Thy Will Be Done

Private revelations will always arise to vex Traditionalists. To make the terminology clear, "private revelation" has nothing to do with the number of persons that claim to have seen and/or experienced something supernatural. "Public Revelation" refers to the Divine Deposit of Revelation given to the Church for all human beings to believe, so that they may be saved. Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, St. John, in 100 AD. Private revelation refers to all communication by God (directly or indirectly) with humans after Public Revelation ended. Most private revelations concern apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary or Jesus Christ. From the founding of the Church to the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, only seventeen (17) apparitions of Mary have explicit or implicit Church approval.  

I've dubbed as Apparitionists those who exalt private revelations and apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses) over the teaching of the Church. They obsess over the alleged "true meanings" of messages (as if salvation depended on them), or even accept them to the exclusion of authentic Church doctrines in some area(s). There will always be those who claim to have private revelations in order to "correctly interpret" other private revelations, and those who claim to have unique private revelations--all post-Vatican II. In both cases, there is no hierarchy to approve or condemn them. Then there is another category; those private revelations which were reported pre-Vatican II and no final determination was passed before the Great Apostasy, and questions remain as to the authenticity of some or all of the alleged "messages." 

In this latter category is the work of one Luisa Piccarreta. Her biography is written succinctly by one Vatican II sect "priest" Bernardino Bucci on one of several websites dedicated to her and the message of "The Divine Will:"

The Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta was born in Corato in the Province of Bari, Italy on April 23, 1865 and died there in the odor of sanctity on March 4, 1947.

Luisa from her very birth was given a mystical life, for example, at the age of 17 she received the Mystical Union that Saint John of the Cross, Saint Teresa of Avila and Saint Catherine of Sienna received right before they died. After this mystical Union Jesus asked Luisa if she would stay in bed and because of her “Fiat!”, He taught Luisa about the Life of the Divine Will, forming It first in her.

For the next 64 years until her death Luisa stayed in bed basically not eating, drinking or sleeping. Luisa was nourished by receiving the Most Holy Eucharist during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass daily said in her room. This special blessing was given by Pope Saint Pious (sic) X and Pope Leo XIII his predecessor. Luisa also lived on the food of the Divine Will, which Jesus said in the Gospels, “a food that you do not know of….”

During that time through great sufferings and a sublime call to holiness Jesus taught Luisa about the fulfillment of the Our Father, the prayer that Jesus taught His Apostles.

Jesus taught Luisa that now is the time for the Kingdom of God to reign on earth as in Heaven. Jesus dictated 36 Volumes of the doctrine of the Divine Will, which He gave the title “The Kingdom of the Fiat in the Midst of Creatures. Book of Heaven – The Recall of the Creature into the Order, to Its Place and into the Purpose for Which He was Created by God”, to teach Luisa how to “Live” in the Divine Will. This is different than the devotional life of the Saints which is “doing” the Will of God.

These Volumes were basically dictated in three sections: in the first section, Volumes 1-10, Jesus shows Luisa how to become a Divine Mirror of Jesus Himself. In the second section, Volumes 11-19, Jesus shows Luisa how to “Live” in the Divine Will through the Power of the Holy Spirit. In the third section, Volumes 20-36, Jesus shows Luisa how to receive the Divine Inheritance of the Father.

In humble obedience Luisa, under the constant direction of the Church, faithfully wrote all that Jesus Himself wanted her to put down on paper. This would be not only for herself but for those who would read it, so that they too could “Live” in the Divine Will as Luisa learned how to “Live” in the Divine Will, by putting into practice these “Truths” taught by Jesus and Mary.

In additon (sic) to the 36 Volumes Jesus dictated the book, “The Hours of the Passion” and Our Lady dictated the book, “Virgin Mary in the Kingdom of the Divine Will” to Luisa. Jesus told her Confessor, St.(sic) Annibale Maria Di Francia, through Luisa, that these 36 Volumes are to be called: “The Book of Heaven.”

Pope (sic) John Paul II canonized St. Annibale and declared him to be the Saint for our time to pray to for Vocations. (See https://bookofheaven.com/who-is-luisa/). 

There is much wrong with what "Fr" Bucci wrote which will become apparent in this post. To name but two such problems:

• There is no proof of the miraculous happenings he claims as fact; the Church never passed definitive judgement
• Some of her works were ordered placed on the Index of Prohibited Books by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1938 under Pope Pius XI 

The purpose of this post is to put forth the teaching of the Church regarding the purpose of private revelations, and what the Catholic position should be regarding them. I will then examine the works regarding The Divine Will written by Luisa Piccaretta, and the position of the Church concerning them.

The Meaning and Role of Private Revelations

Definition of Private Revelation and Its Usefulness

According to theologian Volken, a private revelations are heavenly and verbal manifestations of the Divine Will made to man in an extraordinary way in order to direct human activity in a particular situation of life of private persons or of humanity in general. Theologian Volken goes on to explain what this definition means in detail. Heavenly refers to the agent(s) which must be either an intermediary of God such as angels, saints, the Blessed Mother, or God Himself, as was the case with Christ's revelations regarding His Most Sacred Heart. 

Verbal manifestations means that it cannot be purely visual; something audible either to the human ear or directly to the brain must be heard. Divine Will designates the object of the revelations. The subject of the revelation is Man whether that is a singular person, several people, children, adults, clerics, laymen, etc. The manifestation is made in an extraordinary way to the recipient, not through the Magisterium.  Direct human activity in a particular situation of life means that God intervenes to help either a private person(s) or humanity in general to do something beneficial to eternal salvation given the current situation in the world. Hence, Christ sent His Mother to the children at Fatima to warn humanity about the reality of Hell (the belief in which had begun to wane substantially) and introduce devotion to Mary's Immaculate Heart as a special spiritual remedy. (See Visions, Revelations, and the Church [1961], pgs. 231-233). 

Volken reminds us that private revelations "cannot commit the Church or the Divine and Catholic Faith which has for its object the unaltered mysteries, revealed once for all time." (Ibid, pgs. 232-233). In other words, they are not part of the Deposit of Faith, and no private revelation, including those deemed "worthy of belief" by the Church, need to be accepted by Catholics. 

How Private Revelations are Abused

Volken hits the nail on the head, I believe, as to why Catholics become obsessive over private revelations. The more precious a good thing is, the more dangerous is its abuse. And revelations are a very precious things for they help us to conform our lives to the plan which God has for us in a particular situation. They are equally precious because of the way in which they act upon men. They come as a surprise and engage Man's feelings and his attention in such a way that they are effective in cases where other methods would not be. 

It is chiefly here that abuses creep in. Normally speaking, Man loves change (varietas delectat). He flees from the boredom that comes from the monotony of the actions of ordinary life. He feels the need for some new experience, some event, some sensation. In the spiritual life especially, in those periods of dryness when it becomes necessary to live by pure faith, the danger of abusing revelations is great. There are Christians who have an irresistible need to feel, to see, if possible, something staggering.  (Ibid, pgs. 257-258; Emphasis in original). This love of change and drive to experience something unique often will cause people to believe anyone who claims to have a private revelation, and it makes it equally interesting for them to try and "discern the true meanings" of approved private revelations, e.g., what did the Blessed Mother really mean when she said Portugal will always keep the Faith during her appearance at Fatima, etc. 

Another lure of private revelations is the idea of "get holy fast" spirituality that is wrongly attributed to devotions that emanate from such revelations.  I believe in the apparitions at Fatima. I wear the Five-Fold Scapular, have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray the Rosary daily (adding the Fatima prayer at the end of each decade), and attend the First Saturday Mass whenever I can. These devotions are meant to be things that will bring us closer to God and His Mother, and I recommend them all to Traditionalists. However, there are those who treat these devotions incorrectly and in a superstitious manner. Some think that as long as they wear the Scapular and go to the Five First Saturdays, they can live like heathens, commit mortal sin with impunity, and they will go to Heaven because they have turned the devotion into some "licence to sin." 

 What are we to make of private revelations that seem good, seem to bear good fruit, but have not been fully approved by the Church? Theologian Volken gives this guiding principle which I have taken from his work and condensed as follows:

 Every revelation must be rejected a priori if its context is opposed to Church teaching. In places where the Scripture speaks most explicitly of the discernment of spirits and where it urges Christians to "try the spirits if they be of God," it gives only one criterion which is of a doctrinal nature. "By this the spirit of God is known:every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God." (1 John 4: 2-3). That must be understood as teaching that every private revelation which does not confess Christ as God, and in anyway derogates ("dissolveth") Him by rejecting the teaching of His One True Church, is not of God and must be rejected.

An Examination of  Luisa Piccarreta's "Divine Will" Revelation

  Luisa Piccarreta's revelations can be summarized as follows:

• There are three great eras in the Church which correspond to three great fiats (loosely "let it [Thy Will] be done)

• The first fiat is God creating all things by His Word, and it is the "Age of Creation"

• The second fiat was made by the Blessed Virgin Mary: “let it be done to me according to thy word" at the Annunciation, and this is the  "Age of Redemption" 

• The third fiat will be accomplished by Luisa Piccarreta's own "let it be done to me" that is equal to both Creation and the Blessed Virgin Mary. With Luisa’s fiat, the Age of the Kingdom of the Divine Will ("KDW") has come to Earth and is available to all who will say “yes” to the Divine Will in which all of creation will be restored to a manner of life equal to that of Adam and Eve before the Fall. 

• How is this amazing Age of KDW to come about? You must become familiar with Luisa’s writings, and fervently ask for the gift of "becoming one" with God's Divine Will. You must have recourse to Luisa’s writings. "Jesus" refers to her as the “second mother” to the Church, surpassed in sanctity only by the Blessed Virgin Mary.

• Followers of Divine Will believe we are living now in the last days; they cite private revelations, both approved, like LaSalette, and unapproved

• When you become one with God's Will, your actions become purely divine. The holiness achieved will make that of all the saints prior seem insignificant in comparison. KDW will "renew the face of the Earth." 

Condemned by the Holy Office

The Vatican examined all volumes of Piccarreta's writings and placed three works on the Index of Prohibited Books. The decree reads as follows:

Wednesday, July 13, 1938: In the general session of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, the most eminent and reverent cardinals charged with the defense of the faith and good morals, after obtaining the vote of the reverend consultors, have condemned and ordered inserted into the Index of prohibited books the following works written by Luisa  Piccarreta and published by others at different times in several places:

1. The Hours of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, with a Treatise of the Divine Will

2.In the Kingdom of the Divine Will

3. The Queen of Heaven in the Kingdom of the Divine Will 

The following day, Thursday the 14th, of the same month and year, our most Holy Father by Divine Providence, Pope Pius XI, in the usual audience dedicated to the most excellent and reverent assessor of the Holy Office, approved the most eminent fathers' decision that had been presented to him; he confirmed it and ordered it published.

Piccarreta immediately submitted to the decision of the Holy Office. An archdiocesan bulletin concludes that anyone possessing prohibited books must have special permission to do so, or else they are to be destroyed. (See The Sun of My Will by Luisa Piccarreta and translated by Carol Glatz [2015], pgs. 254-259). 

So if the Holy Office condemned three of her works but not the others, are they safe to read?  The problems with KDW and the objections of the devotees will be considered next. 

The Problems with "KDW"

The problems with Piccarreta's writings/revelations are numerous, but they come down mostly to the following:

1. Divine Revelation and the Spiritual Status of Piccarreta. 

KDW claims that God's Will cannot be perfectly followed using the Deposit of Divine Revelation which is perfected and to which nothing can be added. Humanity can reach a height of perfection hitherto only known by Adam and Eve prior to the Fall (i.e., the State of Original Justice) and the Immaculate Virgin Mary. This brings up two immediate problems:

• The Deposit of Revelation ended with the death of St. John, the last Apostle. According to theologian Salaverri, "We are saying that it [Divine Revelation] was completed with the Apostles, not necessarily personally, but at least temporally and virtually, so that after the death of St. John the Apostle there is then no more objective, public, and universal Divine Revelation." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa: IB, [1955], pg. 282; Emphasis mine). 

• It exalts Piccarreta to a greater height than St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist. Pope Pius IX in  Quemadmodum Deus states,"Because of this sublime dignity which God conferred on his most faithful servant, the Church has always most highly honored and praised blessed Joseph next to his spouse, the Virgin Mother of God, and has besought his intercession in times of trouble." In St. Matthew 11:11 we read, "Amen I say to you, there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John the Baptist..." KDW even implies a certain equity between Piccarreta and the Immaculate Virgin Mary which is offensive to pious ears and blasphemous, if not heretical.  

2. Implied Pantheism.

KDW teaches that a person's will is completely taken over by that of God. Once more, two salient problems arise:

• In Piccarreta's writing entitled Book of Heaven, pg. 29, "[A]bandoning oneself completely in my Will destroys one's own essence and causes one to re-acquire the Divine Essence..."

This teaching cannot be reconciled with the teaching of the Church.

Infallible Canons of the Vatican Council of 1870:

3. If anyone says that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says that finite things, both corporal and spiritual, or at any rate, spiritual, emanated from the divine substance; or that the divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself becomes all things or, finally, that God is a universal or indefinite being which by self determination establishes the totality of things distinct in genera, species and individuals: let him be anathema.

Infallible Canon on Justification from the Council of Trent:

4. If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.

Pope Innocent XI, Apostolic Constitution Coelestis Pastor, Condemning the Errors of Quietism:

CONDEMNED Proposition #5:

By doing nothing the soul annihilates itself and returns to its beginning and to its origin, which is the essence of God, in which it remains transformed and divinized, and God then remains in himself, because then the two things are no more united, but are one alone, and in this manner God lives and reigns in us, and the soul annihilates itself in operative being. ...

• There is a logical corollary that if the Divine Will is only operative in a person (reminding one of the Monopysite Christological heresy) it is impossible for them to sin.

3. How Does the KDW Fit with Vatican II and the End Times?

How does the Vatican II sect and the coming of the Antichrist (whenever that might be) fit in with the "third fiat" and the Age of the Kingdom of the Divine Will? It seems that Church teaching on eschatology (the last things) goes out the window. None of this fits (or even attempts to fit) in with Church teaching regarding the Second Coming, etc. Piccarreta died in 1947 and there are no warnings regarding Vatican II which began a mere 15 years after her death. Most adherents of these private revelations are R&R or members of the Vatican II sect because (a) they have no problem recognizing Vatican II and Bergoglio, and (b) they have no problem holding contradictory and un-Catholic points of view. 

Conclusion: KDW is bad news and should be rejected as the Church has rejected it.

Objections Answered

1. Luisa Piccarreta was very holy. She submitted to the decision of the Holy Office immediately. 

Reply: I'm not questioning Luisa Piccarreta's faith or morals. Very holy people can fall victim to delusions of the mind or the devil and be subjectively blameless. The reason for the condemnation from the Holy Office was at least partially addressed.  In its edition of September 11, 1938, L'Osservatore Romano noted that "the three books covered by this decree would not have ordinarily merited particular consideration, in view of their small size and limited weight. But they were condemned because they represent a false and dangerous mysticism which is frequent in our days. The principal subject of the writings of Luisa Piccarreta is the Divine Will, conceived in an exaggerated and erroneous manner and presented in language and terminology super-abounding with inexactitudes and extravagances. The small volumes in question have already appeared in numerous editions and have been translated into other languages.... For this reason it was opportune to put the faithful on their guard.(See http://web.archive.org/web/20010725050710/http://www.petersnet.net/research/retrieve.cfm?RecNum=229; Emphasis mine). 

2. The Holy Office changed its decisions before. The Mystical City of God was on the Index and later removed. 

Reply: In 1681, the Holy Office censured the book by Mary of Agreda, and on August 4 of the same year included it on the Index of Forbidden Books. By order of Pope Blessed Innocent XI, however, the decree of condemnation was removed three months later after it was shown that a faulty French translation was at the basis for the censure.  You'd be hard pressed to find all the problems in Piccarreta's writings cured by an incorrect/inaccurate translation that wasn't caught from 1938 until 1958 when the last true pope died. Moreover, Piccarreta lived nine years after the condemnation, most probably wrote in Italian (the native language of most of the members of the Holy Office and of Pope Pius XI), and no explanation sufficient to remove the condemnation was given. 

3. The books were removed from the Index in 1966.

Reply: No. Montini, a false pope, "abolished" the Index. Piccarreta's works were never specifically removed. Moreover, even by Vatican II sect standards (very low of course), Ratzinger stated that the Index retains "moral force"--whatever that means. However, it does show that the books on it are still "frowned upon;" at least on paper. 

4. Sr/"St" Faustina's work regarding the Divine Mercy devotion was condemned by the Holy Office and was removed and given a feast day!

Reply: Yes, by a false pope (Wojtyla) which proves nothing. If anything, that just convinces me more that if the Modernist Vatican II sect likes it, it must be bad! 

5. Luisa Piccarreta's cause for beatification has been taken up by "Pope" Francis.

Reply: Yes, and if Wojtyla's approbation was bad, Bergoglio's is even worse! 

6. Can a sedevacantist read the works of KDW? We don't know if a real pope would have removed them from the Index or not.

Reply: Since we can't second guess the Magisterium, and we don't have a pope for now, we must abide by the last decisions made. Those three works stand condemned. Pope Leo XIII published Officiorum ac Munerum the most recent legislation on the Index (1897). Catholics should not read books or possess books that are on the Index. You could get a dispensation from your bishop pre-Vatican II. Since in most cases violations of the Index for a necessary reason (to further refute an error, required reading in a college course, etc) are venial sins, in my opinion, a just cause would probably excuse from sin since such dispensations cannot be had. (This is just a layman's opinion, but the Church did hold that just cause without permission was venial sin as per Pope Leo.) It is not necessary to burn the books, as this did not come from the Holy Office, nor is it required by the legislation of Pope Leo; it appears to be the declaration of a solitary bishop that was circulated and would only bind the faithful of his diocese, if such decree was made. 

I believe that smoking and chewing tobacco would be a sin today if we had a pope, given all we now know about the inherent harm of smoking, and our duty to take reasonable good care of our bodies imposed on all humans by the Fifth Commandment. However, I have NO Magisterial authority and refuse to "invent sins." I choose not to smoke and I think those who do use tobacco are foolish and inviting health problems. As to sinfulness, I cannot declare anything sinful that has not been so decided by the Church. The same logic holds for all those who wish to second guess the Church and think that a true pope would rehabilitate the works of Picarretta. You set yourself up with authority you do not possess. 

7. What about the volumes written by Piccarreta that were NOT condemned? Can we read those?

Reply: What I said above applies. If the Church has not condemned the other books, I have no authority to do so--they stand without censure. You can read them. Two points: (1) Just because the Church did not condemn them, does not mean the Church endorses them.  It is only private revelations. (2) Can you trust the writings of someone who had three works condemned? If there was a chef who made great food, but accidentally put poison in the meals of three guests, killing them, would you trust him to cook for you? How much more vigilant must we be with our souls over and above our bodies? 

Conclusion

I can't stress enough that we need to focus on what the Church teaches to fight the Vatican II sect. Private revelations should not occupy our thoughts and efforts. Yes, the Rosary, and devotion to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus all came from private revelations. Do not forget those revelations were approved by the Church and all those devotions were complimentary to the Deposit of Divine Revelation; they did not "add anything," nor did they contradict anything. With all these beautiful and truly Catholic devotions, why bother with KDW? 

If you seek true spiritual growth, read from the great saints such as St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St Francis de Sales, and St. Ignatius Loyola, to name but four. Let the Vatican II sect members and the R&R worry about Luisa Piccarreta and her writings. They can argue over whether her works should be rehabilitated and declared worthy of belief. We need not get involved in this "Battle of Wills." 

Queen James

Make no bones about it; as sexual perverts have succeeded in redefining marriage in the civil law, they will seek the acceptance of their wicked ways as "normal" in every facet of life. Their last obstacles are the remnant of the One True Church and the sects who still believe the basics of Christian morality. They know that their sin (along with oppression of the poor, defrauding laborers of their just wages, and murder) is one of the Four Sins that Scream to Heaven for Vengeance. Undeterred, the sodomites and their allies have re-written the Bible. Taking the Protestant King James version, they have changed it into a sin-affirming text meant to have conservative Protestant sects weaken or change their stance against homosexuality. 

Entitled The Queen James Version, this "bible" sports a blasphemous rainbow cross on the cover, thereby combining  the "gay flag rainbow colors" with the sign of the cross. It is not the first attempt of "LGBTQIA++"  to rewrite Scripture. The original was called Study New Testament For Lesbians, Gays, Bi, And Transgender: With Extensive Notes On Greek Word Meaning And Context, which was published in 2007. "Queens James" (hereinafter "QJ") was published in 2012 and is available on Amazon. The publishers state the reason on Amazon for producing such a so-called "bible:"

Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946 in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this - only interpretations have been made. Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands! The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.

Some preliminary considerations:

•  The word "homosexual" wasn't even used until 1892 in the English language

• That the word "homosexual" may not be used in any Bible prior to 1946, does not mean that the words in the Bible were not properly understood as referring to acts of homosexuality, lesbianism, sodomy, or sexual deviance

• According to the anonymous publishers, one reason that the King James version was chosen to be "homosexualized" is because of  The obvious gay link to King James, known amongst friends and courtiers as “Queen James” because of his many gay lovers. King James was the head of the Anglican sect, and commissioned a translation of the Bible into English in 1604. He had homosexual tendencies. There is some evidence he may have been a bisexual pervert. 

• The same publishers opine that "Most English Bible translations that actively condemn homosexuality have based themselves on the King James Version and have erroneously adapted its words to support their own agenda. We wanted to return to the clean source and start there."(Emphasis mine). The irony is incredible. Are they not doing exactly what they are accusing others of doing by “adapt[ing] its (the Bible’s) words to support their own agenda”?

• They invoke "clean sources." What are these alleged "clean sources"? This post will expose this as a lie; the so-called "sources" are as dirty as the sexual practices of the deviants they support. Moreover, the scholarly credentials of the publishers is unknown. They are completely anonymous and the author of this pseudo-bible is listed, most blasphemously, as "God." 

(Citations to the anonymous publishers can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/20140116205229/http://queenjamesbible.com/gay-bible/). 

This post will demonstrate that the QJ "bible" is a fabrication intended to make "gay OK" and encourage the acceptance of sodomites (and all other sexual perverts) by those who reject them based on Biblical authority. 

Distorting God's Word

The following is the list of  biblical verses twisted by the publishers to push acceptance of homosexuality and sexual perversion. I will present (a) how the verse is actually written; (b) how QJ renders it; (c) the reason given for the change; (d) the teaching of the Church on the true meaning. 

Even though it's a Protestant translation, I will use the original King James version (KJ) so the change in verbiage will be clear.

Genesis 19:5

KJ: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

QJ: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may rape and humiliate them. (Emphasis mine)

Publisher's reason: We side with most Bible scholars who understand the story of Sodom and Gomorra to be about bullying strangers. Strangers were not well-treated or well-regarded at the time of Bible (hence so much of the Word urging the love and acceptance of others).

We know Lot asks that the men do not “know” the angel visitors “wickedly,” (Genesis 19:7), in other words “brutally,” which we understand to mean “rape.” We know from Leviticus that one is not allowed to have sex with a beast, and angels are not human. Plus, the passage mentions the men of the city; Obviously women and children aren’t going to be invited to a dominating and public rape, but we know there were women and children in Sodom because Lot had daughters. Rapes such as this one are common between men in prison; they aren’t sexual acts, they are power-dominating acts.

Church Teaching: Notice that they never cite who comprises "most Bible scholars." Not even one name. The story of Sodom, told in Genesis 19, explains how Lot (Abraham's nephew) was met by two strangers at the gate of the city. These men were actually angels in disguise. Lot brings them to his house and, after a meal but before going to bed, the men of Sodom (young and old) surround the house and demand to have sex with them. Lot refuses to allow the gang rape of his guests and (tragically) offers them his virgin daughters instead. The men of Sodom are not interested in the women, only wanting sex with the men. The mob is about to break down the door of the house, when the "men" reveal themselves and save Lot by striking the mob with blindness. Revisionists tell us this is a case of attempted gang rape and  being "inhospitable" to guests, it is not "loving and consensual relations" that God would not condemn. 

In Genesis 19, this is what we read:

“And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.” (Genesis 19:5-7)

According to the publisher's logic (or rather the lack thereof), are we going to conclude that had the men wanted to “know”(i.e., "have sex with") the angel visitors in a “nice” manner that this would have been okay? But since they wished to “know” the angels “wickedly” that this somehow changes the moral law of God?  The change from "know them" to "rape and humiliate them" is based on the false idea that male-on-male rape is not a sexual act. Physical rape - sodomy - was what the sinners of Sodom had in mind; the very vice is named after the city, hardly something you would expect if it applied only to rape. Theologian Haydock explains Genesis 19: 

In verse 4: Together. The whole city was corrupt; even the children were taught iniquity, as soon as they came to the years of discretion.  In verse 5: Know them. They boldly proclaim their infamous design. Verse 8: Known man. They were neglected, while men were inflamed with desires of each other.

(See https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/genesis-19.html).

Leviticus 20:13 

KJ: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

QJ: If a man also lie with mankind in the temple of Molech, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Emphasis mine)

Leviticus 18:22

KJ: You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

QJ: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind in the temple of Molech: it is an abomination.(Emphasis mine). 

Publisher's reason: Leviticus is a very strict holy code designed to prevent acts associated with pre-Jewish idol worship. Many of the rules concern sexual acts, as most pagan rituals were sexual in nature. One notable and highly condemnable act was having sex with male pagan temple prostitutes...We assert that Leviticus 18:21 refers to “lying” with these pagan male prostitutes as a form of pagan idolatry. This fits in with the story order of Leviticus, and with the other offenses punishments punishable by death within Leviticus. We therefore change Levticus 18:21 and 20:13...(Emphasis mine)

Church Teaching: The publishers assert that these verses in Leviticus actually have to do with a pagan ritual of worship to Molech by having sex with male prostitutes in pagan temples. However, Leviticus 18:21 says nothing about this. It only states, “Neither shall you give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech…” It says nothing about “lying with these pagan male prostitutes.” The Hebrew text does not include the phrase "in the temple of Molech." The QJV editors borrowed the word "Molech" from Leviticus 18:21 and added "in the temple."

The QJV revisionists assert, that it is "abominable" for a man have sex with another man if they are "in the temple of Molech," but it is not "abominable" for a man to have sex with another man if it has nothing to do with Molech worship.

Does Leviticus 18:23 condemn bestiality/incest/orgies "in the temple of Molech," but justify it outside the temple? This is special pleading for their chosen sins. Theologian Haydock has this to say about Leviticus 18:22:

Abomination, punished so severely in the Sodomites, Genesis xix. Yet, even the philosophers of Greece were not at all ashamed of it. Bardesanes assures us, that the eastern nations punished it with death, and would not allow the guilty the honours of burial. Those beyond the Euphrates were so shocked at it, that they would kill themselves if they were only accused of such a crime. (Ap. Eusebius, præp. vi. 10.)---(Emphasis mine). 

Romans 1:26-27

KJ: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against their nature:And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. 

QJ: Their women did change their natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another; Men with men working that which is pagan and unseemly. For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections, receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Publisher's reason: We know [St.] Paul was a Jew and steeped in the purity tradition of Leviticus. Leviticus, as we know, is intended to condemn ritual impurities associated with pagan idol worship. It would not be unreasonable to assume a connection, especially since Romans 1:24 mentions “uncleanness.” We know sex, both heterosexual and homosexual sex (not distinguished from each other at the time), was an extremely major component of pagan ritual. Most scholars (us included), agree that the sin in Romans 1 isn’t being gay or lesbian or having gay sex. The sin was worshiping pagan idols instead of God, as it was in Leviticus, as it is everywhere in the Bible.

Church Teaching: "Most scholars (us included)..." Again, not one name of a scholar is given, and the publishers would have us consider them "scholars" on their own ipse dixit.  Please be advised that I have no idea who “most scholars” are here, but apparently since “The Editors” declare themselves as scholars, they only need cite themselves as their “clean source.”

Note the removal of "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections."

Furthermore, note the addition of "And likewise also the men, left of the natural use of the woman, burned in ritual lust, one toward another." Note the addition of the phrases "is pagan" and "For this cause God gave the idolators up unto vile affections," and compare with additions of the "in the temple of Molech" in Leviticus. 

Notice that the phrase "ritual lust" is not in the Greek text. The original KJV has no occurrence of the word "ritual" in the entire Bible. This addition alters the meaning of the text to make it to say that homosexuality is only sinful when it is practiced in some sort of religious ritual, such as temple prostitution. Since we are now discussing the New Testament, I will show Church teaching in more detail further on.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

KJ: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

QJ: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor morally weak, nor promiscuous, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (Emphasis mine).

Publisher's reason: One of the most famous homosexual Bible ambiguous interpretations is the line “Abusers of themselves with mankind,” which can be linked to the Greek word “Arsenokoitais.” The meaning of arsenokoitais has been famously debated, but in fact, “arsenokoitais” translates to “the male who has many beds,” and wherever else “kotais” is used in the Greek translations, it implies what we would use “promiscuity” for in modern English. (“Arsenokoitais” is likely referring to men who “abuse themselves” with the child-aged male prostitutes common in pagan temples at the time). Furthermore, Greek as a language had developed words for homosexuality, but none of those words were used in arsenokoitais’s place.

Church Teaching: This is an out-and-out falsehood. A simple glance at secular sources on the Greek language proves these self-anointed "scholars" wrong.  Two different Greek words are used here for homosexual relationships: malakos and arsenokoites.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Walter Baur, et al., defines malakos as "soft, effeminate, esp. of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually." It's used to describe "male prostitutes"and those that are the more passive (receptive) partner in a homosexual relationship.

The Greek word arsenokoites is defined as "a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite," and "homosexual offenders" (or "sodomites" in some translations) to the more active partner in a homosexual relationship. Both parties in the relationship are vile sinners before God.

1 Timothy 1:10

KJ: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

QJ: For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Publisher's reason: Given the context and theme of all our edits, we have changed “defile themselves with mankind” to simply “defile themselves.”

Church Teaching: The QJV omits the phrase "with mankind," as it implies a homosexual relationship.

The Greek word used here is arsenokoitas, so what was said above about 1 Corinthians applies here.  

St. Jude 1:7

KJ: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

QJ: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after nonhuman flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Publisher's reason: Given our clarification of the story of Sodom, we chose to highlight the fact that the male mob in Sodom raped angels, which is “strange” in that it is nonhuman.

Church Teaching: In regard to the historical revisionism, here is the teaching of the Church in regards to Sodom and sound exegesis:

The "LGBTQIA++" perverts assert that in the Epistle of Jude, it refers to "nonhuman" flesh since the guests of Lot were "angels."

However, the men of Sodom did not know Lot's guests were angels. The Sodomites in Genesis 19:5 say, "Where are the men [not angels] who came to you tonight?" (Emphasis mine). The Douay-Rheims correctly translates the verse as, "As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighboring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire." It is not "non-human." 

Jesus Christ condemns homosexuality:

Each time Our Lord refers to that immoral city of Sodom, He refers to its sinfulness and agrees that it stands condemned:

• St. Matthew 10:15, "Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Clearly implying that on Judgement Day, Sodom and Gomorrah will stand condemned)

• St. Matthew 11:23-24, "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hell. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

• St. Luke 10:12, "I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day."

• St. Luke 17:30, "But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from Heaven and destroyed them all."

First, Sodom was destroyed by God for it's "going after other flesh" (St. Jude 1:7)

Second, this perversion is homosexuality, because Genesis 19 clearly states it was men wanting sex with two angels who appeared as men, and they had no (sexual) use for women.

Third, Our Lord Jesus Christ is recorded referring to Sodom no less than four (4) times, and each time He agrees the city stands condemned for this sin ("sodomy") and calls Sodom "wicked." 

Therefore, Jesus Christ condemned homosexuality. True, He never uses the word "homosexuality," but He never specifically condemned "rape" by name, so are we thereby to blasphemously assume He didn't condemn it?

"Queen James" Shows Sola Scriptura Untenable

The publishers of the QJ "bible" explain another reason they wrote it:

The Bible is the word of God translated by man. This (saying nothing countless translations and the evolution of language itself) means the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, leading to what we call “interpretive ambiguity.” 

There is no "interpretive ambiguity" because Christ established His One True Church with an infallible Magisterium to correctly give the true interpretation to both the Bible and Sacred Tradition, which together make up the Deposit of Divine Revelation. Protestant sects have been multiplying ever since arch-heretic Martin Luther unleashed private interpretation of the Scriptures. The result is a "bible" that condones sexual perversion that would even make Luther and Calvin shudder. 

The teachings of selected Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

Saint John Chrysostom (347-407)

But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell...Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time! . . . For that rain was unwonted, for the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls. (Homily IV Romans 1:26-27; Emphasis mine).

Saint Augustine (354-430)

Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust. (Book III, Chap. 8, no. 15; Emphasis mine). 

Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Secondly, man sins against nature when he goes against his generic nature, that is to say, his animal nature. Now, it is evident that, in accord with natural order, the union of the sexes among animals is ordered towards conception. From this it follows that every sexual intercourse that cannot lead to conception is opposed to man's animal nature. (Super Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos, Cap. 1, Lec. 8; Emphasis mine).

Conclusion

The "Queen James" sodomite "bible" serves to illustrate the problem with the Vatican II sect, Protestants, and the "recognize and resist"(R&R) pseudo-Traditionalists of the SSPX and Salza/Siscoe types. They don't accept an unchanging, infallible Magisterium (Teaching Authority). Protestants privately interpret the Bible to their liking, as does the Modernist Vatican and the R&R with both the Scripture and past Church teaching. Now the chickens have come home to roost. Homosexuality and all manner of sexual "LGBTQIAA" wickedness will get more acceptance even among those claiming the title "Christian." 

Here are but two examples of  what "Fr." James Martin of the Vatican II sect has said to prove my point:

•  In 2017, when an openly homosexual man said that he and his partner don't kiss during the "Sign of Peace" during the Novus Bogus "mass," Fr. Martin said he hopes that "in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or, you know, soon to be your husband." (See https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/eight-extreme-things-fr.-james-martin-just-said-about-catholics-and) 

• In 2017, at Fordham University, Martin stated, "I have a hard time imagining how even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend [in a same-sex "marriage"] and say, ‘That is a loving act, and that is a form of love that I don’t understand but that I have to reverence." (See https://news.fordham.edu/inside-fordham-category/lectures-and-events/building-bridge-catholic-church-lgbt-community/)

Martin says all this with the full knowledge and implicit approval of Bergoglio. Why shouldn't he approve? Francis told practicing sodomite Juan Carlos Cruz, "It doesn't matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this."  So don't be surprised if a friend who attends the Vatican II sect Novus Bogus "mass" tells you that the scantily clad female "lector" begins "the Reading" thus---"A reading from the Book of Leviticus---Queen James Version." 

Sobering Thoughts

 The drinking of alcoholic beverages can be controversial. Many Traditionalists will be looked down upon by certain evangelical Protestants who claim any consumption of alcohol is sinful. Some Protestant sects use grape juice instead of wine at their "Lord's Supper" services, claiming that Christ changed the water into grape juice at Cana, and He used grape juice at the Last Supper. They base this false idea on the argument that the correct translation of the Biblical words mean "grape juice" and not alcoholic drink (wine). On the other hand, there are some Traditionalists who see nothing wrong with drinking at all. As long as you are not "falling down drunk," they opine that the use of intoxicating drinks is fine, and some will even look with suspicion upon those who do not drink as  "holier-than-thou" killjoys. 

I grew up in a very poor section of New York City. There was a disproportionately high number of alcoholics. Almost everyone I knew (except for my parents) drank heavily. By the time I was 19 years old, I had identified two bodies of my neighbors for the police. I'll never forget the day that an incredible stench came forth from the apartment next to us. The neighbors all congregated in the hallway with us because everybody smelled it. The man who lived in the apartment wouldn't answer and no one had seen him for days. The police were called. The building superintendent used his pass key to let them in and everybody started to vomit as soon as the door opened. 

The man who lived there drank all day, and he had died in the living room some days earlier with the bottle of gin still in his decaying hands. The police needed two identifying witnesses. For a reason I can't understand, the cops came out and asked me (as I was standing in the hallway with the others), if I would know the man if I saw him. When I replied that I would know him, they asked me if I could be the second witness along with the building super (lucky me!). My parents told me it was my duty to help the police and I went in with them. I was only 13 at the time. Six years later, the exact same thing happened with a lady on the other end of the hall. I will never forget what I saw either time. 

 The purpose of this post is to lay out the teaching of the Church on drinking alcohol, and to offer my reasons why I believe drinking should be avoided. Please note that Church teaching must be followed, not my opinions. I have no Magisterial authority, and I have never claimed to be a theologian or canonist. Follow what the Church teaches, but my opinion is just that--a layman's opinion, with which you may agree or not.

The Teaching of the Church on the Consumption of Alcoholic Drinks

According to theologian Prummer, "Sobriety is the virtue regulating man's desire for and his use of intoxicating drink. It is a distinct virtue since it has its own object which is most necessary for an upright moral life, viz. the moderate use of alcoholic drink." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1957], pg. 228). He describes the moral evil as follows:

The moral evil of drunkenness:

1. Complete drunkenness is a grave sin, which admits of slight matter. This is the most common opinion today. The reason given is that it is seriously contrary to right reason, (a) for a man to deprive himself knowingly and willingly of the use of his reason for the sake of gratifying his desire for intoxicants for no sufficient reasons of health; (b) for a man to expose himself to a grave danger of sin through his manner of acting; (3) for a man to expose himself to many other dangers as the result of drunkenness, such as ill-health, domestic troubles, damage to property. 

2. Any state short of complete drunkenness is of itself venially sinful.  

Note: A man is responsible for the sins committed in a state of complete intoxication to the extent that he could and ought to have seen them.  (Ibid, pg. 229). 

In the discussion on intoxicants, theologians McHugh and Callan have teachings that can be condensed as follows:

Drunkenness is sinful only if it involves the immoderate use of alcohol.  The state of intoxication may be divided into three cases:

1. If one drinks alcohol and is completely unaware that one is doing so to excess or that the drink is intoxicating, the consequential drunkenness is not culpable.  That is, the complete inadvertence excludes sin.

2.  If while drinking, one is conscious of an excessive intake of alcohol, but is sincerely unaware that drunkenness could follow, there is venial sin.

3. If one is perfectly aware of drinking in an excessive fashion and willingly accepts that drunkenness can follow, there is therefore a grave or mortal sin.  In this case the deliberation and consent are complete and entire.

Why is culpable drunkenness condemned? Because it robs a person of the use of reason. To deliberately lose the use of reason reduces humans to a level lower than that of animals because animals benefit from the instinct of self-preservation which the drunken person has lost. Moreover, it exposes people to the danger of committing a wide variety of evils, since reason no longer is there to control human actions. (See Moral Theology: A Complete Course  [1930] 2:495-502). 

Drinking in Moderation is Permissible

Drinking alcohol is not intrinsically wrong. Christ did not change water into grape juice, but into wine. This is the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, the theologians, and the proper understanding of Bible texts. According to the Greek text, the word used here is oinos, a wine derived from grapes; there is no evidence that wine is to be translated "grape juice." Christ changed water into wine at Cana, and He changed wine into His Precious Blood at the Last Supper. (See St. John 2:1-12, and St. Luke 22:7-39; respectively). 

In the  Old Testament, wine was a symbol of joy and blessing. Psalm 104:15 reads, "wine that gladdens human hearts, oil to make their faces shine, and bread that sustains their hearts." Wine was used as a part of the offering to God, "With the first lamb offer a tenth of an ephah of the finest flour mixed with a quarter of a hin of oil from pressed olives, and a quarter of a hin of wine as a drink offering." (Exodus 29:40). St. Paul recommended to Timothy that a little wine was good for the stomach and your frequent ailments, "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses." (1 Timothy 5:23; N.B., St. Paul uses the word "little" as to the amount). 

Finally, Our Lord Jesus Christ drank wine at the Last Supper prior to Transubstantiation, and He turned the water at the wedding in Cana to "good wine" (St. John 2:10). Therefore, it cannot possibly be wrong to drink in moderation, because if it were evil per se to drink intoxicants, Jesus Christ would not (indeed could not) do so for He is God Incarnate. Hence, because voluntary drunkenness is condemned, it does not follow that the drinking of alcohol is absolutely forbidden. However, moderation is necessary in drinking if we want to avoid sin.  Such is the object of the virtue of sobriety.  The word sobriety comes in fact from a Latin word, "bria," which means moderation, and one is called sober who maintains moderation. Ecclesiasticus 31:37-38, states, "Sober drinking is health to soul and body.  Wine drunken with excess raiseth quarrels and wrath and many ruins."

The Evils Drinking Can Cause

The Church teaches that drunkenness is sinful, and Sacred Scripture supports this most vividly.

"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Emphasis mine). 

As a matter of fact, the Bible specifically recognizes several evils that can come from excessive drinking (drunkenness):

1. It leads to poverty. "Whoever loves pleasure will suffer want; whoever loves wine and oil will not be rich." (Proverbs 21:17)

2. It results in depression. "Therefore I will lament with the weeping of Jazer the vineyard of Sabama: I will water thee with my tears, O Hesebon, and Eleale: for the voice of the treaders hath rushed in upon thy vintage, and upon thy harvest. And gladness and joy shall be taken away from Carmel, and there shall be no rejoicing nor shouting in the vineyards. He shall not tread out wine in the press that was wont to tread it out: the voice of the treaders I have taken away." (Isaiah 16:9-10).

3. It leads to immorality. "And they have cast lots upon my people: and the boy they have put in the stews, and the girl they have sold for wine, that they might drink" (Joel 3:3). 

4. It encourages sexual perversion. "Woe to him that giveth drink to his friend, and presenteth his gall, and maketh him drunk, that he may behold his nakedness." (Habakkuk 2:15)

5.  It causes injuries. "And thou shalt say: They have beaten me, but I was not sensible of pain: they drew me, and I felt not: when shall I awake, and find wine again?" (Proverbs 23:35)

6.  It causes sickness. "And thou shalt say to them: Thus saith the Lord of hosts the God of Israel: Drink ye, and be drunken, and vomit: and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword, which I shall send among you." (Jeremiah 25:27).

7. It is associated with selfishness. "And as wine deceiveth him that drinketh it: so shall the proud man be, and he shall not be honored..."(Habakkuk 2:5). 

The Statistics on Alcohol and The Misery It Brings

Alcohol Use Disorder (aka "AUD" or alcoholism):

• 14.4 million adults ages 18 and older (5.8 percent of this age group) had AUD. This includes 9.2 million men (7.6 percent of men in this age group) and 5.3 million women (4.1 percent of women in this age group).

• An estimated 88,0005 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States.

• In 2010, alcohol misuse cost the United States $249.0 billion dollars

• In 2012, 3.3 million deaths, or 5.9 percent of all global deaths (7.6 percent for men and 4.0 percent for women), were attributable to alcohol consumption

• Globally, alcohol misuse was the fifth leading risk factor for premature death and disability in 2010. Among people between the ages of 15 and 49, it is the first. In the age group 20–39 years, approximately 25 percent of the total deaths are alcohol attributable.

• More than 10 percent of U.S. children live with a parent with alcohol problems, according to a 2012 study

• In 2018, of the 83,517 liver disease deaths among individuals ages 12 and older, 47.8 percent involved alcohol

• Drinking alcohol increases the risk of cancers of the mouth, esophagus, pharynx, larynx, liver, and breast

(See https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/brochures-and-fact-sheets/alcohol-facts-and-statistics#:~:text=Prevalence%20of%20Drinking%3A%20According%20to,drank%20in%20the%20past%20month.). 

Conclusion

The moderate use of alcohol is permissible. Certain Protestants and other sects are wrong that complete abstinence is required and/or make the claim that Christ didn't use and make wine. Nevertheless, why would anyone choose to use alcohol? Yes, it can calm the nerves, etc, but so can drinking certain teas. Keep in mind that the Vatican II sect didn't develop overnight. Similarly, a notorious mortal sinner doesn't start out that way. No one leading a decent life suddenly wakes up one day and decides to become an alcoholic or rob a bank. Semi-deliberate venial sins, if not checked, can lead to deliberate ones. As you get desensitized to venial sin, you fall into mortal sin. Mortal sins can become habitual and lead to worse and worse deadly sins. Suddenly, that good Traditionalist Catholic is gone, replaced by a life of sin and soon will find himself a practical atheist---if not an actual one. Morals and faith go hand in glove; lose the one and the other leaves with it.

Begin drinking and you might find yourself going down that sinful, wide road that leads to perdition. Most of the people who drank in my neighborhood growing up moved on to drugs. Many who did not progress to narcotics still lost their jobs, broke up their marriages, inflicted abuse upon their children, and even turned to crime leading to prison. Alcoholics are made over time. Just as the journey of 10,000 miles begins with a single step, so too does an alcoholic begin with the first drink. After seeing so much destruction caused by drinking, I pledged on my twenty-first birthday never to drink except for a very special occasion. Since that time (34 years ago), I have taken exactly two drinks; a glass of Champagne when I toasted my best friend at his wedding, and several years later when he toasted me at my wedding. I never regretted my decision. I'm sure alcoholics can't say the same about their decision to drink. Don't let alcohol become your cup of tea.  

Vatican II: Misery And Despair

The Robber Council of 1962-1965 (better known to the world as the Second Vatican Council), produced sixteen heretical documents. Four of those documents were "promulgated" by Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) on December 7, 1965, the day before the Council ended. Altogether, Vatican II passed four Constitutions, nine Decrees, and three Declarations. Two of the four Constitutions were called "Dogmatic" (Dei Verbum [on Divine Revelation], and Lumen Gentium [on the Church]), and the last was labeled as "Pastoral," Gaudium et Spes (On the Church in the Modern World).The Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium  [on the liturgy] does not specify itself with either appellation. Gaudium et Spes (translated as "Joy and Hope," will hereinafter be referred to as "GS"), was one of those last four documents put out by the Council. It is most pernicious and often overlooked because of the more glaring heresies of the other Constitutions.

Approved by the bishops on a vote of 2,307 in favor and 75 opposed, GS is a Modernist masterpiece. An objection that is often used by the "recognize and resisters" (R&R) of the SSPX and other such groups (including some "conservative" members of the Vatican II sect) is that the documents of Vatican II were "pastoral" and not dogmatic. Vatican II was a "pastoral Council" and GS in particular says it is a "Pastoral Constitution;"therefore you can effectively ignore the teachings.

Pastoral simply means "after the manner of a shepherd." "Pastoral" and "dogmatic" are not mutually exclusive terms as R&R would like us to believe. A "pastoral"council, if it teaches on faith and morals, is also doctrinal or dogmatic in character. "Pope" Paul VI stated in his audience of January 12, 1966: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility."

"Extraordinary" in this context refers to solemn dogmatic definitions, which everyone agrees Vatican II did not pronounce. Montini goes on to declare:

"...but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) Magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents." (Emphasis mine).

Moreover, as was pointed out, two of the Council's Constitutions expressly call themselves "Dogmatic," i.e., Lumen Gentium ("The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church") and Dei Verbum (i.e., "The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation"). To claim that Vatican II gave no dogmatic teaching directly contradicts the Council itself. Furthermore, Montini expressly reaffirmed the fact that a pastoral role rather implies than excludes doctrinal teaching in his motu proprio Pastorale Munus of 1963 which declares in the first sentence: "The pastoral office was linked by Christ to the grave responsibilities of teaching and sanctifying, of binding and loosing." (Emphasis mine).

When the bishops of the world gathered together in the Vatican from 1962-1965 and gave morally unanimous consent to their teachings on faith and morals to the Church, and which were promulgated by "Pope" Paul VI, all the requirements of an exercise of the infallible Universal Ordinary Magisterium were met. If Montini were truly pope, you must submit and believe all of what was taught at Vatican II. To claim the Council was not infallible, can only be sustained as true if there was no pope with whom those bishops could hold union with, and who could ratify their decisions. Welcome to sedevacantism.

This post will shed light on how the Modernist Robber Council produced GS, and its heretical character.

Attempting to Conform Christ to the Modern World

GS was released to the Council Fathers on September 21, 1965. It was the longest schema (draft) with which they were presented. Its goal was to achieve "dialogue" with the world. 

Chapter One: centered on "The Dignity of the Human Person"

Chapter Two: focused on "The Community of Mankind"

Chapter Three: stressed "Man's Activity in the World"

Chapter Four: explained "The Role of the Church in the Modern World" 

(See Vatican II Exposed as Counterfeit Catholicism, by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki [2019], pgs. 502-504; I have culled information from these pages for this section. It is an excellent resource that I highly recommend.---Introibo). 

The schema was composed by a veritable roll call of Modernist theologians, all censured under the reign of Pope Pius XII, who were rehabilitated under Roncalli ("Pope" "St" John XXIII) and helped/encouraged by Montini ("Pope" "St." Paul VI). The most prominent heretics were Yves Congar, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Joseph Ratzinger, and Joseph Frings. The theologian with the greatest influence on its formulation was Rahner.

It was he, along with theologians  Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, Louis Bouyer, Jean Daniélou, Jean Mouroux and the aforementioned Congar, Chenu, and  Joseph Ratzinger (later "Pope" Benedict XVI) who began a Neo-Modernist movement that despised the Neo-Scholasticism which had served the Church so well. The movement was called "Nouvelle Theologie" (French for "New Theology") by the great anti-Modernist theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, often pejoratively called "the sacred monster of Thomism" by his enemies because of his love of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and his hatred of Modernism.

 In 1946, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote a scathing criticism of the movement (which liked to call itself  ressourcement ---"return to the sources"), because they claimed they were "returning to patristic thought." Garrigou-Lagrange demonstrated that the theologians of the movement did not "return to the sources" but deviated from the long-standing theological tradition of the Catholic Church, thus creating a "new theology" all their own, and a disguised resurgence of Modernism. In 1950, Pope Pius XII responded with his great encyclical Humani Generis which condemned many of their errors, such as rejecting the traditional dogmatic formulations that emerged throughout Church history as a result of scholastic theology, re-interpreting Catholic dogma in a way that was inconsistent with tradition, falling into the error of dogmatic relativism and criticizing biblical texts in a way that deviated from the principles of biblical hermeneutics outlined by his predecessors (principally Pope Leo XIII).

During debate at Vatican II, opponents of the Modernist schema criticized it heavily for subscribing to naturalism and ignoring sin. It calls for the advancement of scientific endeavors, but ignores the spiritual. However, this is only scratching the surface of its errors. 

Gaudium et Spes: A Catalog of Heresy

1. Universalism. GS, in keeping with the false and heretical ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium, teaches the salvation of all humanity. One of the key tenets of this document, it is beloved by Wojtyla ("Pope" "St" John Paul II) who incorporated it in his encyclicals and the heretical 1992 Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church.

In GS para. #22 we read, For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. By His Incarnation, Christ took on a human nature; True God and True Man. There is no Church teaching that somehow Christ "has united Himself in some fashion with each man." That is a theological novelty of Vatican II. This teaching is pure heresy as can be clearly seen from the teaching of Wojtyla:

Redemptor Hominis (1979), para. #13: Christ the Lord indicated this way especially, when, as the Council teaches, "by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man"(Emphasis in original). Continuing in the same encyclical, Wojtyla writes, Accordingly, what is in question here is man in all his truth, in his full magnitude. We are not dealing with the "abstract" man, but the real, "concrete", "historical" man. We are dealing with "each" man, for each one is included in the mystery of the Redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery. (Emphasis mine).

Query: If Christ has united Himself forever to each person simply by virtue of the Incarnation, how is it possible for someone to be damned? Answer: No one can ever be damned because Hell involves eternal separation from God, which is incompatible with the teaching of GS and Wojtyla--- that all humans are united forever with Christ and thus all must be saved. It is Catholic truth that no one is saved unless they are within the One True Church of Christ and die in the state of sanctifying grace.

Proof:  Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 1441, ex cathedra: The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives...

Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors (1864), CONDEMNED Proposition #17:

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

In GS, Vatican II goes further than heretic Martin Luther, who claimed there is salvation by faith alone. Here, even faith is not necessary. You are saved in view of the Incarnation simply because you were conceived.

2. The Deification of Humans.  In para. #12, GS teaches,  According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and crown.  Man is the center of everything. We have an anthropocentric world where humanity is the measure and crown of all things. This is the theme of the entire document; Humans are "God."

Here's what the Church teaches:
Pope St. Pius X, encyclical E Supremi, (1903), para. #9
Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ." (Apoc. xii., 10.) But if our desire to obtain this is to be fulfilled, we must use every means and exert all our energy to bring about the utter disappearance of the enormous and detestable wickedness, so characteristic of our time - the substitution of man for God...(Emphasis mine).

From Sacred Scripture:
For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(Romans 1:22, 25; Emphasis mine).

Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: Thus saith the Lord God: Because thy heart is lifted up, and thou hast said: I am God, and I sit in the chair of God in the heart of the sea: whereas thou art a man, and not God: and hast set thy heart as if it were the heart of God. (Ezekiel 28:2).

Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. (Jeremiah 17:5; Emphasis mine).

3. Falsifying the Words of Christ to Place Man As God.

From GS para. #24: This is why the first and greatest commandment is love of God and of neighbor.

Sheer blasphemy. Here is what Christ said:  And there came one of the scribes that had heard them reasoning together, and seeing that he had answered them well, asked him which was the first commandment of all.

And Jesus answered him: The first commandment of all is, Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one God.

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength. This is the first commandment.

 And the second is like to it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these. (St. Mark 12:28-31; Emphasis mine).

The first and greatest Commandment is therefore love of God, and the second is love of neighbor as yourself. This is what Christ said and what the Church always taught until Vatican II.  To place these two Commandments on equal footing is to equate God and Man, or to (once more) deify humans.

4. False Principles Regarding Marriage and Women
GS para. #48 states, By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown. 

While at first glance, this statement may seem orthodox, it is not. The procreation and education of children is the primary purpose of Holy Matrimony, and the mutual love and support of the spouses is the secondary purpose which is subordinated to the primary purpose. What Rahner and company did was to invert the primary and secondary purposes of Matrimony. If the procreation and education of children is the "ultimate crown" of marriage, it logically follows that the "crown" is merely a consequence which flows from the mutual love of the spouses; the secondary purpose.

This is the modus operandi of the Modernists in regard to the Sacraments; invert the primary and secondary ends to make them heretical and (with the exception of some baptisms and marriages) invalid. The Mass, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross which produces the Eucharist, is now a communal happy meal in the Vatican II sect. Extreme Unction is no longer for forgiveness of sin and the preparation of the soul for Judgement, but "Anointing of the Sick" for bodily health given outside the danger of death. Confirmation is not making soldiers for Christ to fight Satan, but becoming "mature in the Faith." Penance is not being forgiven for sin and then making satisfaction for sins forgiven, but being "reconciled"with God after having a discussion with a "priest" who functions as an ersatz social worker. Baptism is not the remission of Original Sin and becoming part of the One True Church, it's about becoming "welcomed into the community of believers." Holy Orders is not for making a man an alter Christus who offers Sacrifice to God and forgives sin, but makes a man the "president of the assembly" who "celebrates the mysteries of God and the sacraments."

The Status of Women: False Feminism.
GS para. #12 teaches, But God did not create man as a solitary, for from the beginning "male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). This statement is, once more, deceiving. God did create man and woman, but the citation to Genesis leaves out Genesis 2:18, 23: "And the Lord God said: It is not good for a man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself...And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man." (Emphasis mine). GS gives the false idea that man and woman were created at the same time, thereby implying strict equality.

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

From these false principles, the door is open to various evils, such as:

• the acceptance of artificial contraception
• the acceptance of sodomite "marriage," because if the procreation and education of children is not the primary purpose of marriage, a major objection to perversion is removed
• promotion of women as "priests"

Conclusion

GS has been shown to be a heresy-filled document, like everything else that came out of that most evil and Satanic Second Vatican Council. A false Council, presided over by two false popes, can only produce false and heretical teachings. Moreover, it created a false sect pretending to be the Catholic Church. The sect follows the teaching expressed in GS, where humanity is exalted as "God." GS is permeated with Naturalism, and disregards the truth that the Kingdom of God is not of this world. Life is not all about human happiness and fulfillment on Earth through political means and scientific progress; it's about gaining eternal salvation in Heaven. 

GS also expresses a false hope in the alleged "goodness of Man" whereby a "utopia on Earth" can be realized and Christ's One True Church is not necessary because all are united to Christ by reason of the Incarnation. Heaven is assured to all, so concentrate on the things of this world. Bergoglio is truly the perfect and logical expression of Vatican II. Remembering what GS teaches, these quotes of Francis make sense :

• The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old. The old need care and companionship; the young need work and hope but have neither one nor the other, and the problem is they don't even look for them any more. They have been crushed by the present. You tell me: can you live crashed under the weight of the present? Without a memory of the past and without the desire to look ahead to the future by building something, a future, a family? Can you go on like this? This, to me, is the most urgent problem that the Church is facing.

• And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his (sic) Incarnation.

• Proselytism is solemn nonsense; it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.

Gaudium et Spes promised "Joy and Hope" in the "New Springtime of Vatican II." However, in giving us heresy that has found its way into all areas of life, it has only produced misery and despair--both in the temporal world and eternally for those who don't reject it before Judgement.