenager to practice yoga in front of pagan statues?  Let's see what Satan can do.

Satanic Activity

 What exactly does Satan do? According to theologian Ott:

• The Devil possesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam's sin. The Council of Trent names, as a consequence of Original Sin, humanity's subjection to the power of Satan. The Church's belief finds liturgical expression in the ceremonies of Baptism. Christ calls Satan, "the prince of this world" (St. John 12:31), and St. Paul calls him "the god of this world." (2 Cor. 4:4). In the General Judgement the dominion of the Devil will be completely and finally broken. (2 St. Peter 2:4). 

• Satan and the fallen angels (demons) seek to do moral injury to people through temptation to sin. "Be sober and watch because your adversary, the Devil, goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour." (1 Peter 5: 8).

• The evil spirits also seek to hurt mankind physically also, through the causing of physical evil (e.g., Tob. 3:8, Job 1:12, 1 Cor. 5: 5).

•  In some cases people are possessed, in which case the demon takes forcible possession of the human body, so that the bodily organs and the lower powers of the soul, but not the higher powers of the soul, are controlled by him. The possibility and reality of possession is firmly established by the express testimony of Christ, Who Himself drove out evil spirits and Who bestowed power over the evil spirits on His disciples (Church's power of exorcism---St. Mark 1:23; St. Luke 10: 17 et seq)        (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma , The Mercier Press, 1955, pgs. 121-122).

Demonic vexation. Fr. Gabriele Amorth (d. 2016) was ordained in 1954, and was a prominent exorcist. Unfortunately, he didn't want to see the demonic usurpers in the papal chair, and was part of the Vatican II sect. (I'll make that the subject of a future post). He did recognize that Wojtyla's revised Rite of Exorcism (1999) was useless and only used the Traditional Rite. He retained traditional teaching regarding the demonic. He correctly describes "demonic vexations" as, "...the second type of the demon's extraordinary spiritual aggression and are far and away the most numerous. They are caused by a person's cultivation of imprudent habits; by frequenting wizards or seances, through repeated and persistent serious sins, or by submitting to spells...Vexations are true and actual aggression, physical or psychological attacks that the demon works against a person. At times they can result in scratches, burns, bruises, or, in the most serious cases, broken bones." (See An Exorcist Explains the Demonic, [2016], pgs. 70-71).  As theologian Delaporte reminds us, Satan wants to hurt us out of his "malice..envy..and hatred." (See The Devil: Does He Exist and What Does He Do, [1871], pg. 32).

The Root of the Problem: Vatican II Strikes Again

There is a surge of those involved in the occult and paganism, and with it comes the corresponding rise in demonic activity. The culture of the world has been desensitized to evil by Vatican II and the false sect it spawned. Sixty years ago the idea of a Catholic participating in yoga before pagan Hindu "gods" would be unthinkable. Now, yoga classes are offered at the local parish hall, and in the Vatican II sect Archdiocese of New York, Diocese of Brooklyn, and Diocese of Rockville Centre (Long Island), the seminarians are encouraged to visit a Hindu temple and an Islamic mosque (some professors require it). They are to "witness how they worship" and write a paper on the "beauty of their faith tradition." Is it any wonder parents (including some Traditionalists I know) see nothing wrong with letting their kids actively participate in Protestant services with their friends?

According to theologian Delaporte, "For since none but the True Religion can be from God, all other religions must be from the Father of Lies; and therefore highly displeasing to the God of Truth (St.Matthew 24:5, 24)." (See The Devil: Does He Exist and What Does He Do, [1871], pg. 36; Emphasis mine). This has always been Church teaching. 

Today, the number of those those who identify as pagans (polytheistic, animistic, or pantheistic pre-Christian religions) is growing each year. Some studies suggest that there are at least 1.2 million pagans in the United States. (See Jason Pitzl-Waters, The Wild Hunt, "Parsing the Pew Numbers," http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/02/parsing-pew-numbers.html; Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, http://religions.pewforum.org/).

Also in the U.S., there are approximately 1.5 million Hindus, another 1.2 million are Buddhists, and 3.45 million Mohammedans.  The fact that there are currently millions of witches, animists, and other pagans in the country is reason enough for genuine concern. The Bible tells us, "But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God. And I would not that you should be made partakers with devils." (1 Corinthians 10:20). Let's not forget that Pope Pius XI clearly establishes Islam as dark (evil) as paganism in the prayer he composed for the Dedication of the Human Race to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, where we pray for those "still in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism."

The growth of these religions allows for greater demonic activity. Yet the Vatican II sect tells us that:

 "The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other [pagan] religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men...The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. (See Nostra Aetate, para. #2 and 3; Emphasis mine). Notice the absence of any mention to convert them to the One True Church (and now Bergoglio openly tells us "proselytism is nonsense"). Good people who were raised in the Vatican II sect thinking they are Catholic come to accept, rather than reject, paganism.

The main cause of the rise in paganism--and even Satanism--coincides with the Great Apostasy. It's no coincidence. There are three basic reasons for this cause and effect, based on sound theological principles.

1. The False Ecclesiology of Vatican II.
The heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II tells us that the Church of Christ is distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, but "subsists" there because it has all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. The Church of Christ "subsists" elsewhere depending on how many "elements" the sect possesses. To have all the elements is best, but just having some elements is good too, and leads to salvation. (See Lumen Gentium of Vatican II). This explains why Nostra Aetate (cited above) could praise the false and diabolical sects of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. It also explains how "St." Wojtyla (JPII) could kiss the evil Koran--it contains some elements of truth. Using the same logic he could kiss the Satanic Bible because that has "some truth" as well. You will also frequently hear Vatican II sect clergy talking about baptism bringing someone into full communion with the sect. This clearly implies there can be partial communion. This notion is blatantly heretical. You can no more be "partially Catholic" than a woman can be "partially pregnant," or a man is "partially dead." You simply are or are not.

2. Religious Liberty. 
Dignitatis Humanae, the Vatican II sect document on so-called "religious liberty," overturns the perennial teaching of the Church on religious tolerance. Paragraph #2 of that damnable document states: "This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."

Vatican II not only says that no one should be forced to believe (which the Church has always taught), but also claims that no one can be restrained from practicing the religion of his choice. The Robber Council announces a "natural right" of the members of all false religions not to be hindered in their equally false/evil practices, which includes the "right" to proselytize and have false worship in public. Vatican II promotes something (once more) that the Church always condemned previously. The result was that Catholic countries were not only permitted, but encouraged, to remove Catholicism as the State Religion. When the Church was the religion of the State, only Catholicism could be practiced in public. Proselytism and public worship by sects was strictly forbidden. The result is both obvious and devastating, as the formerly Catholic countries of Europe (e.g., Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, etc.) are overrun with Mohammedans and other sects, with their morals returning to those of pagan times having abortion, euthanasia, and sodomite "marriage" all legalized.

3. The False "Mass" and "Sacraments" of the Vatican II sect.
When the True Church was driven underground, and the Modernists took over the formerly Catholic buildings, they evicted Christ. When the Mass was replaced by an invalid Novus Bogus bread and wine service, the grace that comes to humanity via the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross was diminished. As Christ decreases, Satan increases. Why else did missionaries have to perform so many exorcisms in foreign lands filled with pagans? As the Mass increased, demonic activity decreased. It should be no wonder then, that as the Mass decreases after Vatican II, demonic activity will increase.

Moreover, the sacraments have all been invalidated with the exception of most baptisms, and some marriages. Young people must try to fight all the modern evils and temptations without the grace of Confirmation. There are no priests and bishops to perform exorcisms and bless sacramentals. No graces from Holy Communion, and no forgiveness of sin outside of perfect contrition. It's a delightful time for the forces of Hell.

Satan Wants to Corrupt the Youth

Satan hates that which is pure. Children are pure and innocent, like Christ. What better way to approach a child than as a "friend"? "And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14). Here are two recent disturbing cases of "imaginary friends" gone bad. Both involved the occult.

1. The Slender Man attempted murder. On May 31, 2014, 12-year-olds Morgan Geyser and Anissa Weier, admitted that they lured their friend, Payton Leutner into some woods near a suburban Milwaukee park. Geyser stabbed Leutner 19 times while Weier urged her on, according to investigators. Leutner was left for dead but she crawled out of the woods and got help from a passing bicyclist. Geyser and Weier said they carried out the attack to curry favor with "Slender Man," a fictional online horror character typified by spidery limbs and a blank white face. They started seeing manifestations of Slender Man, who wanted to "help them." He then threatened their families unless they killed Leutner. Both girls were convicted and committed to a psychiatric hospital for 40 years. 

 What struck me is that two girls with no previous signs of being in trouble or having mental illness suddenly did something so unspeakably horrid; worse than a scene from a horror movie. Madness is not contagious. I'm not a psychologist, but it seems more than a bit odd that two young girls who are friends would both have severe psychological problems, to the point of sharing the same psychotic ideas and plotting the murder in all gruesome detail for five months. Where were the parents? Letting them dabble in the occult. They had "...sleepovers after bingeing on horror movies, of Ouija boards and Light as a feather, stiff as a board…" (See https://www.vqronline.org/essays-articles/2017/10/out-came-girls; Emphasis mine).

2. Murder and Suicide Pact with Satan.  In 2018, two young girls (11 and 12) whose names have not yet been released due to their ages, wanted to murder their classmates, drink their blood, and commit suicide to be with Satan. According to USA Today: 

Police say the girls — ages 11 and 12 — were found in a bathroom stall, allegedly with multiple knives, a pizza cutter and knife sharpener in their possession. The girls planned to commit suicide after stabbing other students, police say. "The plan was to kill at least 1 student but were hoping to kill anywhere from 15-25 students," an affidavit said. "Killing all of these students was in hopes it would make them worse sinners ensuring that after they committed suicide ... (they) would go to hell so they could be with Satan."

The girls allegedly hatched the plot after watching scary movies over the weekend, detectives said. The plan involved lying in wait for smaller students, mutilating their victims' bodies and drinking their victims' blood, according to authorities. (See https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/10/24/florida-girls-plotted-satanic-school-stabbings-police-say/1756036002/). Where did they get such disturbingly sick ideas, and why did they want to do something so incredibly evil at such a young age? "When asked about motivation, the girls reportedly told police that they were Satan worshipers. According to police, the girls planned to drink their victims’ blood out of the goblet they were found with. They also discussed eating their victims' flesh and leaving body parts at the school's entrance before killing themselves." (See https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-polk/bartow/pd-2-satan-worshiping-girls-armed-with-knives-plotted-to-kill-15-students-at-middle-school-). It began with watching horror movies depicting witchcraft and Satan worship. Thinking it was "cool" they began researching Satanism, and thought Satan was their "friend." Where were the parents? Good question.

Can demons take control of children? In the Gospel of St. Mark 9:17-21 we read, "A man in the crowd answered, "Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not." "You unbelieving generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to Me." So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth. Jesus asked the boy’s father, "How long has he been like this?"
"From childhood," he answered." (Emphasis mine).

We are also warned as to what we allow in our homes. In Deuteronomy 7:26, God warns what will happen if a false idol (referred to as a "detestable thing") is brought into the home of a Jew, "Do not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction. Regard it as vile and utterly detest it, for it is set apart for destruction." (Emphasis mine).

Learn to Discern

If a child has an imaginary friend, there is no need for alarm. It's probably an innocent imaginative phase. However, since Vatican II we are experiencing an "occult invasion" and the demonic forces that come with it. Please make sure that you keep out all things forbidden by God as "detestable." In particular avoid the Ouija board, tarot cards, and TV shows, films, and books regarding witchcraft and Satanism (from horror movies to the "evil is good" Harry Potter). In particular, make sure they stay away from the so-called "Charlie, Charlie Challenge." The "Charlie Charlie Challenge" has inspired millions of ­youngsters to dabble with satanic rituals by using a simple Ouija board made from a sheet of paper divided into quarters. They write “Yes” in two corners and “No” in the remaining squares. They then make a cross by stacking one pencil on top of another and summon the demon “Charlie” who answers questions – or even gives them instructions – by turning the top pencil to point to “Yes” or “No." Even the Modernist Vatican commented on this one. "Fr." Jose Antonio Fortea, said spirits could continue to haunt or harm players after the game ended.

The Daily Mirror reports: "Players have reported strange phenomena after contacting Charlie, especially if they believe they failed to sever the spiritual link after the game. One player from Buckinghamshire claimed her laptop malfunctioned, then the power failed. When she tried to call her parents the phone cut out. Another from Texas said he had seen a black figure with red eyes at the top of the stairs. Others reported hearing sinister laughing and objects moving without any obvious explanation."

Never send a child to a Waldorf School. This alleged "non-denominational private school" teaches children to "make contact with the spirit world." The philosophy is based on occultist Rudolf Steiner who influenced a man called--Angelo Roncalli! (See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/06/an-education-in-evil.html)

Be concerned if the child:

• has a change in behavior for the worse
• claims his "friend" wants him to do bad things
• knows things he couldn't possibly know on his own (personal details of your life you never divulged, etc)
• wants to hurt himself and/or others

Make sure to bring him/her to health care professionals first to check for psychological disorders. Alert a Traditionalist priest as well.

Conclusion

We are living in unique times, for both the Church and the world. The regular readers of my blog know I'm not an alarmist or conspiracy theorist. However, Vatican II has so desensitized the world into accepting evil, it affects our culture. Traditionalists must be extra vigilant as to what they permit in the home. Those who have children must be alert and knowledgeable regarding everything to which the kids are exposed.

Invite evil into your life and it will seek you out. Theologian Delaporte tells us to have in our home the things of God, especially Holy Water, relics of saints, and to be in the state of grace by staying close to the Sacraments. Moreover, consecrate your home to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Have a blessed statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph. Make use of all the sacramentals the Church has to offer. Pray to St. Michael the Archangel.  Instruct your children in the truths of Faith. In this way, you will be showing Satan a "No Trespassing" sign on your home and family.  The learned Fr. Delaporte leaves us with this truism, "Ignorance is not excusable when instruction is to be had; and heedlessness is very unreasonable, when there is a question of our immortal soul." (Ibid, pg. 176)

Contra Catholicism

There are some things in life that are so apparent, you'd think everyone would be able to understand them. For example, there is no such thing as a "married bachelor." It's a contradiction in terms. Once you understand what a marriage is, and you know the definition of a bachelor, it's plain as day that you can't have a bachelor who is married. Unless you want to re-define "marriage," "bachelor" or both terms, there's no way to reconcile them. In this time of Great Apostasy, we have people who believe the term "heretical pope" is not contradictory. Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) can be both outside the Church and the Head of the One True Church at the same time. How is this accomplished? They either (a) redefine the papacy, (b) redefine/attempt to dismiss heresy, or (c) both.

The two methods most often used by those who try and defend the Vatican II sect as being the Roman Catholic Church are as follows: (1) misrepresent the Magisterium so that you can pick and choose what teachings of Bergoglio you want to follow and which you'd like to ignore (the favorite of the "Recognize and resisters" aka "R&R"), or (2) dismiss heresy and "make it go away" by the "hermeneutic of continuity" (the delusion of choice for Vatican II sect apologists). Let's see how impossible it is to make this work. Above is a picture of Bergoglio with "Sr." Lucy Kurien, the founder of "Maher" an interfaith organization in India dedicated to helping destitute and abused women and children.

While the corporal works of mercy are wonderful, our ultimate goal is to get to Heaven. Does Lucy want to convert these poor people and save their souls? No. She states, "We respect and love all religions. We never put down anyone’s religion, or uphold one religion to the exclusion of others. What we want is to believe and respect interfaith religion, inclusive of all faith traditions. In our community spiritual practices, we invoke our prayers to the Divine, rather than invoking any particular name or form of God to the exclusion of others." Maher celebrates the pagan Hindu holidays, and all the different religions pray together. (See e.g., archive.indianexpress.com/news/diwali-spreads-cheer-among-city-orphanges/1030265)

Bergoglio approves of this apostasy.

Compare: Syllabus of Errors, Pope Pius IX, condemned propositions #16 & 17:
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.

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 Acts of the Apostles 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name [Jesus Christ] under Heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (Emphasis mine).
How can you reconcile what Lucy does (and which Bergoglio approves) with the teachings of the Church from 33-1958?  Answer: You can't.

Unfortunately, that doesn't prevent people from trying. One such individual, a Vatican II sect apologist, has a blog (of sorts) called Contra Sedevacantism (See contrasedevacantism.blogspot.com--I will hereinafter refer to him as Contra). Contra rehashes old John Salza and Robert Siscoe arguments in an attempt to prove sedevacantism is "heretical." Full of hubris and low on intellect, this individual then comments here, on Novus Ordo Watch, and Steven Speray's blog, seeking notoriety for his drivel. He calls sedevacantists "liars," "heretics," and "stupid." He obviously gets his manners from the Fred and Bobby Dimond School of Etiquette. The last four comments made at the end of my post on Theresa Benns--two by him with my two responses-- prove that he either didn't read what what I wrote, or didn't understand it. (See the last four comments here: http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/05/betrayed-by-benns.html?m=1).

Here is the heart of the matter. His resurrected Salza arguments in his first post boil down to sedevacantism being heretical because we have no bishops (at least none of whom we know) possessing Ordinary Jurisdiction, which the approved pre-Vatican II theologians seem to tell us is necessary for Apostolicity; one of the Four Marks of the Church. Contra claims his first post "refutes" sedevacantism. In this post I will set forth the problem in context and demonstrate why he is wrong.

Where It All Started: Vatican II

Everyone recognizes that there are serious differences with what purports to be the Roman Catholic Church today and how She existed prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). What was always believed and taught was now outright contradicted. The Mass and sacraments were substantially altered. It is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible and will exist until the end of time. This presented a big problem for Catholics worldwide. It seemed like there was a new religion operating inside formerly Catholic churches.The clergy tried telling the people that only outward appearances changed, but the "substance" of the faith, morals, Mass, and sacraments remained. 

This simply was not the case. The teaching of the Church regarding such topics as ecclesiology, religious liberty, and collegiality was completely different. The "Mass" was now identical to the invalid bread and wine "Lord's Supper" at the local  Lutheran church, and it introduced practices that had been condemned pre-Vatican II. Either the Church had been wrong from its founding by Our Lord Jesus Christ until Vatican II (in which case the Church was never founded by Christ and is a lie), or the Church was wrong after Vatican II (however, the dogma of Indefectibility teaches that the Church cannot teach error or give evil and She will last until the end of the world). The answer is to be found in the traditional teaching of the approved theologians and canonists: that it is possible for the pope, as a private theologian, to publicly profess heresy as a private theologian and fall from the pontificate by Divine Law. It is also taught that a heretic cannot obtain the papacy. These very real theological possibilities are referred to as sedevacantism (meaning "the seat/See of St. Peter is vacant). Sedevacantism, broadly speaking, is the position that there is currently no pope, and the man Jorge Bergoglio, commonly accepted and called the pope, is in fact a false pope, with no known real pope at present. More specifically, it is the position that the men considered successors to Pope Pius XII are not legitimate successors, and the last known pope was Pius XII.

Vatican II was convoked by Angelo Roncalli, the man known to the world as "Pope" John XXIII. Just as a cause is known by its effects (e.g., the fine-tuning of the universe points to the transcendent God Who created it), Roncalli did things which no true pope, protected by the Holy Ghost, could do. For a complete analysis of John XXIII, see my post:
 The Case Against Roncalli:  http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html

The Church under Pope Pius XII had the Four Marks and was clearly the One True Church in continuity with all popes before going back to St. Peter. The problem began when Roncalli started to rehabilitate all the Modernist theologians censured under Pope Pius XII and called the Council to "update" the Church. Roncalli either never obtained to the papacy (in my opinion the more likely scenario) or lost his authority after the election by public profession of heresy as a private theologian. Only a false pope could have signed Pacem in Terris. 

Those who held onto the Integral Catholic Faith as was always professed until the death of Pope Pius XII, are commonly referred to as Traditionalist Catholics--those Roman Catholics who continue in these most unusual times and circumstances. The solution to what has happened (sedevacantism) is explained by an alternate theological thesis called sedeprivationism (that the Modernist false pope is a material pope but not a formal pope). Both sedevacantism proper, as well as sedeprivationism, have the same result; we have no pope. I set forth this background so that all who read this may understand that we live in a unique time of near universal apostasy. The Church continues to function but in a way that is different from times past when we had a legitimate pope. There are novel questions of theology that have no definitive answer, such as, "How do we get a pope back again?" The approved theologians never addressed such questions in depth. Three possibilities for getting a pope back are:

• Sedeprivationism--the material pope renounces his heresy and becomes a formal pope or the material cardinals elect a real Catholic
• Imperfect general council--the true bishops elect a new pope
• Divine Intervention---God restores the papacy miraculously

Each possible solution has its problems. Keep in mind that just because sedevacantists don't have all the answers doesn't make our position false, nor does it make Bergoglio the "pope by default." Imagine that someone goes to a doctor, and after examining that person and doing appropriate medical tests, he was told by the physician that he had a rare and  progressive disease. The patient asks the doctor, "Can I be cured?" The doctor responds, "I don't know." The lack of knowledge on how to obtain a cure by the doctor does not thereby mean the patient doesn't have the disease. 

No respectable sedevacantist, neither Steve Speray, Dr. Thomas Droleskey, Novus Ordo Watch, nor I (taken individually or as a group) have all the answers to this unique situation. We are trying to make our own Catholic way the best we can. As a friend of mine from Church once said to me with a smile, "If I had all the answers, I'd run for God in November." With this background in mind, I will show Contra is completely wrong in claiming sedevacantism (and sedeprivationism) to be "heretical." 

The Whitewashed Tomb

To those not familiar to sedevacantism, and who are beginning to examine the matter for the first time, Contra's blog appears impressive. While it "looks nice" and erudite, it actually reeks of sophistry. It is like the Pharisees who wanted to appear holy to all, but were condemned by Christ as "whitewashed tombs" that look nice but are inwardly full of hypocricy (See St. Matthew 23:27-28). Rehashing John Salza's material, and putting out post after post, he cites to pre-Vatican II approved theologians and canonists to prove that Apostolicity is missing if sedevacantism is true because (he asserts) there must be bishops with Ordinary jurisdiction. If there are no such bishops, the Church does not possess one of the Four Marks the One True Church must have--"one, holy, catholic and apostolic."  Ergo, sedevacantists cannot be the remnant Church and the thesis is heretical. Contra has claimed that this is an absolute refutation for sedevacantism and sedeprivationism. All I need to accomplish to prove him wrong is to show that sedevacantism or sedeprivationsim does not necessarily entail a loss of Apostolicity, and it is thereby compatible with Church teaching. 

1. Contra does not understand sedeprivationism and misapplies the teaching of the 1870 Vatican Council.

Although he cites a former sedeprivationist priest who apostatized to the Vatican II sect, what he writes is flat out wrong. In his post of June 10, 2020, entitled "Sedeprivationism is Heresy" he writes:

 Sedeprivationism teaches that the occupants of the Holy See since the time of John XXIII hold only a material succession of Peter; meaning, they lack the requisite jurisdictional authority. This teaching contradicts the dogmatic decrees of Vatican I.

If anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema (Emphasis in original). 

Sedeprivationists do not teach that the material pope is the "occupant of the Holy See." A material pope is not the pope at all.  The material pope has mere designation to rule. Designation to power is different from the power to rule. The Electoral College elects the president of the United States, but the electors do not rule. The purpose of designation is to select someone to hold authority. However, someone merely designated holds no power to rule. The president-elect has been designated, but cannot make any presidential acts, like using the veto, until he takes the oath of office and assumes the mantle of authority to which he was lawfully designated. The president-elect is recognized as having the potential to rule, but he is not the president and not to be obeyed.

Someone can have a legal status (de jure) different from their actual status (de facto). A person can murder someone and be in fact a murderer, but if and until convicted, he does not have legal recognition as such. The converse is also true. Someone my be wrongly convicted of murder and have the legal status of a convicted killer, even though he remains innocent de facto. The power to rule the Church comes directly from God. The power to designate the ruler is ecclesiastical; it comes from the Church. There was a time when Cardinals were not the method of choosing the next pope. The Church changed the manner of designation several times in history.

 Since the profession of heresy by the hierarchy during Vatican II, the clerics lost all power to rule, but they retain the right to designate the ruler, since the Church never took that right away from the cardinals before the Great Apostasy. By Divine Law, heresy removes all power to rule, but not the power to designate the ruler.

 The chosen heretic is pope-elect, but not the pope, because his profession of heresy prevents the authority from vesting. He has material succession, not formal, and holds the office of pope potentially, not actually. In like manner, the president-elect can not receive the power to rule unless and until he takes the oath of office.

The false pope retains the ability to designate men who will, in turn, designate a material pope. In this way the succession of St. Peter continues materially. How does this thesis impact the Church?

 There is a simple, but far from easy, solution to get back a True Pope. If Bergoglio were to publicly abjure his heresy and embrace the Catholic Faith by swearing to the Profession of Faith and the Anti-Modernist Oath, he would remove the obstacle to the reception of his designation to rule. He would become a formal, (true, actual) pope. Bergoglio must then receive a valid ordination and consecration from a Traditionalist Bishop, and the interregnum of decades is finally over. Correctly formulated and understood, sedeprivationism in no way conflicts with the dogmatic teaching of the 1870 Vatican Council. The fact that someone may have formulated it differently in no way means the Thesis, thus understood, is heretical. (For more on Sedeprivationism, see my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2014/11/sedeprivationism.html)

Is Apostolicity gone? No. It would exist potentially, not actually, with the designee. Attempting to cite to any approved pre-Vatican II theologian to the contrary is useless because they were speaking about Apostolicity in normal times, not extraordinary times. There is a distinction which will be discussed next. 

       2. Approved theologians taught there could be an extended interregnum as we have today, and therefore it cannot be incompatible with maintaining the Four Marks.

According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

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

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

Therefore, the Church can remain for many years deprived of a pope, and the form of government remains "then in a different way." Moreover, there was a historical situation in the Church for 51 years called The Great Western Schism. From 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or possibly none) could have been the true pope. Which one, if any, was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit?  There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. In an age of much shorter life spans there could have been no bishops left with Ordinary jurisdiction, had none of the claimants been a true pope. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith.

As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine). So too, Traditionalists stand "willing to give that allegiance" when there is a true pope. 

The real nail in the coffin was delivered by theologian Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century. He wrote a book in 1882 (a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. 

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. 

We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. (Emphasis mine).

The following points are made unmistakably clear:

• The Vatican Council's 1870 decree on the papacy has been misconstrued. The institution of the papacy is perpetual; there is no need nor guarantee of actual men to fill that See at every point in time.

• The Great Western Schism sets historical precedent for a de facto interregnum of 51 years, since no one knew which papal claimant was pope, and there was a real possibility that none of the claimants was Vicar of Christ. 

• The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church.  Therefore, all Four Marks, including Apostolicity and everything else the Church requires, continue of necessity, even if we may not know the exact answers in any given situation. The Magisterium would not allow theologians to teach a hypothetical situation as a real possibility, if that would somehow be incompatible with the dogma of Indefectibility and the promises of Christ. 

• It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as a "heretical pope"--an oxymoron)

What I have written up to this point is enough to collapse Contra's case. 

       3. The Teachings of Theologian Berry Which Contra  Omits 

Contra cites gratuitously from theologian Elwood Sylvester Berry's work The Church of Christ [1955]. I wonder if he bothered to read it, or if he even understands it. Here are some of Berry's teachings from the same treatise:

Apostolic Indefectibility only belongs to the Apostolic See. On page 79, Hence, no particular part of the Church is indefectibly Apostolic, save the See of Peter, which is universally known by way of eminence as the Holy See. Therefore, it seems possible that every part of the Church could lose Apostolicity, except the Holy See. Sedeprivationism keeps that Apostolicity going de jure. 

A False church with a false pope and false sacraments lead by Satan. On pgs. 65-66,  The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church. (Emphasis in original). A false church! Could Bergoglio and the Vatican II sect be paving the way for the end times?

Apostolicity as one of the Four Marks. On page 88: Apostolicity, as a mark, is thus restricted to succession, and that a material succession, since legitimacy is not an external quality easily recognized by all, whereas material succession, i.e., an unbroken line of pastors reaching back to the Apostles, can be known even by the unlearned as easily as the succession of civil rulers in the State. But since Apostolicity of material succession may, and probably does, exist in some schismatical churches, it constitutes a negative mark only.

So material succession determines Apostolicity as a Mark of the Church. Berry, on page 104, explains why schismatic sects like the Eastern Orthodox don't have a positive Apostolic mark, In no case do they [Eastern Schismatics] have legitimate succession; there is no transmission of jurisdiction because they have withdrawn from communion with Rome, the center and source of all jurisdiction. Sedevacantists have never withdrawn from communion with Rome! In order to prove we have, Contra must beg the question by asserting Bergoglio is a true pope, which is the very matter under dispute. 

A Doubtful Pope is No Pope. On page 229, A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case no one is bound to obey him, for it is an axiom of the law that a doubtful law begets no obligation---lex dubiat non obligat. But a superior no one is bound to obey is really no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. (Emphasis in original)

Can you say, "Roncalli"? 

Sedevacantism is a real possibility. On page 229, Finally, if a pope, in his capacity as a private individual, should fall into manifest heresy, he would cease to be a member of the Church, and consequently would also cease to be Her supreme pastor...although the Church has never defined anything in the matter. Berry opines that it is unlikely to happen, but it is the opinion of all approved theologians and canonists that it could happen. Moreover, Bergoglio couldn't even attain to the papacy. As theologian Van Noort teaches, 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). The 1917 Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law, and hence cannot teach error, heresy, or give evil. What does Canon Law tell us about those barred from obtaining the papacy?  According to canonist Baldii, Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics... (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).

Vatican II Doublespeak

Lest anyone forget, whatever the enemies of Christ say against the Faith as it is now preserved, it does not make the Vatican II sect and Bergoglio into the One True Church and the pope "by default." The Vatican II sect apologists have no choice but to try and make contradictory positions compatible in order to avoid the charge of heresy. In George Orwell's classic novel 1984, the people of  Oceania were told "War is Peace," and "Freedom is Slavery." The Vatican II sect wants us to believe "Heresy is Catholic." They want to do this by "reading Vatican II in the light of Tradition." I will give but one example to show the patent absurdity of such a contention.

It is a dogma that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church outside of which no one can be saved. Someone must be united with Her at the moment of death and in a state of sanctifying grace to be saved.

• Pope Innocent III in 1215 infallibly stated, "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved..." (Emphasis mine)

• The infallible decree of the Council of Florence: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..." (Cantate Domino;Emphasis mine)

• Pope Gregory XVI taught, "Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. (Encyclical Mirari Vos, para. #13; Emphasis mine)

The teaching is clear, all man-made sects are a means of damnation, not a means of salvation. What does Vatican II teach? From Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph #3: "The separated churches and communities [heretics and schismatics] as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Emphasis mine). 

By what mental gymnastics can you claim this teaching is in accord with those cited just before? Are false sects a means of damnation (pre-Vatican II teaching), or are they a means of salvation (Vatican II teaching)? They can't both be true. For those who try and equivocate on the word "means," sedevacantist author John Lane is quick to point out: We have heard it argued that the word "means", occurring in the aberrant passage in this decree, was perhaps intended to signify something like "stepping-stone"; but of course the word is not capable of that meaning either in itself or in the Latin word of which it is the translation. A philosophical axiom states that "a means which cannot achieve its end is not a means." Flying in an airplane is a means of getting from England to France, but riding on a bicycle is not, even if, on reaching the Channel, one tossed the bicycle aside and used some other form of transport instead.

I could spend countless posts on many other such contradictions that exist pre and post Vatican II. However, this will not deter Contra, from churning out large amounts of "cut and paste, easy to use" Salza and Siscoe arguments in an attempt to "overwhelm" Traditionalists and make it seem like he's having an easy time writing a large amount of research (and actually understands the subject). As a lawyer, I do much research and writing, and I argue in court for a living. To do real research and make sound, valid arguments takes time and effort. That's the reason I only put out one post per week. I seek quality, Contra wants mere quantity--and it shows. 

Conclusion

Sedevacantism (properly so-called and sedeprivationism) are the only real solutions to the Great Apostasy in which we find ourselves. To be against it is really to be against Catholicism. The R&R position depends on a non-Catholic view of the papacy and Magisterium. Vatican II and the post-concilliar "popes" whom they recognize will teach something, and then they decide what they will and won't obey. It is not Catholic to have a Magisterium incapable of teaching, and a pope you need to obey only when you agree with him. There are those like $teve $kojec who claim the Church can defect. They deny the dogma of Indefectibility. What good is a Magisterium you can't trust, and a "pope" who can bring about the ruination of souls?

Finally, we have the Vatican II sect apologists, like Contra, the subject of this post. They want you to hold contradictory positions, and put your head in the sand, thinking that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church which just appears different, but is really the same when "read in the light of tradition." The only light to be shed on those damnable documents of Vatican II should come from a bonfire, reducing them to ashes and sending them back to the flames of Hell which begot them.  

The Androgynous "God/dess"

"Bishop" Nicholas DiMarzio (b. 1944) is the chief-layman of the Vatican II sect's Diocese of Brooklyn. He has been accused by two men of sexual abuse when he was a "priest" of the sect's Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. DiMarzio has vigorously denied the charges and is considering a lawsuit against his accusers for deformation. (See catholicnewsagency.com/news/brooklyn-bishop-dimarzio-denies-libelous-accusations-of-abuse-24602). Whether or not he's guilty of abuse remains to be determined. As to the charge of heresy, DiMarzio's guilt has never been in doubt. Many in the Vatican II sect are once more pushing the idea of God as Father/Mother, and using "inclusive language" (i.e., language that refers to both genders, or is gender neutral). On the Brooklyn diocesan website, there is an interesting piece entitled, "Should We Refer to God as Father or Mother?" which informs the reader as follows:

Faith in God as the "Father" is known in many religions of the world. In Israel, God is called "Father" inasmuch as he is the Creator of the universe. Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of law to Israel, "his first-born son." God is also called the Father of the king of Israel. In a very special way, he is "the Father of poor," of the orphaned and the widowed, who are embraced by his loving care. According to the [heretical 1992] Catechism of the Catholic Church, "by calling God “Father, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children." God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood that emphasizes God’s intimacy between Creator and creature. However, this experience also teaches us that human parents are fallible and can therefore disfigure the face of the fatherhood and motherhood. While people tend to make distinctions between the sexes, God transcends such distinction. In other words, he is neither man nor woman: he is God. (Emphasis mine).

Well, God is immaterial, correct? Also, the Bible tells us "There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28; Emphasis mine). There is a push by feminists in the Vatican II sect to remove "sexist" language from the Bible and their "liturgy." The renewed push is being joined by the perverts in the "transgender rights" movement. After all, if God has no sex and can be both male and female, then can't we express whatever gender we prefer? This post will set forth the case against the "androgynous god/dess" that feminists, transgenders, and "eco-theology" "Mother Earth" worshipers would like to gain acceptance. They want to make God in their image.  

The Arguments for "Gender Bias"

Those seeking an "inclusive language" Bible and worship service (I would never dignify the Novus Bogus with the appellation of "Mass"), understand all too well the meaning of "lex orandi lex credendi" (loosely translated as "the law of prayer is the law of belief"). If you make the sign of the Cross and pray, "In the Name of God the Creator, and of God the Redeemer, and of God the Sanctifier," how you think about God will change. When the Modernists replaced the Mass with a Protestant-Masonic bread and wine service, they made changes that would (and did) affect beliefs. 

To give two examples, the traditional Offertory of the Mass was replaced by a prayer asking God to make the host "the bread of life" and the wine "our spiritual drink." Neither phrase expresses Transubstantiation or the Real Presence; they could mean anything. In the True Mass, when the Host is given in Communion, the phrase "May the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul to everlasting life" is recited by the priest while making the sign of the cross over each communicant who is kneeling, and then placed on the recipient's tongue. The Modernists hand out the cracker to people standing, and put it in their hand. The President (or an "Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist [sic]") says, "The Body of Christ," to which the recipient responds, "Amen." They rejected the proposed words "This is the Body of Christ" because it is too specific. 

"Body of Christ" could refer to the people and you often will see inane signs in the Vatican II sect temples that say, "We are One Bread and One Body." The host could be a symbol of how each person participates in the "body of Christ" (Church).  The recipient responding "Amen" is exactly what many Protestant so-called "Reformers" did when they eliminated the Mass and rejected the Real Presence. The spiritual (not Real) presence is dependent on the faith of the people--"Amen," unlike Transubstantiation which effectuates the Real Presence whether you believe in It or not. The result? According to a 2019  Pew Research Poll, only 31% of the Vatican II sect members in the United States believe in the Real Presence (which they don't have, but it is still "on the books" as an official teaching---See https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/ ). 

In order to make a new concept of God, a decidedly androgynous one, there is a movement in the Vatican II sect to regard God as male and female, and use inclusive language to cement this concept in the minds of their members. The arguments used to advance this agenda are basically four:

1. God is a Spirit. Therefore any terms we use to describe Him are purely metaphorical. There is no reason not to refer to God in feminine or gender neutral language.

2. The Bible also sometimes refers to God in feminine terms, so there's nothing wrong with using such language.

3. God is referred to in masculine terms because of the culture in which the Bible was written. Christ became a Man instead of a woman because that was the only way to be heard in a patriarchal culture. 

4. God loves us all equally as Galatians 3:28 states. No one should feel excluded by dated male terminology.We are all made in the image and likeness of God. 

Each of these arguments will be addressed.

God Revealed Himself

Reply to argument 1. There are three texts from the Bible often cited by feminists to prove God is gender neutral. Numbers 23:19 says, "God is not a man that He should speak falsely, nor human that He should change His mind. Is He one to speak and not act, to decree and not fulfill?"In similar fashion, 1 Kings 15:29 states: "The Glory of Israel neither retracts nor repents, for He is not man that He should repent." Hosea 11:9 reads: "I will not give vent to My blazing anger, I will not destroy Ephraim again; For I am God and not man, the Holy One present among you; I will not let the flames consume you."

Numbers 23 refers to God  being faithful to His promises, and not "overcome by threats" like a man (See theologian Haydock, The Douay-Rheims Old Testament with a Comprehensive Catholic Commentary, [1859], pg. 188). 1 Kings is about the same theme (Ibid, pg. 359).  Both verses stress the absolute veracity of God as the Supreme Being Who is true to His promises. God is not human, hence He is not capable of lying or changing His Mind like humans. Neither text states or even implies, however, that because God is not human, he is not masculine or isn't to be spoken of in exclusively masculine language. In fact, while asserting that God is not human, the text applies masculine pronouns to God. Nothing in the texts suggest God may rightly be spoken of in female as well as male language. In Hosea (or Osse), God is not subject to the desire for revenge (Ibid, pg. 1120). This means that God is superior to humans and not that He is androgynous, or that masculine terms do not/should not apply.  

Reply to argument 2. Commonly cited passages for justifying using feminine terms (or gender neutral terms) for God are Deuteronomy 32:18, which refers to "the Rock that begot thee ... the God who gave thee birth." Psalm 22:10 says of the Lord, "Thou hast been my guide since I was first formed, my security at my mother's breast. To Thee I was committed at birth, from my mother's womb Thou art my God." In the former text, God is compared to a mother in "giving birth" to the Jews; in the latter text He is seemingly compared to a midwife.

Psalm 131:2 says, "I have stilled and quieted my soul like a weaned child. Like a weaned child on its mother's lap [so is my soul within me.]" David applies this language to God, suggesting a maternal image of Him. Also, in Isaiah 42:14, it depicts God as saying, "I cry out as a woman in labor, gasping and panting." Notice well that these passages compare God to a woman, but do not declare God to be a woman. No where in the Bible or in Sacred Tradition is God thought of as female or gender neutral. The same type of feminine comparison is made of Moses. In Numbers 11:12, Moses asks, "Have I given birth to this people?" Does this imply Moses to be a woman? Transgender? A hermaphrodite? This is sheer grasping at straws.

Reply to argument 3. This assumes the Almighty God, Creator and Master of All, is somehow beholden to His creatures and must conform to their whims. It's actually quite blasphemous. Maleness is a reflection of God's role as the Creator and as King of all that exists, and He came in the fullness of time. In other words, He came when it was right to do so, not because this happened "by accident" thereby "making" Him conform to societal standards. God designed the family to be led by the husband, assisted by his wife. The husband is the head of the family; the wife is the heart of the family (See Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii).God revealed Himself to us as masculine. This is recorded in the Bible, of which God is the Author, of His revelation in Sacred Tradition, and in His Incarnation as the Man-God Jesus Christ.

Reply to argument 4. Yes, God loves us all, and we are all His creation. He died for all, even though all are not, in fact, saved. Two points need to be made:

(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.

(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. This is one of the reasons women cannot be validly ordained as "priestesses." St. Bonaventure, Doctor of the Church, explains that Holy 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).

A "God" of Their Own Making

According to theologians McHugh and Callan, the sin of superstition consists of either a vice that offers improper worship to the true God, or divine worship of a false god. Offering false worship would be accomplished by e.g., opposing the truth of religion, like using Old Testament rites that signify Christ is yet to come. (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:359). However, having a distorted view of the true God, and having a false god that is worshiped seems to be a fine line. 

It is a fact that Catholics and Mohammedans do not worship the same God. Christians worship the Triune God—Father, Son and Holy Ghost—and no other god. Allah is a false moon god. In Romans 1:19-20, St. Paul explains that all people have some real knowledge of God by general revelation, so that they are without excuse for not knowing that God exists. However, speaking at Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17), St. Paul argued that even some of the Greeks’ own philosophers and poets gave evidence of a rudimentary knowledge of God—but this was not a saving knowledge, and the Apostle was brokenhearted when he saw the Athenians at worship.

When it comes to the androgynous "God/dess" of the feminist, transgenders, etc, we definitely have the sin of false worship, but could the conception of the Trinity be so skewed as to constitute idolatry of a false god, like Allah? A human illustration may help make my point. Donald Trump is currently the President of the United States. George W. Bush and Barack Obama are living former presidents. Suppose someone who knew nothing of Trump as a person and little of the American form of government, pieced enough information together and concluded that the most politically powerful person in the United States lives in Washington D.C., that he is a former Senator from Illinois, and that he is called Commander-in-Chief George W. Trump. Here is my query: Does this conclusion offer a poor and distorted, though partially correct, representation of the real President Trump? Or is it a construct that combines pieces of three men who hold/held the presidency into an imaginary person whose title, although accurate in the abstract, misrepresents the president and casts him as a primarily military figure? Is it a poor construct of fact, or is it fiction?

Is depriving the First Person of the Most Blessed Trinity of His masculinity by calling Him "God the Creator," or "God the Father/Mother" an inept representation or is it a new "god/dess"? When Christ is never referred to by His Title of  God the Son or even Son of Man, is it truly the Christ of Catholicism distorted, or is it the beginning of ecological-feminist-transgender "Gaia" worship? The consequences of this new "inclusive language" and conception of "God/dess" is staggering.

Conclusion

Mr. DiMarzio and his fellow pseudo-bishops of the Vatican II sect are pushing for a new and perverse way to think and talk about God. It is significant that the Deposit of Divine Revelation, given to us by God Himself, describes Him in masculine terms. Given the centrality of God's masculine description in Revelation, it is hard to understand how abandoning this exclusively masculine language for God is anything other than abandoning Divine Revelation itself and therefore jettisoning the True God for a feminized, emasculated, transgendered, and androgynous idol. 

Know Justice--Know Peace

New York City has been described by many adjectives. Boring is not one of them. A lifelong New Yorker, I was in the "hot spot" of the COVID-19 epidemic which nearly claimed the life of my best friend (now fully recovered, Deo gratias) and still keeps me confined, as if under house arrest, while working at home the best I can. Now, I'm in the midst of riots, more scary than the virus, instigated by the brutal death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Floyd, an African-American, was restrained by a white police officer, Derek Chauvin, who knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes while Floyd was crying out that he couldn't breathe. The three attending police officers did nothing to stop Chauvin. Floyd was pronounced dead and Chauvin faces charges of second degree murder and second degree manslaughter. The attending officers also face charges.

Protests and rioting have since broken out all around the country. Unfortunately, most were not peaceful, constitutionally protected protests. Most were violent riots resulting in looting and deaths of innocents. As this wave of rioting continues, a few preliminary remarks are in order. By all indications, Chauvin was wrong, yet he did not have his day in court. The presumption of innocence (introduced as a legal concept by my Patron Saint, King St. Louis IX), applies to Chauvin just as much as it did to O.J. Simpson. We have no legal right to call him a "murderer" until he either (a) pleads guilty, or (b) is found guilty by a jury of his peers. All the facts are not before us and the jury is still out (literally) on whether or not he committed murder. Floyd was not detained "just because"---he was accused of passing counterfeit money. Second, all of those "protesters" committing illegal, immoral acts such as looting, arson, and assault/murder, are just thugs.   A totally peaceful protest is fine, whether or not you agree with the cause, but acts that are illegal/immoral are not protests, but an excuse for lawlessness and to intimidate. They hurt a cause, and never help it.

While watching one such act of senseless rioting, there was a sign one person held with the motto, "No Justice, No Peace." It then occurred to me that these thugs have no idea (or choose to willfully ignore) what the law, justice, and peace really mean. In the wake of the Great Apostasy, the true meaning of those words have been either obscured or given new and false meanings. All the Vatican II sect clergy talk about the need for "social justice," which almost always means pandering to sodomites and illegal aliens who take away much needed resources from U.S. citizens while they commit crime. "Peace," to them, means pacifism in the midst of dangers we must fight. In this post, I will lay out the teaching of the Church on what law, justice, and peace really mean.

(I credit the work of theologian Cahill, The Framework of a Christian State [1932], and theologian Civardi, Christianity and Social Justice [1961] from which I composed the rest of this post; except where attribution is specifically given to another theologian.---Introibo).

Church Teaching on the Law and Civil Authority

Moral Law
The moral law may be defined as the norm of human conduct promulgated by a legitimate authority for the common good. It is then subdivided into:

• The Natural Law. This receives  its name because it is impressed by nature and made known by the very nature of humanity; that is to say, by the use of reason.The Author of the Natural Law is the Author of human nature---Almighty God Himself. It is the voice of reason, of conscience, that tells us the basic principle, "Do good and avoid evil." All people feel that it is wrong to lie and murder, and it is good to keep your promises and help others. St. Paul affirms this in his letter to the Romans that the pagans, who had no written law (as had the Jews), "...are a law unto themselves. They show the work of the law written in their hearts." (Romans 2:14-15). They will be judged by God, St Paul affirms, based on the Natural Law which is known by all humanity.

• Positive Law. This is not made known by natural reason, but by an act of the legislator who promulgates it. Therefore, positive law is further divided into Divine Positive Law and Human Positive Law, based on whether the promulgating authority is God or humans.

1. Divine Positive Law can only be known through Divine Revelation. It consists of the Holy Bible and Sacred Tradition and is correctly interpreted by the Magisterium.
2. Human Positive Law is either civil (if made by the government) or ecclesiastical (if made by the One True Church). 

Civil law has its foundation, its source, and its binding force in the Natural Law. It is not without reason the Book of Proverbs states, "By Me, kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things; by Me, princes rule and the mighty decree justice." (Proverbs 8:15-16). Civil Law also has its sanction and its limitation in the Natural Law. The lawgiver cannot decree anything contrary to it. When a civil law contradicts the Natural Law, the Angelic Doctor, the great St Thomas Aquinas informs us that it is not a true law, but a corruption of law. It is not binding in conscience, and a person may disobey, e.g., a law that would have them participate or sanction the killing of innocent unborn babies by abortion. Do people have a right to rebel and overthrow the government? That question will be answered later in this post.

Church Teaching on Justice

Justice is the cardinal virtue that prompts us to give everyone his due. There are three kinds of justice, each named after its objective.

• Commutative Justice. This regulates the relations between one individual and another; for example, seller and buyer. The seller is bound by justice to give sound, wholesome goods. The buyer is bound by justice to pay the agreed upon price.

• Legal justice. This regulates the relations between the government and its subjects. The government has an obligation to pass just laws for the benefit of the people, and the people are bound to obey those laws. In penal law, the punishment must fit the crime. Hence, it would be unjust to give the death penalty to someone who stole a small amount of money, or to give a fine to a murderer. 

• Social justice. This governs the relations between different social classes, and between employers and employees. 

Notice how, when properly understood, justice is in no way offended by opposing sodomite "marriage," or wanting illegal aliens deported. Sodomites violate the Natural Law as to the proper ends of sexuality and family. No government is bound in justice to give benefits to people who violate the very laws promulgated to regulate entry.

Church Teaching on Peace 

There is an inward peace that reigns among the faculties of people, whereby the lower are subject to the higher; and there is an outward peace that reflects the relations between humans as individuals, between classes, and between different nations. There are three principles that guide Church teaching regarding outward peace:

• It is founded upon true peace as defined above.

• It is not any peace at any cost. When justice is seriously violated and there is no other means of redressing it, it is lawful to have recourse to force, which is entirely distinct from violence. Force, unlike violence, is not summoned to the service of caprice or of passions, but of law and order. Hence, there are times a country may wage a just war. Force is not a gang of hoodlums rioting, killing, burning and destroying property, and stealing because they are "outraged" over a wrongdoing to someone.

• It must also have a firm foundation in charity. If men loved others for the love of God, peace will be assured.

The Duties to (and limits of) Governmental Authority

Our Lord Jesus Christ taught by His Divine example:

• Christ proved the binding effect of law by submitting Himself to it. As a Child, He submitted to the Circumcision. He submitted to the Presentation in the Temple. At 12 years old, He went with His mother and foster father to Jerusalem for the Passover, to fill another requirement of Jewish Law.

• At the beginning of His public ministry, He assured His listeners, "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." (St. Matthew 5:17). When He cured the ten lepers, He required them to show themselves to the priests, keeping in line with the law of Leviticus 14. When asked if it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar, He replied, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God, the things that are God's." (St. Matthew 22:21).

• He preached obedience even to wicked lawgivers, like the scribes and Pharisees, by saying, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." (St. Matthew 23:2-3).

• Christ refused obedience to wicked laws, unjust rules, and arbitrary requirements which the Pharisees added to the Mosaic law (like the requirements concerning certain ablutions, and the Sabbath rest which had become unbearable and unreasonable). He publicly complained that the Pharisees "...tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders..." (St. Matthew 23:4). He further rebuked them severely saying, "...Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition." (St. Mark 7:9). 

• Only in one case is a Catholic exempt from obedience to the State: when the law is clearly unjust and contrary to the Will of God. It then does not bind in conscience. As Pope Leo XIII beautifully summarized: The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men." And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null. (See Diuturnum, para. #15)

The Conditions When Revolt Can Be Permitted

People have a right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government that goes against God's law. However, to resist the government is always an extreme measure, and therefore it can only be resorted to in extreme cases and under certain well-defined conditions of Natural Law. The most terse and eloquent exposition of the four (4) requirements when open opposition to the government is permitted was penned by theologian Rickaby in the Dublin Review, April 1865 on resisting tyrannical government; De Regimine Principium..

•  The First Condition. The government must become substantially and habitually tyrannical. It must lose sight of the common good, and pursues its own selfish objectives to the manifest detriment of the people, most especially when their religious interests are concerned. The people cannot resort to physical resistance for the redress of any and every grievance.  If they could, civil war would be the common condition and peaceful progress would wholly cease. In every nation there are innumerable conflicting interests to be considered and some people are bound to suffer injustice. These ordinary injustices should be remedied through the lawmaking authority available to them, whether by voting, or by appealing to those in power. Resistance to the government can only be tolerated in the case of a government that is substantially and habitually tyrannical and therefore opposed to the common good. 

• The Second Condition. All legal and peaceful means have been tried in vain to recall the ruler/government to a sense of duty. The conditions of lawful self-defense are substantially the same in the case of resistance to private, individual aggression and that of aggression by the government. Now, in the former case, a man cannot kill another in self-defense if he can escape the aggression in any other way. [In secular law, this is also applied in many states. Here, in New York, if someone tries to start a fight with you, there is what the law calls "The Duty to Retreat," whereby you must try to get away from the aggressor. This duty extends to all situations except if you are in your home or in your place of business. Then you may immediately fight back---Introibo] So also, if a tyrannical government can be brought back to reason by legal means it has the right to be brought back by legal means. In a republic, such as the United States, rebellion is very difficult to justify because the government can be rejected at the polls. 

• The Third Condition. There must be a reasonable probability that resistance will be successful, and not entail greater evils than it seeks to remove. Therefore, the reasonable hope must exist that the tyranny will be overthrown and end, or at least the beginnings of improvement will be effectuated.If the uprising would result in greater misery and suffering for the people, resistance cannot be undertaken. 

• The Fourth Condition. When the judgement is formed as to the evil of the government, and the resistance necessary, it is not the opinion of a few, or some instigating group, but it is the manifested sentiment of the majority of the people, so that it may be morally considered as the judgement of the nation as a whole. In countries, there is often a group trying to incite revolution "for the good of the people" when it is actually for the group's own good.  They have no right to incite the masses through fear-mongering and acts of violence. 

The Facts and  The Teachings of the Church as Applied to the Instant Case

• The death of George Floyd was tragic. Whether or not it is murder has yet to be determined, and I wonder if it's even possible for Chauvin to receive a fair trial with all the publicity.

• To say the actions of Chauvin (in his abuse of force) are indicative of all (or most) police officers is false. To say that it is indicative of white people hating black people is racist. It is no less racist than suggesting all black people hate white people. One of the cops charged is Tou Thao, who is Vietnamese. Does that make all Asians racist against black people too? 

• While one may peacefully protest against real or perceived injustice, thugs who riot while looting, killing, and burning down buildings are criminals who need to be arrested and detract from anything worthwhile that may be said during a peaceful protest.

• These are Communist tactics to incite racial hatred and violence. Police are having their hands tied when they are needed to protect the people. As I wrote in my post of 2/10/2020 against racism, The liberals are making non-whites "victims" and want job quotas (think Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ), while conservatives are claiming racial superiority in the form of "White Nationalism." Both are causing a new and real hatred based on skin color. Both are evil.

• You have no need to apologize for being white, yellow, red, brown, or black. God made one race, the human race. All lives matter, not just black lives. There is no obligation to promote black owned businesses, as if we "inherited" a sin for which we must make reparations.  

• Heather MacDonald, author of The War on Cops [2016] relates that "The irony is The Washington Post's own database collects the statistics, but The Washington Post doesn't write that. Here's another interesting fact, a police officer is 18 and a half times more likely to be murdered by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be murdered by a cop, or killed by a cop." (Emphasis mine). There is no systemic racism among cops at large. 

• The problem is not having the right ideas about social justice and related matters due to the Great Apostasy having eclipsed humanity's teacher and source of holiness; the One True Church of Jesus Christ. I do not now, nor have I ever endorsed racism of any kind. This post is not intended to approve whites hating blacks, forcing the the races to separate, or white supremacy movements. The condemnation of what "Black Lives Matter" is instigating (racism), is not an excuse to become racist against black people. 

• As you can see from the above, there is no tyrannical government oppression that would warrant rebellion against the government. Moreover, these rioters clearly fall under the "small group instigators" condemned in the writing of theologian Rickaby. They are a disgrace. You can fix any real or perceived injustice by peaceful protests and voting.

• As an aside, please take note that political correctness supersedes public safety. While people are demonized if they don't agree or take part in the peaceful protests, have you noticed that in nearly all of them, people are not social distancing with COVID-19 still a pandemic? People were given tickets for gathering too closely in parks because they were being foolish and endangering public safety; now if they do the exact same thing for a protest, they're being called "courageous." The only police we need to fear are the "PC police."

Conclusion

The sign "No Justice, No Peace" was clearly a threat held up by the rioter I saw. It translates as, "If you don't do what we want ("justice") you will have rioting that you can't control (no "peace"). The truth is that these rioters don't know justice, so they will never know true peace. That peace can only be had by true justice. You need to follow Him Who is rightfully called the Prince of Peace, and His One True Church. As the Bible tells us, "Opus justitiae pax"---"The work of justice shall be peace." (Isaiah 32:17).