Unrealistic Messages

 

I have received comments from my readers for some time now (both published and those who requested me not to publish their comment), asking about what is and is not acceptable to watch in terms of movies and TV. A regular reader of my blog has put out an excellent Traditionalist blog of her own in which, among other good things, she warns of many of the dangers in children's movies. Spanish is her native language (she is from Mexico), and the English version can be read here:

http://quisutdeusinenglish.blogspot.com/2021/07/millstones-on-road-i-be-yourself-message.html

This motivated me to give an answer to the question: "What should be the Traditionalist response to modern entertainment?" I will begin by showing a disturbing trend in adult movies; an indoctrination to the idea that there are no absolutes--not just moral absolutes---but absolutes of any kind whatsoever. It is the philosophy of postmodernism, which is the belief that there is no underlying objective reality or meaning to existence. Certainly, there are harmless movies not based in reality (e.g., the Spiderman franchise) in which we suspend our disbelief and allow ourselves to be entertained.

However, the films infected with postmodernism seek to have us suspend our beliefs, thereby giving in to lessons embedded within the motion picture's story that tell us how to behave, think, and even perceive reality. How many movie viewers find themselves hoping that a man commits adultery with the wife of his next door neighbor, that an embezzler will not get caught, and that a murderer will escape, because the plot of the movie makes circumstances such as to seemingly "turn bad deeds into good ones" based on the situation? Bye-bye objective morality. The people who cheer for the wrongdoing still (most likely) realize the action is always wrong, but how often can someone subject himself to such experiences with no effect on Faith and morals? 

According to theologian Butler, whose exposition of Catholic principles regarding plays applies equally to movies, writes :

True drama [entertainment] considers the plights of man and treats them with sympathy and good taste. When it fails to do this, it is failing to mirror human life and thus failing in its purpose. The theater becomes part of the American way of life. Once one has acquired a love for the theater, he will return time and time again. No one will deny that the constant spectator will be influenced in some degree by the plays [movies] which he is continually viewing. "For it is impossible in the nature of things that the scenes exhibited there should not exert a powerful influence, good or bad, upon both actors and spectators."  (See The Moral Problems of the Theater, [1958], pg. 6). 

Movies That FUSE Reality and Fantasy

(I wish to credit Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide [2017], and VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever 2021 for summaries of movies and some movie dialogue. Also used was the Internet Movie Data Base---Introibo).

Postmodernism concludes that because movies cannot be about reality (since it teaches there is no underlying reality), it must be about itself. There are action/animation hybrids such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988), Cool World (1992), and Monkeybone (2001), in which the protagonists knowingly and willingly interact with cartoon fantasy worlds which they understand are cartoon fantasy worlds. Hook (1991) is live action fantasy, wherein a lawyer "forgot" he was really Peter Pan, and Neverland is real; once more blurring the lines between what actually exists and what is imaginary.

The most popular example of fusing reality and fantasy is the movie that reignited interest in the horror genre--Scream (1996) and its sequels. Scream is a horror movie within a horror movie, a so-called meta-narrative. Writer Kevin Williamson has the characters talking about classic horror films such as Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, and Friday the 13th throughout the movie while similar things happen to them. They even speak of their world as a horror movie. 

Scream's protagonist, Sidney Prescott, is called by the killer on the phone and he asks her why she doesn't watch horror movies. Sidney responds that they are all the same with a deranged killer going after some pretty girl who can't act and just screams a lot; when confronted by the killer, the girl in the horror flick doesn't run out the door, but runs up the stairs instead. Later, the killer comes after Sidney and the front door is locked so she can't go out, and she goes running up the stairs while screaming; just like a stereotypical horror movie. Later, Sidney tells her boyfriend, "But this is life. This isn't a movie." He answers, "Sure it is, Sid. It's all a movie. Life's one great big movie. Only you can't pick your genre." The film even recites "the rules of horror movies" that get played out in Scream.

The idea of a "story within a story" is hardly new. Shakespeare used it in his plays. The difference is in the postmodern view, the focus is on the story only as a story. There is no tangible metaphor that relates to the real world; meaning is only a construct of the human mind.

Movies That CONFUSE Reality and Fantasy

How can we know what is real? In postmodernism, we can't ever be certain. This is seen in movies such as The Sixth Sense (1999). The main character is a child psychologist named Malcolm (played by Bruce Willis). There is one problem: Malcolm is dead but thinks he is alive. (Now that's confusion!). He tries to help a young "psychic" child named Cole who claims, "I see dead people." After Malcolm helps Cole accept himself and his "gift," only then does he realize he's dead and only Cole could see and interact with him. I have met several members of the Vatican II sect who believe if someone dies quickly (like in an automobile crash/explosion), the person doesn't "realize he/she is dead" until they complete some task.

When I inquire as to how a disembodied soul could not go to Judgement or realize he's dead (let alone figure out the "task" they must allegedly perform), I was always met with a blank stare and a pregnant pause. The usual reply was they heard it from a "friend of a friend" kind of story. I spoke to these individuals after 1999 and the huge success that was The Sixth Sense. I don't think it's coincidental.

The movie that truly makes reality confusing is The Matrix (1999), and its sequels. It is based on the old philosophical "mind in a vat" epistemic problem in philosophy, i.e., how do you know that what you're perceiving is real and that you are not just a brain in a vat with a mad scientist manipulating you to have your sense impressions? Some people have actually interpreted The Matrix as some Christian allegory, which it is most certainly not. It incorporates many false ideologies about the nature of reality. The result should be obvious; we can never know about God (if He exists) or which religion, if any, is true.

The movie depicts a dystopian future in which humanity is unknowingly trapped inside a simulated reality, the Matrix, which intelligent machines have created to distract humans while using their bodies as an energy source. When computer programmer, Thomas Anderson, under the hacker alias "Neo" (an anagram for the "ONE"), uncovers the truth, he is drawn into a rebellion against the machines along with other people who have been freed from the Matrix. (See https://prezi.com/ybxwvr21r9lz/the-matrix-and-postmodernism/). At one point, Anderson/Neo is given a choice to take a blue pill which will make him think the Matrix is reality, while the red pill will enable him to see reality as it is. He chooses the red pill, and a new term for realizing the truth, i.e., "red pilled" was born into American parlance.

Some claim The Matrix suggested a parallel between Neo and Christ as Neo is referred to throughout The Matrix trilogy as the One, that is, the chosen one, which also describes Christ—a messiah, sent to deliver salvation. The idea of a mere human being as The Christ is blasphemous, but that is not the message of the movie; it is actually based on Gnosticism and Buddhism. According to The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Gnosticism is:

The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. This definition, based on the etymology of the word (gnosis "knowledge", gnostikos, "good at knowing"), is correct as far as it goes, but it gives only one, though perhaps the predominant, characteristic of Gnostic systems of thought. Whereas Judaism and Christianity, and almost all pagan systems, hold that the soul attains its proper end by obedience of mind and will to the Supreme Power, i.e. by faith and works, it is markedly peculiar to Gnosticism that it places the salvation of the soul merely in the possession of a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of magic formulae indicative of that knowledge. Gnostics were "people who knew", and their knowledge at once constituted them a superior class of beings, whose present and future status was essentially different from that of those who, for whatever reason, did not know.

(See https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm).

In The Matrix, the people need liberation from their illusions, not necessarily salvation. Neo is a liberator, not a savior. Gnostics believe that by learning about one’s self, one’s world, and one’s spiritual essence, one may reveal "divine sparks" of original spirit (God). At the end of The Matrix, Neo actually seems to glow, because knowledge of the self  is the key to liberation and power. The most obvious and Buddhist theme can be found in the basic principle that, in the world of The Matrix, what most people think of as "reality" is a computer-generated simulation. This appears to align closely with the Buddhist doctrine that the world as we know it is maya, illusion, of which we must break out in order to achieve "enlightenment." Indeed, according to Buddhism, the biggest problem that faces humanity is our inability to see through this illusion. By presenting a patchwork of religious themes, The Matrix makes clear that reality is not objective, and all religions are equally useless. 

What Constitutes Unfit Entertainment?

The answer of the Church on what makes a movie fit, or unfit, for watching was beautifully elucidated by His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, in his Address to the International Union of Theater Owners and Film Distributors, given October 28, 1955. All emphasis is mine.

Movies in Relation to Religion

The first: in the plot-films, is it permitted to take religious topics as subject-matter of plot-films? The answer is that there seems no reason why such topics should be, in general and on principle, excluded; the more so, since experience, tested in this type, has already given some good results in films whose content is strictly religious.

But further, when the theme is not expressly such, the ideal plot-film should not pass over the religious element. Indeed, it has been noted that even films morally above reproach can yet be spiritually harmful if they offer the spectator a world in which no sign is given of God or of men who believe in and worship Him, a world in which people live as though God did not exist. A brief moment in a film can sometimes be sufficient, a word on God, a thought directed towards Him, a sigh of confidence in Him, an appeal for divine help. The great majority of people believe in God, and in their lives religious feeling plays a considerable part. Nothing, then, is more natural and more suitable than for due account to be taken of this in films.

Films Representation of Evil

The second question about the content of the ideal film of action concerns the representation of evil: is it lawful to choose, and with what precautions must one treat, evil and scandal, which without doubt have such an important part in the lives of men? Surely human life would not be understood, at least in its great and momentous conflicts, if our eyes were closed to the faults which often cause these conflicts. Pride, unbounded ambition, lust for power, covetousness, infidelity, injustice, depravity -- such, unhappily, are the marks of the characters and actions of many, and history is bitterly interwoven with them. But it is one thing to know evil, and to seek from philosophy and religion its explanation and cure; quite another to make it an object of spectacle and amusement. Yet for many there is an irresistible fascination in giving artistic shape to wrongdoing, in describing its power and its growth, its open and hidden paths, and the conflicts it generates or by means of which it advances. One might say that for a basis of story and picture many know not where to look for artistic inspiration and dramatic interest except in the realm of evil, even if only as background for good, as shadow from which light may reflect more clearly. To this psychological attitude of many artists corresponds an analogous one in the spectators, about which We have spoken previously.

Now then, can the ideal film take such matter for its theme? The greatest poets and writers of all times and of all peoples have grappled with this hard and thorny theme, and will continue to do so in the future.

To such a question a negative answer is natural, whenever perversity and evil are presented for their own sakes; if the wrongdoing represented is at least in fact, approved; if it is described in stimulating, insidious or corrupting ways; if it is shown to those who are not capable of controlling and resisting it.

But when none of these causes for exclusion are present; when the struggle with evil, and even its temporary victory, serves, in relation to the whole, to a deeper understanding of life and its proper ordering, of self-control, of enlightenment and strengthening of judgement and action; then such matter can be chosen and inserted, as a part of the whole action of the film. The same criterion applies here that must rule any like artistic medium: novel, drama, tragedy, every literary work.

Even the Sacred Books of the Old and New Testaments, faithful mirrors of real life, contain in their pages stories of evil, of its action and influence in the lives of individuals, as well as in families, and peoples...

Therefore the ideal film should flee from any form of apology, much less of glorification, of evil, and should show its condemnation through the entire course of the film and not merely at the end; frequently it would come too late, i.e. after the spectator is already beguiled and entrapped by evil promptings.

(See https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-xii_exh_25101955_ideal-film.html).

Theological and Practical Considerations

When trying to determine what you (and your family) will and will not watch, theologian Butler gives some considerations in addition to the sage guidance of Pope Pius XII:

If a movie portrays anything blasphemous or directly contrary to the Natural Law and/or Divine Positive Law, it must be shunned. Next, you must consider the occasion of sin, which is defined as any "person, place, or thing external to man, inclining him to sin." The occasion may be remote, when the danger of sinning is slight, and no sin is usually committed. The occasion is said to be proximate when the danger of sinning is grave and very often sin is committed.

The proximate occasion of sin is absolute when it would induce the generality of mankind to commit sin. It is relative if it is such an inducement to certain persons only. 

Three principles must govern the person watching movies:

1. To expose oneself to the proximate occasion of mortal sin without sufficient reason is itself a mortal sin. If a man knows that a movie which shows scantily dressed women (however briefly) will cause him to sin against holy purity, he must avoid this movie and all movies like it.

2. The person who willing remains in the proximate danger of mortal sin chooses to sin. If something presents itself during a movie which could cause you to sin, you must leave the room, shut it off, or leave the theater. If you continue to watch you commit sin by choosing to remain in proximate danger of mortal sin.

3. One is never allowed to commit mortal sin for any reason, and God will always give us the grace to overcome it; a person must likewise take all reasonable means to avoid the occasion of such mortal sin. (See The Moral Problems of the Theater, [1958], pgs. 111-113). 

Having read my post thus far, it should be obvious why the postmodern movies are off-limits. I have also presented the correct principles and guidelines of the Church to apply in your life. What may be a proximate occasion of sin to one person, may not be such to another. What is morally acceptable for an adult will not necessarily be the same for a minor. Men and women will have different sensibilities. There is no way I can produce an exhaustive enumeration of movies. That used to be the job of many people in the Legion of Decency, long since disbanded by the Vatican II sect. You must learn to discern using said guidelines/principles of Holy Mother Church.

That being said, remember In Medio Stat Veritas--loosely translated as "the truth lies in the middle." Every single movie is not evil, and Traditionalists do themselves (and others who are potential converts) no favor when they condemn every film except the explicitly religious, such as the wonderful The Passion of The Christ. People will perceive our faith as "simplistic and overly rigid.” Here are some tips for having a healthy view of movies, in my opinion:

• Do not generalize every non-religious movie as worldly, and every depiction of sin as wrong without regard to context

• Do not claim all entertainment is a "waste of time." Entertainment is not intrinsically evil, and can be mentally/spiritually healthy

• Do not watch any film indiscriminately, without considering the subject matter and getting a synopsis. You will avoid having to leave or turn it off in most cases

• You should spend more time in prayer and spiritual reading than in watching secular movies

• Always ask yourself, "Is this movie against my faith and morals in any discernable way?"

Conclusion

You have to decide what you allow into your life. What goes into your mind will come out in your life. Watch movies that have a postmodern worldview, and you may begin to lean towards a relativistic attitude where there is no absolute reference point to decide between good and evil, true and false. I had to wince when a secretary in my office said she "binge-watched" the TV series Breaking Bad, and loved it. She was rooting for the main character ("protagonist" would be a meaningless appellation here) who was a science teacher turned drug dealer. How does cheering for such a grotesque character not have a negative impact on your sense of morals and decency? Keep inviting such evil in your home, and don't be surprised if one day you see something sinful and see it as "not that big of a deal.” You may even ask yourself, "Who am I to judge?"  

Resistance Is Futile

 

Every once and awhile, it is good to remember why we hold the sedevacantist position. A friend of mine bought to my attention the following website, with an article entitled Against Sedevacantism, which can be read in full here:

catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html.

It advances eleven (11) reasons why sedevacantism is allegedly wrong and the "recognize and resist"("R&R") position of those like the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is the correct view of what has happened to the Church since Vatican II. In this post, you will not be reading anything new in the clash between the two standpoints; rather the main part of each argument will be reproduced below in red font (the article is so long I needed to condense it to the principle contentions), with my response in black below it.  You will see the more or less same worn out R&R arguments. Let this post serve as a reminder why every True Catholic should be a sedevacantist. 

First Argument: The Catholic Church Will Always Have A Pope

Vatican I infallibly teaches us: If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by Divine Law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema. Vatican I, Session 4, Ch. 2 (bold emphasis and parenthetical words are in the original, italic emphasis added).

It is theological ignorance to suggest that you need a living pope on the throne of St. Peter as a necessary requirement to have perpetual successors. Protestants would often use an interregnum as "proof" that the papacy wasn't "perpetual" because there was no pope for some time. According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

 Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)

The great Doctor of the Church, Saint Francis de Sales, teaches us: St. Peter has had successors, has them in these days, and will have them even to the end of the ages. Catholic Controversy, part 2, art. 6, ch. 9.

Pope Pius XII teaches us: If ever one day . . . material Rome were to crumble, . . . even then the Church would not crumble or crack, Christ’s promise to Peter would always remain true, the Papacy, the one and indestructible Church founded on the Pope alive at the moment, would always endure. January 30, 1949, Address to the Students of Rome, Quoted from The Pope Speaks, Pantheon Books, New York, 1957) ---I was not able to verify this speech, but I will grant that the speech may have taken place.

It has been established at the Vatican Council of 1870 that the papacy must last until the end but not that there must always be a living pontiff on the Throne of St. Peter.  Furthermore, having a long interregnum is not inconsistent with having perpetual successors. There is a possibility of an end of the papal interregnum before the end of the world. According to theologian O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century, in his 1882 book (written a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, he brings home this important point. 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).

Second Argument: There is no Interregnum But A "Restoration"

Here, the argument is that an interregnum of so long a period of time would constitute a "restoration"--there are no citations to any theological sources for this distinction, because there aren't any. There are several reasons listed as to why this can't be an interregnum (while ignoring the Great Western Schism), all but two of which are already refuted by theologian O'Reilly. The two worthy of mention:

1. In the case of any anti-pope in history, it has never happened that virtually every Catholic throughout the world, has been deceived into believing that an anti-pope was the true pope.

2.  ...the Church’s Unified Government continues operating without interruption. But that is not true under the sedevacantist interregnum theory, which results in a concrete denial of Catholic teaching that Unity of Government is an element of the Church’s Mark of Unity.

As to #1 above: According to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry,  The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise , [1927], pg.119; Emphasis in original). It should also be noted that the Vatican II "popes" are not "antipopes." An antipope is one whom is elected in opposition to a true pope as a rival claimant (See A Concise Catholic Dictionary, [1943], pg. 36). Roncalli to Bergoglio are "false popes."

As to #2 above: Theologian Salaverri already cited above, wrote, "Her [the Church's] monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed." They erroneously think because things are not operating as in normal times, Unity ceases to exist in Church government. 

Third Argument: The Church is, and Always Will Be, Visible

But we know from our catechism that the Catholic Church will always be visible. This is why Pope Pius XI declared that the one true Church of Christ is visible to all. Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928. #10.

There is nothing to prevent the Church from being reduced to a small number (“the Son of Man, when He cometh, shall He find, think you, faith on earth,” St. Luke 18:8). Moreover, the very purpose of visibility — the Church as the “column of truth to the nations” — is defeated by the heresies of the post-Vatican II body which the R&R admit. Moreover, 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. 

Fourth Argument: Universal Acceptance Guarantees A Pope

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, explained this truth as follows:

It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud. It is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such an acceptance he would become the True Pontiff.

Theologian Doyle explains: "The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all…." (See The Defense of the Catholic Church, [1927], pg. 124) It is therefore possible that the entire membership of the Church could have accepted one of those men who was not pope, as the Vicar of Christ.

I can hear the objection already: "But a few reactionaries (sedevacantists) can't give rise to a doubt when there is morally unanimous acceptance of Francis as pope." 

Do members of the R&R celebrate Chanukah with Jews? Do they participate in false worship with Protestants and kneel before a so-called "bishop" to receive a "blessing"? Bergoglio did as "cardinal" in Argentina. To do so would be the mortal sin of communicatio in sacris and a denial of the One True Church. Consider also, "As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the "curas villeros," the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four-fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those 'penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop' projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out." 

(See chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350910bdc4.html?eng=y) 

Participating in these ecumenical services with Protestants and Jews is, in the words of Pope Pius XI, "altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." (See Mortalium Animos para. #2) Yet, somehow if such a "cardinal" is pronounced "pope" without public abjuration of heresy, how does he attain the papacy? Does the "universal acceptance" somehow "undo" his heresy? Or does it mean his actions, contrary to all Church teaching pre-Vatican II, were not heretical? No attempt at an explanation of this is made.

Another big problem for them: Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio. This is the decree of Pope Paul IV of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy," his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be "null, legally invalid and void."

Fifth Argument: Rash Judgment: Concluding the Pope is a Formal Heretic

We could conclude Pope Francis was a formal heretic if he told us that he did not believe what the Church (God) teaches, that a Catholic must believe now. We would not be judging him rashly because we would merely believe what he tells us about himself. However, it is rash to judge the interior culpability of Pope Francis (or anyone else) and conclude he is a formal heretic simply because he is a material heretic, i.e., has heretical opinions and refuses to be corrected by traditional Catholics.

So the pope can be "corrected" by the R&R? What about his protection from teaching error guaranteed by the Holy Ghost?  

The import of Begoglio actively participating in false worship as "cardinal" cannot be understated. Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746; Emphasis mine). 

According to theologian MacKenzie, “If the delinquent making this claim [i.e., he didn't know something was contrary to Catholic dogma---Introibo] be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him.” Additionally, does any Catholic with even the knowledge of the basics of the faith need any more study/training to know, "There is no Catholic God" is heretical? The argument that "bad philosophy in the seminary" excuses Bergoglio is ridiculous for this very reason.  

Schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, respondeo. That is what sedevacantists do, viz., they refuse to submit to the current pope, asserting that he has no authority over them because he is not “really” the pope.

 If one has a reasonable suspicion regarding the election of a pope, he may be considered as a doubtful pope, and therefore no pope in the practical order. 

According to theologian Szal, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgresses a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, [1948], pg 2; Emphasis mine).  We have many good reasons to outright deny, not just suspect, the validity of Bergoglio's election. 

Sixth Argument: Sedevacantism is Revolutionary

Unlike the Cristeros, sedevacantists are revolutionaries. Sedevacantists correctly recognize that the pope has committed many wrongs. Instead of resisting only the wrongs committed by the pope, they follow the pattern of other revolutionaries by using these wrongs as a basis for rejecting the pope’s authority as such. Like other revolutionaries, they blame the pope for their own revolt, saying that his words and actions have caused him to lose his authority over them. 

Rejection of a Command or Decision of a Pope Can Happen In One of Three Ways:

• Rejection of the thing commanded. This occurs when one disobeys something ( e.g., a fast or restitution enjoined by the Pontiff) because he considers it too difficult. This results in sin, but not separation through schism because he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the Head of the Church.

• Rejection of the command when you regard the pope in his capacity as an individual. As the pope is not above human weakness, he might make a command moved by hatred, envy, or some other sinful motive involving an individual decision (not one affecting the whole Church). The pope might also command something sinful (e.g., kill someone he dislikes). In such a case neither sin nor schism is committed by this refusal to obey. 

• The rejection is based on his official capacity as pope. The person is guilty of schism and is no longer a member of the Church because he does not wish to submit to the authority of the pope who gave the command. (See theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology [1930], 1: 542-543)

According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). Hence, the SSPX, Salza, and the rest of the R&R crowd have no basis for rejecting the Novus Bogus "mass" (among many other things; I choose to  focus on the Mass as but one example). If Roncalli to Bergoglio are recognized by them as "popes," their ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship must be regarded as pure and holy. They have no basis to reject the Novus Bogus without being guilty of schism--the very charge the level at sedevacantists.

The Novus Bogus "mass" is evil because it is sacrilegious and/or invalid, so it could not possibly have come to us from the Church, precisely because it is a dogma that the Church cannot defect. The man who promulgated it must have previously taught heresy as a private theologian and lost his office as pope, or was never validly elected pope from the beginning, as the Church's theologians have always taught could happen. (Sedevacantism) Therefore, what purports to be the Roman Catholic Church is a man-made sect, an evil institution which must be rejected. This is not "revolutionary," it is remaining Catholic.

Seventh Argument: Our Catholic Duty: Resist the Harm Done by a Bad Pope But (Of Course) Recognize His Authority

Pope Leo XIII faithfully echoed the Apostles in teaching this truth:

[W]here a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God. Libertas Praestantissimum

Thus, a pope might command us to believe his errors on matters of Faith. The pope can make such errors whenever he is not speaking ex cathedra.

The citation here is discussing the laws of men, not the Church because universal laws of the Church, emanating from the pope, cannot be "contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God." Nor can the pope teach errors to the universal Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

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

(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1:258) 

Here's what  Pope Leo had to say about the papacy:

"Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own." (See Satis Cognitum, para. # 9; Emphasis mine). 

"For He who is the Spirit of Truth, inasmuch as He proceedeth both from the Father, who is the eternally True, and from the Son, who is the substantial Truth, receiveth from each both His essence and the fullness of all truth. This truth He communicates to His Church, guarding her by His all powerful help from ever falling into error, and aiding her to foster daily more and more the germs of divine doctrine and to make them fruitful for the welfare of the peoples. And since the welfare of the peoples, for which the Church was established, absolutely requires that this office should be continued for all time, the Holy Ghost perpetually supplies life and strength to preserve and increase the Church. “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of Truth” (John xiv., 16, 17)." (See Divinum Illud, para. # 5; Emphasis mine).

Eighth Argument: Judging the Pope’s Words and Deeds According to Catholic Tradition

Popes can err in any other teachings, unless those teachings are themselves a faithful repetition of truth contained in infallible Catholic Tradition. No pope (or anyone else) can err when faithfully repeating the teachings of Catholic Tradition.

This is Feeneyite error of "you only need to obey infallible teachings." The Church has condemned this very idea. 

• Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches, "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith."

• Pope Pius XII condemns the idea popes need not be given assent in their teachings that are not ex cathedra: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary Magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." (See Humani Generis [1950]).

Ninth Argument: The Pope John Canard

It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that the saints see the Beatific Vision immediately after they die (and after they have been purged in Purgatory, if necessary). Council of Florence, Pope Eugene IV, Bull Laetentur coeli, 1439; Pope Benedict XII Benedictus Deus, 1336, Denz. #530-531.

Pope John XXII lived before this dogma was defined by the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium. He publicly denied that the saints immediately see the Beatific Vision after they die, i.e., before the General Judgment. Catholic Encyclopedia, entry: “Pope John XXII”.

Before Pope John XXII became pope, he wrote a book publicly denying this doctrine of the Catholic Faith (viz., that the saints see the Beatific Vision immediately after they die and after they have been purged in Purgatory, if necessary). Id. Instead, he taught the opposite heresy. Id. Yet both before and after this doctrine was defined, the Church has always recognized the validity of Pope John XXII’s election as pope. Id.; see also, the Annuario Pontificio editions 1939, 1942 & 1959. In other words, his public teaching of this heresy did not prevent his election as pope.

Fr. Cekada (RIP) trashed this fairy tale:

The accusation of heresy arose from a series of sermons John XXII preached in Avignon, France in which he maintained that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgement. Sounds promising as an anti-sede argument at first, since John XXII was always recognized as a true pope. However:

(a) The doctrine on the Beatific Vision had not yet been defined — John XXII’s successor, Benedict XII would do that.

(b) Then there is the mode that John XXII, who had been a theologian before his election, employed to present his arguments and conclusions.

Here, the theologian Le Bachlet says that John XXII proposed his teaching only as a “private doctor who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate.“ (“Benoit XII,” in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.)

Ergo, since seeing the Beatific Vison by the saved upon death was not yet a dogma but up for theological discussion, and Pope John XXII, as a theologian, taught it as an opinion subject to correction by the Church, he never taught or proposed heresy. 

Tenth Argument:A Man Need not be Consecrated a Bishop or Ordained a Priest to be a Valid Pope 

 These sedevacantists then declare that, because conciliar ordinations and consecrations are definitely invalid (so they assert), the more recent conciliar popes cannot be real popes because they are not valid bishops.

I'm unaware of any sedevacantists of repute who make this claim. It is correct that a man need not be a priest or bishop to be validly elected pope, but I don't even need to go any further, since Bergoglio fails to achieve the papacy based on heresy.

Eleventh Argument: The Revelations to Sister Lucy of Fatima Show That the Catholic Church has a Pope

This dogma [of allegedly needing a living pope, "perpetual successors" at all times]  fits perfectly with the revelations given to Sister Lucy (one of the Fatima seers) in connection with Our Lady of Fatima’s request for the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart.

Private revelations, even those approved by the Church, need not be believed at all. No theologian--- no one even versed in basic Catholic theology--- would ever make an argument based on what an apparition allegedly said. 

Conclusion

Consider this post a "refresher course" on why the R&R position makes no sense and contradicts Church teaching on the papacy. Resistance is futile. Join the Vatican II sect and follow Bergoglio as a Catholic should, if you recognize his "papacy." Otherwise, embrace sedevacantism--true Catholicism--to have the hope of saving your soul.  

Confirmed In Error

 

In the Vatican II sect, all of the sacraments have been changed so as to reflect the new Modernist theology. In so doing they have invalidated all of them, except some baptisms and marriages. While I have no Magisterial authority to make a definitive pronouncement, all can realize there is moral certainty of invalidity. Even if, ad arguendo, these new sacraments were dubious, a doubtful sacrament must be treated as invalid in practice. As a result, millions in the Vatican II sect are being denied sacramental graces; more necessary than ever before in today's wicked world to stay faithful to God and persevere until the end. 

The Holy and Ecumenical Council of Trent infallibly defined: If any one saith, that the Confirmation of those who have been baptized is an idle ceremony, and not rather a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a kind of catechism, whereby they who were near adolescence gave an account of their faith in the face of the Church; let him be anathema.

The Church has always taught that Confirmation is not necessary unto salvation, but it is an indispensable aid in helping a person fight for the Faith and the salvation of their soul; even to the point of sacrificing life itself to obtain eternal life in Heaven. The Apostles experienced miraculous gifts when the Holy Ghost descended upon them at Pentecost. While those miraculous gifts are not manifested today (healing others, speaking in tongues, etc.) the strength of character is manifested. Just as there have been reports of people performing extraordinary feats of strength under duress, likewise, the Gifts of the Holy Ghost will manifest to help us, provided we are in the State of Grace. 

St. Therese of Lisieux prepared diligently for this sacrament, and wrote, On that day [she made her  Confirmation]I received the strength to suffer, a strength which I much needed, for the martyrdom of my soul was soon to begin. Pope Clement XIV approved a decree in 1774 which stated, "...this Sacrament cannot be refused or neglected without incurring the guilt of mortal sin, if there be an opportune occasion of receiving it."

In this post I will compare and contrast the true Sacrament of Confirmation in the Catholic Church with the defective and invalid confirmation service in the Vatican II sect with more detail than I did some years ago. In these perilous times, it is always good to take a more in-depth look at such important matters as the Sacraments; Christ's channels of Grace. 

What is Confirmation?

Confirmation is one of the seven sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, to strengthen those who are baptized, by giving them the power of the Holy Ghost. The Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity enables those confirmed to firmly and boldly profess the One True Faith as "soldiers of Christ." Confirmation, like Baptism and Holy Orders, imprints an indelible character on the soul. The Council of Trent infallibly declared:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that, in the three sacraments, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible Sign, on account of which they cannot be repeated; let him be anathema.

The character of Confirmation is truly and really distinct from the Baptismal character, and not the mere "completion" of the Baptismal character, as if that character were lacking. (See theologian de Aldama, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IVA, [1956], pg. 229; See also theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, [1922], 8:276-317).  Catholic Confirmation is anti-ecumenical by its very nature. The confirmed must defend the Integral Catholic Faith against all other false beliefs, acknowledging the Catholic Church as the One and only Church established by Christ, whereby salvation can be found. 

The Sacrament imparts the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost:

• The gift of wisdom, which enables us to know God, to esteem spiritual more than temporal advantages, and to delight only in divine things

• The gift of understanding, by which we know and understand that which our faith proposes to our belief; children and adults should pray fervently for this gift, especially before sermons and instructions in the catechism

• The gift of counsel, which gives us the knowledge necessary to direct ourselves and others when in doubt, a gift particularly necessary for superiors, for those about choosing their state of life, and for married people who live unhappily, and do not know how to help themselves

• The gift of fortitude, which strengthens us to endure and courageously overcome all adversities and persecutions for virtue's sake

• The gift of knowledge, by which we know ourselves, our duties, and how to discharge them in a manner pleasing to God

• The gift of piety, which induces us to have God in view in all our actions, and infuses love in our hearts for His service

• The gift of the fear of the Lord, by which we not only fear the just punishment, but even His displeasure at every sin, more than all other things in the world

There are Twelve Fruits of the Holy Ghost, wonderfully explained by the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas:

1. Charity

2. Joy

3. Peace

4. Patience

5. Benignity

6. Goodness

7. Longanimity

8. Mildness

9. Faith

10. Modesty

11. Continency

12. Chastity

Wherefore among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, we reckon "charity," wherein the Holy Ghost is given in a special manner, as in His own likeness, since He Himself is love. Hence it is written (Romans 5:5): "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us." The necessary result of the love of charity is joy: because every lover rejoices at being united to the beloved. Now charity has always actual presence in God Whom it loves, according to 1 John 4:16: "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in Him": wherefore the sequel of charity is "joy." Now the perfection of joy is peace in two respects. First, as regards freedom from outward disturbance; for it is impossible to rejoice perfectly in the beloved good, if one is disturbed in the enjoyment thereof; and again, if a man's heart is perfectly set at peace in one object, he cannot be disquieted by any other, since he accounts all others as nothing; hence it is written (Psalm 118:165): "Much peace have they that love Thy Law, and to them there is no stumbling-block," because, to wit, external things do not disturb them in their enjoyment of God. Secondly, as regards the calm of the restless desire: for he does not perfectly rejoice, who is not satisfied with the object of his joy. Now peace implies these two things, namely, that we be not disturbed by external things, and that our desires rest altogether in one object. Wherefore after charity and joy, "peace" is given the third place. In evil things the mind has a good disposition, in respect of two things. First, by not being disturbed whenever evil threatens: which pertains to "patience"; secondly, by not being disturbed, whenever good things are delayed; which belongs to "long suffering," since "to lack good is a kind of evil" (Ethic. v, 3).

Man's mind is well disposed as regards what is near him, viz. his neighbor, first, as to the will to do good; and to this belongs "goodness." Secondly, as to the execution of well-doing; and to this belongs "benignity," for the benign are those in whom the salutary flame [bonus ignis] of love has enkindled the desire to be kind to their neighbor. Thirdly, as to his suffering with equanimity the evils his neighbor inflicts on him. To this belongs "meekness," which curbs anger. Fourthly, in the point of our refraining from doing harm to our neighbor not only through anger, but also through fraud or deceit. To this pertains "faith," if we take it as denoting fidelity. But if we take it for the faith whereby we believe in God, then man is directed thereby to that which is above him, so that he subject his intellect and, consequently, all that is his, to God. Man is well disposed in respect of that which is below him, as regards external action, by "modesty," whereby we observe the "mode" in all our words and deeds: as regards internal desires, by "contingency" and "chastity": whether these two differ because chastity withdraws man from unlawful desires, contingency also from lawful desires: or because the continent man is subject to concupiscence, but is not led away; whereas the chaste man is neither subject to, nor led away from them.

(See newadvent.org/summa/2070.htm). 

The Modernist Confirmation

Montini (Paul VI) issued his "Apostolic Constitution" Divinae Consortium Naturae  promulgated August 15, 1971, making the new rite mandatory effective January 1, 1973. The new Rite is ecumenical and closely follows Protestant theological errors by presenting the service as a mere "profession of Faith" whereby those baptized take "personal ownership" over the baptismal vows and "choose to be Christians as adults." Remember also, that most Protestant sects don't admit Confirmation as a true and proper sacrament, since they only recognize "The Lord's Supper" ("communion"), and Baptism. 

The new Rite takes place during "mass" instead of having a Mass after Confirmation, as in Catholicism. It thereby detracts from both as it seems like an "extension" of the Novus Bogus. It begins with:

Presentation of the Candidates

After the Gospel the bishop and the priests who will be ministers of the sacrament with him take their seats. The pastor or another priest, deacon, or catechist presents the candidates for confirmation, according to the custom of the region. If possible, each candidate is called by name and comes individually to the sanctuary. If the candidates are children, they are accompanied by one of their sponsors or parents and stand before the celebrant.

How, exactly, are Vatican II sect "priests" "ministers of the sacrament" along with the "bishop"? It is of Divine and Catholic Faith that the ordinary minister of the sacrament is the bishop alone. According to the Council of Trent:

CANON III.-If any one saith, that the ordinary minister of holy confirmation is not the bishop alone, but any simple priest whomsoever; let him be anathema.

Priests have been delegated the power to confirm in the Eastern Rites as extraordinary ministers, and Pope Pius XII gave all Latin Right priests the same authority for those dying Catholics who request the sacrament. Nevertheless, how do priests (even having proper authority) administer Confirmation with the bishop?

Homily or Instruction

The bishop then gives a brief homily.

Renewal of Baptismal Promises

After the homily the candidates stand and the bishop questions them:

Bishop: Do you reject Satan and all his works and all his empty promises?

Candidates: I do.

Bishop: Do you believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?

Candidates: I do.

Bishop: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?

Candidates: I do.

Bishop: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who came upon the apostles at Pentecost and today is given to you sacramentally in confirmation?

Candidates: I do.

Bishop: Do you believe in the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?

Candidates: I do.

Bishop: This is our faith. This is the faith of the Church. We are proud to profess it in Christ Jesus our Lord.

All present: Amen.

This is placed in the service to make it seem as a Protestant profession of faith as adults.

Before continuing, I'd like to remind the reader that in order for there to be a valid sacrament, there must be proper:

1. Administer

2. Matter

3. Form

4. Intention

AND

5. No obex (i.e. invalidating impediment on the part of the recipient)

We will see that the new Rite is seriously defective/dubious in four of these areas. 

The Laying On of Hands

“The laying of hands on the candidates by the bishop and the concelebrating priests represents the biblical gesture by which the gift of the Holy Spirit is invoked” (Introduction 9).

The concelebrating priests stand near the bishop. He faces the people and with hands joined, sings or says:

Bishop: My dear friends. in baptism God our Father gave the new birth of eternal life to his sons and daughters. Let us pray to our Father that he will pour out the Holy Spirit to strengthen his chosen sons and daughters with his gifts and anoint them to be more like Christ the Son of God.

All pray in silence for a short time.

The bishop and the priests who will administer the sacrament with him lay hands upon all the candidates (by extending their hands over them). The bishop alone sings or says:

All-powerful God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, by water and the Holy Spirit you freed your sons and daughters from sin and gave them new life. Send your Holy Spirit upon them to be their Helper and Guide. Give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of right judgment and courage, the spirit of knowledge and reverence. Fill them with the spirit of wonder and awe in your presence.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

All: Amen. (Emphasis mine).

Four points:

1. This first general imposition of hands is not part of the matter of the sacrament, so it is not necessary to validity.

2. There is confusion as to the role of the priests. Earlier, it was said they were "ministers of the sacrament." What sacrament? Concelebration of "mass" is NOT part of Confirmation, yet it seems as if this may be how they are "ministers." The imposition of hands by priests in Confirmation is meaningless.

3. The fear of the Lord, has been replaced by "wonder and awe." To stand in wonder and awe does not mean the same as fear of the Lord. People will sometimes speak of the beauty in nature as having given rise to feelings of wonder and awe. Modernists reduce everything to feelings. Fear of the Lord is about how "we not only fear the just punishment, but even His displeasure at every sin, more than all other things in the world." Sin and punishment are "negative theology" which is anathema to the Modernist concept of universalism.

4. Piety has been replaced by "reverence." Piety "induces us to have God in view in all our actions, and infuses love in our hearts for His service." Piety therefore invokes good works unto salvation, which runs directly opposite to the Protestant heresy of justification by faith alone. Hence, it was replaced by an ambiguous and ecumenical "reverence."

The Anointing of Chrism

“The anointing with chrism and the accompanying words express clearly the effect of the giving of the Holy Spirit. Signed with the perfumed oil, the baptized receive the indelible character, the seal of the Lord, together with the gift of the Holy Spirit that conforms them more closely to Christ and gives them the grace of spreading ‘the sweet odor of Christ’” (Introduction 9).

The deacon brings the Chrism to the bishop. Each candidate goes to the bishop, or the bishop may go to the individual candidates. The one who presented the candidate places his right hand on the latter’s shoulder and gives the candidate’s name to the bishop; or the candidate may give his own name.

Bishop: Dips his right thumb in the Chrism and makes the sign of the cross on the forehead of the one to be confirmed, as he says: “(Name), be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Newly confirmed: Amen.

Bishop: Peace be with you.

Newly confirmed: And with your spirit.

This part contains the matter (anointing with chrism) and form (words to be said). Let me first state that in 1968, the new Pauline rite of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination were introduced. They are morally certain to be null and void. Hence, unless the minister is (at least) validly ordained a priest prior to 1968, Confirmation is morally certain to be equally invalid without needing further consideration of matter and form. As if this were not enough, here's what the Modernists have done to the matter and form:

As to the Matter:

The remote matter is Holy Chrism which is made from olive oil and balsam which is then consecrated by a bishop on Maundy Thursday.

The Vatican II sect's Congregation of Divine Worship issued a decree in 1971 permitting the use of of other oils from other plants and seeds (e.g., coconut or vegetable oil) in the place of olive oil for Confirmation. This novelty has no basis in Church teaching and/or practice. (See Documents on the Liturgy, no. 3864).

The proximate matter is considered by most theologians to be both the anointing with Holy Chrism and the individual imposition of the hands by the bishop. (See theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, , [1922], 8:292-293; Emphasis mine). The Modernist Vatican, responding to a query, stated that the anointing with chrism without the imposition of hands "sufficiently expresses the laying on of hands." Hence, most "bishops" do not impose the hands on the individual. Another novelty. The general imposition of hands cannot be said to replace the individual imposition, as it was never taught that it was part of the matter of the sacrament. 

The use of other oils than olive oil in the Chrism, the lack (in almost all cases) of a valid bishop (or authorized priest as in the Eastern Rites) to consecrate it, and the suppression of the individual imposition of hands, renders the sacrament highly doubtful on these grounds alone.

As to the Form:

The traditional form in the Latin Rite is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the Chrism of salvation. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." The traditional form (pre-Vatican II) in the Eastern Rites was: "The sign of the Gift of the Holy Ghost."  

The new Rite of the Vatican II sect states: "Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit" shall be the new form of the Sacrament. Montini lies in Divinae Consortium Naturae, claiming, The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand, and through the words: "Accipe Signaculum Doni Spiritus Sancti." Just a few paragraphs before he had written (correctly): In the East, in the fourth and fifth centuries there appear in the rite of anointing the first indications of the words "signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti." This is translated as "The sign of the Gift of the Holy Ghost." However, Montini renders it: "Accept the sign of the Gift of the Holy Ghost" and incorrectly translated in English to "Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit" as I wrote above. It has been changed from the active giving of the character and gifts of the Holy Ghost to some passive request for the person to accept something. This ties in nicely with ecumenism, so as not to offend our "separated brethren" who detest the idea of an ordained clergy with powers to effectuate a sacrament ex opere operato (i.e., by the very performance of the sacramental sign).

Changing the sense of the words of the form renders Confirmation highly doubtful on this point alone. Yet, the form also gives rise to a possible defect in the administer's intention. The faulty form gives the idea that instead of getting an indelible mark on the soul, you are merely passively receiving something. Montini stated, "in a certain way [Confirmation] perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church." (See Divinae Consortium Naturae). It is ambiguous at best. The Church once again bestows the grace of Pentecost, really and actively, not "in a certain (passive) way" of recalling an event in the past and accepting a gift from God. Any minister who would positively intend to do that, may have a defective intention invalidating the sacrament.

Eliminated:

The slap on the cheek which is a sign that you must be prepared to endure even martyrdom than to deny the One True Faith. Totally un-ecumenical, so it had to go. It is replaced by a handshake, a sign of being nice to all, as we "dialogue" with false sects.

Universal Prayer

The universal prayer, or prayer of the faithful, follows.

This novelty includes a plea "For all men, of every race and nation, that they may acknowledge the one God as Father, and in the bond of common brotherhood seek His kingdom, which is peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, let us pray to the Lord..."

There is no mention:

Of God as Trinity

Of conversion to the One True Church

Of individuals working out there salvation in fear and trembling

Instead we have:

An ambiguous God that even Jews could acknowledge

A Masonic "common brotherhood"

"Peace and joy" in the Holy Spirit

Finally comes the Concluding Rites with a Prayer over the People. There are two versions. The first makes mention of "the true faith" (how did they let that slip by?), so the second option is almost always used instead:

Prayer Over the People

Instead of the preceding blessing, the prayer over the people may be used.

Deacon or other minister: Bow your heads and pray for God’s blessing.

Bishop: Extends his hands over the people and sings or says:

God our Father, complete the work you have begun and keep the gifts of your Holy Spirit active in the hearts of your people. Make them ready to live his Gospel and eager to do his will. May they never be ashamed to proclaim to all the world Christ crucified living and reigning for ever and ever.

All: Amen.

Bishop: And may the blessing of almighty God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit come upon you and remain with you for ever.

All: Amen.

Conclusion

Having so much wrong with it, we have moral certainty that the Modernist Confirmation service is invalid. In a time of Great Apostasy, with the world in worse shape than ever before, and with assaults from Satan constantly, we need the grace of Confirmation to fight for our salvation as soldiers of Christ--and saving as many as possible along the way by converting them. 

If you have not been confirmed by a Traditionalist Bishop, please try and do so as quickly as possible. We need all the grace we can get to fight the enemies of our souls. Not the least of which are the Satanic minions of Jorge Bergoglio and his evil sect. 

St. Andrew Bobola Calumniated By Ecumenists

 

To My Readers: The demands of my job have been growing ever-greater. My guest poster, A Simple Man, is also is a busy professional. In order not to cut down on having one well-researched post every Monday, it is my pleasure to introduce a second guest poster, Joanna From Poland. Joanna often comments on my blog, and her English, her writing style, and her faith are so strong, she will be joining A Simple Man and me in producing posts. She is a young, single lady who will turn 30 years old in October of this year. She left the Vatican II sect in 2019, and decided to embrace sedevacantism after a period of intense research. She credits this blog as helping her greatly in reaching that decision. She holds an M.A. in English Studies. I think it will be great to add a female Traditionalist point of view, as well as that of a European. This is her first guest post. As always, I will respond to any comments, but as I am particularly pressed for time this week, they may come much later than usual. Please welcome Joanna on her debut here and feel free to comment. Like A Simple Man, Joanna From Poland is an incredible asset, and I thank God for having brought her to write here. Please pray for her and her family. May she and A Simple Man continue in their edifying writings. 

God Bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

St. Andrew Bobola Calumniated By Ecumenists

By Joanna From Poland

On the occasion of his 2016 “papal” visit to Georgia (Eastern Europe/Western Asia), Francis addressed the following words to Vatican II sect priests and seminarians: “Proselytism is a grave sin against ecumenism," adding that Catholics must never seek to convert Orthodox for the latter are brothers and sisters of Catholics and the children of the same God (see the Associated Press report: https://apnews.com/article/1c604b0eba6944328bf283dc935c86be) 

 As per Wikipedia, more than 80% of the population of this small Caucasian country is Eastern Schismatic. Vatican statistics, as stated in the report by Associated Press, show that less than 3% of Georgians, that is merely 112,000 people, identify themselves as "Catholic" (Vatican II sect which I also refer to as the "Novus Ordo sect").

Strangely enough, the ultra-conservative Schismatics accused Bergoglio of the very “sin” of proselytism he himself so zealously denounces as he was surprised with a protest organized by the “Union of Orthodox Parents” upon his arrival in Tbilisi, the country’s capital.

In the heretical theory of concentric circles advocated by the Novus Ordo hierarchy whereby members of false religions participate in varying degrees in the “communion” with the Novus Ordo sect, the Eastern Schismatics are classified as those who are nearest to the “fullness of communion."

One would suppose that the Novus Ordo has already supplied itself with plenty of “apostles” of ecumenism over more than fifty years of its existence, with the likes of “St.” Mother Theresa of Calcutta or John Paul II the Great (Apostate), to advance their ever-futile search for “unity." Nonetheless, those who stole our Catholic churches and institutions, also ventured to hijack the true Catholic saints of old, and to calumniate their fearless confession of the One True Faith in order to push forward the heretical ecumenical agenda.

Perhaps one of the most striking example of such blasphemous manipulation perpetuated by the Novus Ordo is St. Andrew Bobola, whose life and death is a verbatim condemnation of the soul-damning ecumenism of Bergoglio and his minions.

Historical background

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907), St. Andrew Bobola was born in the Palatinate of Sandomir around the year 1590 of an old and eminent Polish family. He entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Vilnius (Lithuania) at the age of 21. After being ordained in 1622, he was appointed preacher in the Church of St. Casimir of that same city. He made his solemn vows on the 2^nd of June, 1630 and was made superior at Bobruisk (today’s Belarus), where he “wrought wonders by his preaching and distinguished himself by his devotion during an epidemic of the plague." In 1636 he headed to Lithuania, and began his missionary work there at the time when “Poland was being ravaged by Cossacks, Russians, and Tatars, and the Catholic Faith was made the object of the concerted attacks of Protestants and schismatics."

St. Andrew indeed embarked upon his mission when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, a vast and powerful kingdom, faced grave danger from within. However, it wasn’t until about a decade later that schismatic rebellion against the Polish crown would  devastate the eastern frontier of the Commonwealth, the very land where the Saint was headed.

Life and work of St. Andrew Bobola

Pope Pius XII in his 1957 encyclical Invicti Athletae Christi offers a splendid account of the remarkable life of the Saint (all bracketed notes are mine).

The Supreme Pontiff notices that “[w]hat seems to shine forth especially in the life of Andrew Bobola is his Catholic faith, whose vigor, nourished by divine grace, grew so much stronger with the passing of the years that it conferred on him a special mark of distinction, and spurred him on to undergo his martyrdom with courage.

Now my just one lives by faith, as the Apostles [sic] of the Gentiles declares [Hebr. 10: 38], and in Bobola, faith shone with an unusual splendor. Whatever the Catholic Church teaches to be believed or done, he embraced with unwavering mind, and willingly endeavored to practice. Thus, from earliest youth, he considered it normal to check, control, and subdue all those disorderly inclinations which, since the unhappy fall of Adam, disturb our nature and easily attract it to what is forbidden. But at the same time, his every effort and all his strength were directed to the adornment of his soul with Christian virtues.”

The love of the Catholic Faith, of its precepts and disciplines taught and prescribed by the One True Church of Christ animated St. Andrew on the path of his own sanctification, and would shine forth in his zeal for souls as a missionary. Nonetheless, this “unconquered athlete of Christ” as Pope Pius XII calls St. Andrew, had to conquer the vices and deficiencies found in himself before he would sacrifice everything for the salvation of souls.

As Pius XII writes: “[b]ut since he was by temperament proud, impatient, and sometimes obstinate, Bobola had to wage a very sharp contest against himself, and ascend his Calvary, as it were, laden with the cross, in order to reach the height of this virtue. There, at length, impelled and assisted by the grace he had obtained by constant and fervent prayers, he might be able to reach Christian perfection, for as St. Bernard wisely said, the spiritual edifice cannot possibly stand except on the firm foundation of humility.”

“Above all, Bobola was on fire with a great love of God and of his neighbors. As a result, he found nothing sweeter than to spend long hours, whenever possible, before the sacred tabernacle, and to assist the unfortunate in every way according to his means. He loved God above all, and far more than himself. He sought exclusively God's glory, according to the Rule of his Father, St. Ignatius. To this Saint, then, the words of the same holy Doctor (St. Bernard) can be applied, He alone should be desired, Who alone fulfills desire.”

“It is not surprising, then, that this athlete of Jesus Christ, adorned with these gifts of grace, should have achieved such notable progress in the apostolic field, and been able to gather rich fruits in the saving of souls. He was on fire to preserve, extend, and defend the Catholic faith. Thus, when serving as a teacher at Vilna, and later when living in other cities, he diligently taught the elements of Christian doctrine, and encouraged devotion to the Eucharist, and an ardent and filial love of the Virgin Mother of God.”

Persecution and death at the hands of Eastern Schismatics

Europe in the 1600s was a religious battlefield. Although in the West of Europe bloodshed and turmoil was the tragic outcome of the Protestant rebellion, Eastern Europe suffered from the political revolt of Schismatics.

Pius XII continues: “[n]otable among almost countless others was the unforgettable and savage onslaught on the Catholic religion which flared up in the 17th century in the Eastern countries. The Cossack forces then invaded those lands, and directed their furious attack on Catholics and their pastors, and on the heralds of the truth of the Gospel. Temples dedicated to the divine worship were utterly destroyed; monasteries were consumed by fire; priests and their flocks were everywhere put to the sword; everything was laid waste; all that was sacred was scattered to the winds.”

“Andrew Bobola could apply to himself that saying, Nothing that is known to belong to God, do I consider outside my interests [St. Bernard]. He feared death and sufferings not at all. On fire with love for God and his neighbor, he entered the fray with all his resources, in order to draw back as many as he could from a foreswearing of the Catholic faith, and from the snares and errors of those who were separated from the Church, and in order to provide a valiant and rousing encouragement for the preservation of Christian teaching in all its integrity.”

The efforts of St. Andrew were so fruitful that he merited the title of “soul hunter," by which he was honored even by the Schismatics. Nonetheless, this extraordinary success in converting souls separated from the Mystical Body of Christ could not have been overlooked by those in the Schismatic sect who enjoyed political power.

On May 16, 1657 (the feast of the Ascension of Our Lord) St. Andrew was captured by “the enemies of the Catholics” near Janovia (today’s Belarus).

The abductors first beat him with rods, then struck the saintly priest with blows, and finally dragged him by a rope behind a horse. It was merely a horrific prelude to the unspeakable torture to which these godless men would subject St. Andrew in Janovia. Let us ponder upon the inconceivable torment inflicted upon the Saint:

“In that contest, the Polish Martyr rose to the heights of the noblest triumphs which the Church commemorates. Andrew was asked if he were a priest of the Latin rite, and he replied, I am a Catholic priest; I was born in the Catholic faith; in that faith I wish to die. My faith is true; it leads to salvation. Do you rather repent; give place to sorrow for sin, else you will be unable, in your errors, to win salvation. By embracing my faith, you will acknowledge the true God, and will save your souls. [text in italics taken from the letter of Pius XI “Ex aperto Christi latere”]

At these words, those wicked men, utterly devoid of humanity, were roused to a fiendish barbarity, and reached such a degree of cruelty that they inflicted still more horrible sufferings on the soldier of Christ. Once again, he was scourged, a crown like that of Jesus Christ was bound about his head, he was struck heavy blows and lay wounded by a scimitar. Next, his right eye was gouged out, strips of skin were torn off, his wounds were savagely scorched and rubbed with prickly bundles of straw. Nor was that enough: his ears, nose and lips were cut off, his tongue torn out by the root, and finally, a weapon plunged into his heart. And, at long last, the valiant athlete, three hours after midday, displaying a truly marvelous example of fortitude, was pierced by a sword and achieved the glory of martyrdom. [text in italics taken from the canonization homily of St. Andrew delivered by Pius XI in 1938]”

Modernist slurs against St. Andrew Bobola

The gruesome martyrdom of St. Andrew, which rightly brings to mind the excruciating agonies of the early Christian martyrs, and is reminiscent even of Our Lord’s bitter passion, was the direct result of his fearless confession of the Catholic faith before the schismatic murderers. The profession of the One True Faith, and worse yet, proselytism, is out of the question for the Modernists. However, doing away with the well-established cult of such a cherished Saint could prove counter-productive for the modernist cause. In August 1920 his intercession would be invoked by over 100,000 Poles in public procession with his relics in Warsaw when the Bolshevik hordes advanced towards the city; the miracle of Vistula – the victory of the Polish troops over the Bolsheviks – came on the last day of the novena to (then still) Blessed Andrew Bobola. Bp. Achille Ratti, future Pope Pius XI, then serving as the apostolic nuncio in Poland, was an eye-witness to the great confidence the Polish nation had in Andrew Bobola, and would canonize him eighteen years later. Thus, rather than erase St. Andrew Bobola from the minds of the faithful, the Novus Ordo hierarchy decided to falsify his uncompromising testimony of Faith in a most perfidious manner.

The following excerpt is taken from an article titled “St. Andrew Bobola Patron of Poland, Patron of Unity” (orig. in Polish: Święty Andrzej Bobola Patron Polski, Patron Jedności), published on the official website for the cult of St. Andrew Bobola in the Vatican 2 sect in Poland: https://swietyandrzejbobola.pl/swiety-andrzej-bobola-patron-polski-patron-jednosci/. The website is run under the auspices of the National Shrine of St. Andrew Bobola in Warsaw. All translation and bracketed notes are mine:  

“Andrew Bobola gave his own life so that violence or manipulation of any kind would not triumph over dialogue in the spirit of love. Right before his martyrdom, he would persuade the Cossacks to convert to Love, not to sin by hatred towards those with different beliefs, to refrain from violence and killing. (…) Thus, St. Andrew is the Patron of religious unity [original emphasis], the progenitor of ecumenism. The spirit of dialogue permeated his theological disputes with Orthodox priests. In the eastern parts of the Commonwealth the influences of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Uniate Church [the Ruthenian Uniate Church which abjured its schism and reunited with Rome in 1595] would be intertwined, but many simple people did not know Christ. Andrew Bobola would create with them the Church of Christ, lead them to salvation above the divisions in the Church, bringing the tormented the message that there is a good God who shall fulfill the given promise: to wipe away every tear, to heal, and restore peace. Not only in his lifetime would he [St. Andrew] abolish religious barriers.”

Wojtyła, the chief ecumenist of the Novus Ordo from 1978 – 2005, had this to say about St. Andrew in an address to Polish pilgrims, May 29, 1988:

“But St. Andrew Bobola is not only a special, synthetical if you will, sign of our [Polish] history, mostly in the 17^th century, the difficult 17^th century; St. Andrew is at the same time some kind of a prophetic sign. If we realize that upon discovering his relics, his body, which did remain incorrupt in spite of all, by this body, as by a sign given by God, believers would gather, Catholics and Orthodox alike, and they together venerated him, then one may see a kind of a foretoken of the coming together of Christians from the West and the East, a foretoken of this ripe fruit of unity of Christians, the ecumenical effort, which the Church has been making along with our separated brethren, the Christian brothers disjoined from us, especially since the time of the Second Vatican Council.”

Conclusion

St. Andrew Bobola sacrificed his entire priestly life for saving souls from the pernicious error of schism, diverting Schismatics from the path to damnation, and leading them back to the Catholic Church, the sole ark of salvation, whose unity has never and will never be disrupted. This is the infallible promise of Our Lord. For this never-ceasing unity of Faith, Worship, and Discipline found in the Catholic Church alone did St. Andrew give up his life in a cruel martyrdom. The life and death of this glorious martyr is a direct condemnation of the false “unity” through ecumenism peddled by the Vatican II sect.

Let us conclude with the words of Pope Pius XI, who canonized the fearless Jesuit in 1938. In his 1928 encyclical Mortalium Animos, the Supreme Pontiff teaches that “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it." In that same encyclical the Holy Father devotes a separate paragraph to exhort the Schismatics to return to the true unity by the surest and the only path: by subjecting themselves to the Papacy:

Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls? Alas their children left the home of their fathers, but it did not fall to the ground and perish for ever, for it was supported by God. Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion. For if, as they continually state, they long to be united with Us and ours, why do they not hasten to enter the Church, “the Mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful”?