Monday, April 25, 2022

Shrouded In Mystery

 


Konrad  Adenauer (1876-1967) was the first Chancellor of West Germany after World War II, serving from  1949-1963. He was a lifelong devout Catholic, and a foe of both the Nazis and Communists. As he was about to leave office in 1963, he held a press conference. The media, already full of the enemies of Christ, were asking him many questions. One reporter asked him, "What do you think was the greatest event in human history?" They were expecting him to say something about the dropping of the atom bomb, or perhaps some famous military battle/scientific invention from long ago. They were not prepared for his reply.

Adenauer, looking directly into the audience, said clearly and without hesitation, "The greatest event in all of human history was the physical Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If Jesus Christ is alive, then there is hope for the world. If Jesus Christ is in the grave, then I don’t see the slightest glimmer of hope on the horizon." Even the Protestant preacher, Billy Graham, who was present, was stunned. The Chancellor concluded his talk by saying, “When I leave office, I intend to spend the rest of my life gathering scientific proof of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (Source: Fr. DePauw who was there and gave this account to me. Some Protestants altered the event and changed it into a personal meeting between Billy Graham and Konrad Adenauer to downplay the latter's Catholic Faith---Introibo).

Adenauer left office at the advanced age of 87, and would die in 1967 at age 91. He was dismayed at the changes that had taken place at the infamous Second Vatican Council; alterations that almost immediately cast doubt on all the truths of Faith. One can only hope the good Chancellor made it to Heaven. 

One of the greatest proofs of the physical Resurrection of Christ is the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud, reputed to be the Burial Cloth of Christ, has been subjected to numerous scientific tests--by both believing and unbelieving scientists.  In this post, I will condense some of the greatest findings by the scientific community regarding the Shroud. To the joy of the Faithful (and the dismay of those who hate Christianity), it will become clear that the manifest weight of the credible evidence shows the Shroud as authentic, and one of the strongest proofs of the Resurrection. (My major sources of information for this post include The Shroud of Turin, [2009], by Fr. Vittorio Guerrera; A Catholic Scientist Champions the Shroud of Turin, [2021], by Dr. Gerard Verschuuren; The Shroud of Turin: The Scientific Evidence, [2015], by Cheryl Leonard; and The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: The Case for Authenticity,[2014], by John C. Iannone. I take no credit for the research I have compiled, all attribution goes to the authors I have enumerated.---Introibo). 

What is The Shroud of Turin?
    • The Shroud of Turin is one of the most sacred religious items, revered by Christians as the burial garment of Jesus Christ. According to ancient traditions, it wrapped the lifeless body of Christ
    • The Shroud of Turin is a sheet of linen, that marks the image of a crucified man with wounds to the wrists, feet, and forehead, leaving blood stains on the cloth
    • Computer analysis reveals that the shroud image portrays three-dimensional qualities, not associated with paintings or normal photographs leaving no signs of colored pigments
    • In 1532, there was a fire in the church in the chapel of Chambery, capital of the Savoy region, where the shroud resided. The image of the man was hardly touched, but the cloth suffered burns and water stains. In 1534, the nuns sewed patches over the fire damaged areas. They then attached a support cloth to the back of the shroud which is known as the “Holland” backing cloth. The shroud was then transported to the Turin Cathedral in Italy in 1578 where it remains to this day
    • The shroud is made of linen, a 3/1 twill herringbone weave, that dates back to the first century. The shroud could have been produced at the time of Christ, as Galilee was an important manufacturing center of this very durable cloth
    • The cotton fibers in the shroud are particular to the kind of cotton that can be found in Palestine. As some had previously believed, the cloth did not originate in Europe, but in the Middle East. This is proven by the way the flax fibers are woven. The linen of the shroud is consistent with the fabrics from Masada, which dates to the first century
    Examination of the Cloth
    • All of the Gospel accounts in the Bible state that Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy man. He donated his own tomb and provided the burial shroud that wrapped Jesus. Jesus would have been laid down on top of this shroud, and then it would have been folded over Him
    • The pollen that has been found on the shroud is consistent with the types of plants and flowers in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus
    • Travertine Aragonite Limestone is almost exclusively found in the vicinity of Jerusalem and is also on the shroud around the knees and feet. The limestone particles on the linen are indigenous to caves surrounding Jerusalem, and soil particles that are similar to soil in Jerusalem
    • The description of the cloth of the Shroud of Turin reveals images that are scorch-like, yet not created by heat, and are a surface phenomena limited to the crowns of the top fibers
    • The shroud is not a painting, no evidence of pigments were found. There are no outlines or brushstrokes. There is no evidence that paint, dye, ink or chalk created this image. Images show the perfect photo negativity and three dimensionality
    • Dr. John Jackson of the Colorado Shroud Center suggested that a form of columnated radiation was the best explanation for how the image was formed. It left a scorch like appearance, caused by light vs. heat, as the image did not fluoresce
    • The nuclear physicist at Duke University, Dr. Thomas Phillips, says that potential milli-bursts of radiation referred to as a neutron flux could be consistent with the moment of resurrection--a bringing back to life, if such a thing were possible, because he hypothesizes it would create a large amount of energy
    Bloodstain Testing
    • The bloodstains on the Shroud of Turin are emanating from clotted wounds transferred to the cloth by contact with a wounded human body
    • The blood on the Shroud is actual human male blood, type AB, confirmed by Dr. Baima Ballone in Turin
    • The blood type is rare, only 3% of the world’s population has this type
    • Blood chemists Dr. Alan Adler at the University of Western Connecticut and the late Dr. John Heller at the New England Institute of Medicine found a high concentration of the pigment bilirubin consistent with someone dying under great stress or trauma and making the color more red than the normal ancient blood
    • The pathology of the wounds of crucifixion is an image on the shroud that reveals a man 5 feet 10 1/2 inches tall, around 175 pounds, covered with excoriate wounds and blood stains
    • Dr. Frederick Zugibe, the medical examiner of Rockland New York, Dr. Robert Bucklin, the medical Examiner in Las Vegas Nevada, Dr. Herman Moedder from Germany, the late Dr. Pierre Barbet in France, and Dr. David Willis from England have studied the words, weapons, and wounds. They all agree that the descriptions used in the New Testament regarding the wounds of the “Passion," clearly match the wounds portrayed on the shroud, and that these wounds are in conformity with the weapons used by ancient Roman soldiers in crucifixion
    Radiocarbon Dating Controversy
    • In 1988, a radiocarbon dating test ended with the scientific team declaring the Shroud of Turin originated from medieval times. However, this has been vehemently disputed by several researchers
    • In the Scientific Journal of January 2005, Dr. Ray Rogers, a chemist that helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978, concluded that the radiocarbon sample they had tested in 1988 was not part of the original cloth and was invalid for determining the age of the Shroud
    • Dr. Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua with a team of experts between 2010 to 2013 revealed the results of their experiments on the Shroud
    • They used infrared light and spectroscopy which is the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths. Fanti said the image was caused by a blast of “extreme radiation,” concluding that the man on the shroud lived between 280 B.C. and 220 A.D. He said the radiation that caused this image has no natural explanation
    The Popes Speak Out
    Pope Julius II (1503-1513), issued a bull on April 25, 1506, Romanus Pontifex, in which he approved an Office and Mass for the Holy Shroud for the canons of the Sainte Chapelle at Chambery. He decreed:

    We, therefore, who by divine disposition, albeit unworthily, preside over the ministry of the sacred apostolate, considering that, if We adore and venerate the Holy Cross on which Our Lord Jesus Christ was suspended and by which we are redeemed, it surely seems fitting and binding upon us to venerate and adore the Shroud on which, as is reported, there are clearly seen the traces of the Humanity of Christ to which the Divinity had united itself, that is, (there is seen) His very Blood. . . . (We) approve and confirm the aforesaid day and night office of the Shroud together with its proper Mass.
    • Pope Leo X (1513-1521) on October 17, 1514 extended the feast with its proper Mass and Office to all of Savoy 
    • Pope Clement X (1670-1676) granted a plenary indulgence to the faithful who made a pilgrimage to the Shroud “not for venerating the cloth as the true Shroud of Christ, but rather for meditating on his Passion, especially his death and burial.” 
    • Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), speaking of other pontiffs’ attitudes regarding the Shroud, said that they “have testified that the most notable relic of the Holy Shroud kept in the city of Turin is that same shroud in which the Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped.”
    • Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) granted special indulgences for the exposition in 1898. He later wrote to Cardinal Richelmy, Archbishop of Turin, to express his gratitude at the number of people who had traveled from all parts of the world “to venerate the sacred Shroud of Christ.” 
    • Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914) approved the Oeuvre St. Luc (Work of St. Luke), founded by Emanuel Faure, for the purpose of promoting devotion to the image of Christ as revealed on the photo of the Holy Shroud
    • Pope Pius XI (1922-1939) had an avid interest in the Shroud and collected historical and scientific information on the relic. When the Archbishop of Turin expressed to the Pope strong opposition from various quarters to cancel a planned exposition in 1931, the Pope replied: “You may be at peace. . . . We speak now as a scholar and not as Pope. We have made a personal study of the Shroud, and We are convinced of its authenticity. Objections have been made, but they are worthless.”
    • Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), in a radio address to the National Eucharistic Congress held at Turin on September 13, 1953, said that the city “guards as a precious treasure the Holy Shroud, upon which we behold with deep emotion and solace the image of the lifeless Body and the broken Divine Countenance of Jesus.” 
    Conclusion
    There is plenty of scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin, with its mysteriously produced, one-of-a-kind image, is the actual burial cloth of Jesus Christ, and proof of the Resurrection. There is also considerable theological weight from the popes, that although made in their personal capacity, lend credence to the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. (N.B. The Mass and Indulgences granted are for the Shroud, but not declaring any particular cloth to be the actual Shroud). 

    As Easter Week has just passed, its good to see how well founded our Faith is, and I personally believe the Shroud of Turin to be authentic given its scientific and mysterious nature. I think Chancellor Adenauer would be pleased by all the evidence that has come forth. 





    Monday, April 18, 2022

    Covering Up The Obvious

     

    WARNING! The contents of this post may be found disturbing. Reader discretion is advised. The account I give at the beginning of this post is true and accurate. Only the names of all involved (except the Vatican II sect "bishops") have been changed. ---Introibo

    It was the summer of 2019, and I received an unexpected message. I have a Facebook profile on which I rarely post and update infrequently. I use it for the primary purpose of staying in touch with friends who live far away.  On this particular day, I received a friend request from Peter, someone who grew-up down the block from me here in New York City. We knew each other since the age of five, and we were never friends. Peter was a bully and wasn't liked by many. He got involved in drinking and drugs at 13, but managed to get his act cleaned up and immersed himself in bodybuilding. 

    Like many bodybuilders, Peter became narcissistic and even more disliked. He was the youngest of eight children of a devout Irish Catholic father, and Italian Catholic mother. His parents were tired of supporting him, so he took every civil service exam possible. At age 24, he was accepted to the NYC police academy, and became a cop. That was in 1989, and I had not heard any more about him until his friend request arrived thirty years later. 

    As a teenager, I had made my dislike of him no secret, and told him to his face to stay away from me. Therefore, his friend request intrigued me, and I accepted. The next day I received a message from him via FB Messenger. He told me that he was sorry for the way he had treated me those many years ago. He had "found Jesus" and was contacting everyone he had ever wronged to personally apologize to them. He said he would like to meet me for lunch and apologize in person. As his request seemed very sincere, I accepted. We met in a diner in midtown Manhattan on a Saturday afternoon two weeks later. 

    The man I met was a shell of his former self. Completely bald and sickly-looking, he shook my hand. "Thank you for coming. I'm really sorry for being such a [expletives deleted] towards you." I responded the only way a true Catholic could--I sincerely forgave him. We took our table at the diner, and after I told him what I had been up to the last three decades, he told me his story, one that was quite sad.  

    Peter was a dedicated cop who made many arrests, over 90% of which ended in convictions. He moved up the ranks and in 1999 he was made a detective. He was at the Twin Towers when 9/11 took place, and lost three of his friends on the police force. The horrors of what Peter saw resulted in severe nightmares and hallucinations, to the point that he needed to be confined in an asylum where he spent several months on large doses of psychotropic medications. When Peter was released, he was diagnosed with a serious lung disease as a result of breathing in the toxins in the air at Ground Zero, and his physical health deteriorated as well. 

    The NYC Police Department allowed Peter to retire with 75% of his salary tax-free for life plus medical benefits for his being incapacitated in the line of duty. He received a tidy sum up front as a "permanently injured first responder" from the State and Federal government. With that money, he bought a one-bedroom condo in a very nice section of Long Island. Both his parents were deceased, and none of his seven siblings wanted anything to do with him (they were like him in the past and none of them got along). He had no children and had never been married. Peter spent his days praying in his condo alone, only going out to buy food and other necessary items. His only three close friends were killed in 9/11. 

    "I always admired how seriously you took religion, even as a teenager," he said to me. "I remember you left the Church to go to that Latin Mass priest on Long Island." [A reference to my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar DePauw---Introibo]. I told Peter I did not leave the Church, but the Vatican II sect, and it wasn't because I wanted to hear Mass in Latin. I explained the Great Apostasy and sedevacantism to him, as he listened intently. "Wow! That's heavy theological stuff," he replied. "But I'm finished with priests of any kind. Period." He reached into his coat on the seat next to him, and handed me some legal papers. "A big shot lawyer like you should understand this stuff." 

    It was the beginning of a class-action lawsuit against the Diocese of Brooklyn, consisting of all of Queens County and Brooklyn in NYC. Peter was one of the plaintiffs. When he started smoking marijuana and taking amphetamines, he picked them up from a dealer who sold them in a schoolyard in Brooklyn next to a Vatican II sect church. Peter was very high one day, when he was approached by "Fr." Bill (invalidly ordained in 1969 by the false "Bishop" Mugavero, one of the first priests to be invalidly consecrated in 1968). Fr. Bill was 36, handsome and well-built. He told Peter that he could make him into a bodybuilder if he would give up drugs. Peter agreed.

    He began working out at a gym with Fr. Bill, who drove to visit Peter's parents. The cleric made up a story on how they met, and told them he would make their son's body strong while keeping him out of trouble. His parents were delighted he was friends with a priest. They continued working out, and after a few months, Fr. Bill said he would need to "see how his body was developing" to make him even stronger. He took Peter to the rectory, and into his bedroom. He then told him to strip down to his underwear and do ten push-ups. While doing the push-ups, Fr. Bill jumped on top of him, removed the boy's underwear and forcibly sodomized him. 

    When it was over, Fr. Bill told Peter that if he said anything to his parents, or stopped working out with him, he would tell his parents he saw him high on drugs and having sex with another boy (the first was true, the second a lie). Since he was a priest, they would believe him and disown Peter. Knowing how devout his parents were, he continued to be molested for the next year, until Fr. Bill was reassigned to a new parish--his tenth assignment in eleven years. Even more disturbing, the complaint alleges that Fr. Bill (who was finally reassigned to an all woman college before his retirement) had sexually assaulted over 200 (yes, two hundred) young boys. It further alleges (with evidence) that "Bp." Mugavero, his successor, "Bp." Daily, and his successor, "Bp." DiMarzio, all knew about Fr. Bill's crimes and covered it up. (The current "Bp"--Brennan did not take over until 2021 and is therefore not mentioned). At the time, the suit had joined over 90 plaintiffs

    The New York State Legislature passed the Child Victims Act, allowing people like Peter to sue for sexual abuse no matter how long ago the abuse took place. It allowed all such lawsuits until August 13, 2021. Over 10,000 lawsuits were filed, and four of the eight Vatican II sect Dioceses in New York State immediately filed for bankruptcy protection. Peter told me, "You have no idea how pervasive it is--much worse than even the media portrays it." Two of his best friends that were killed in 9/11 were also abused. One victim's predator left the clergy and fled the country, the other victim's predator had died. 

    In the year 2000, only Fr. Bill was alive and well in this country. Peter used his contacts as a detective to find his exact whereabouts. He and his two abused friends on the police force then began an elaborate plan to kill Fr. Bill and make it look like a gang killing. They spent a long time making sure they had alibis, the exact location where they would lure him, etc. Peter would make sure that after Fr. Bill got shot, he would be the one to go up to him, remind him of what he had done, and put the final bullet in his head, consigning his perverted soul to the flames of Hell. 

    The execution was finally set for October 2001, but 9/11 intervened. When he first got his apartment, Peter thought of killing Fr. Bill alone and then shooting himself. He began to read the Bible one day, "believed in Jesus" and abandoned his plan. "I forgave him," he told me. "If we don't forgive others God will not forgive us. Before I am at total peace, I have to apologize to all I hurt in life by my words or actions. That's why I'm here with you today." As we got up to leave, we shook hands, and I hugged him. We exchanged phone numbers. I called him later that year and invited him to spend Thanksgiving and Christmas with my family and me. I couldn't stand the thought of him spending those days alone. He politely declined, saying he would be eating a turkey sandwich alone, and he liked it that way. We email about once a month, and I send him articles on the True Faith--he always thanks me for doing so. He awaits justice from the legal system.

    What angers me isn't just the cover-up of the individuals responsible, but the cover-up by both the media and the Vatican II sect of the underlying problem that's the cause of it all---homosexuality. The truth must be suppressed in order for the myth of "homosexuality is normal" to continue. This post will expose the root cause of the abuse problem in the Vatican II sect. 

    Covering Up The "H-Word"
    In 1961, Bella Dodd, a famous Communist lawyer who embraced the Catholic Faith, admitted she was part of a plot to place Communists in the seminaries years before in the 1930s. She had personally helped over 1,000 such men into seminaries whose purpose would be to "change the Church beyond recognition." She had claimed such before, but never so forcefully. It was the eve of Vatican II. I know a man who spoke with Dodd personally. She said the Communists planted "soft men," a reference to sodomites. Why was it needed for them to be practitioners of unnatural vice? A non-pervert Communist might be converted to the Faith, but those burning with unnatural lust, surrounded by other men are not thinking of the things of God and are least likely to convert.

    The transition from traditional teaching against homosexuality, to acceptance (if not promotion) happened at Vatican II and grew exponentially in the sect. Compare below:

    Traditional Teaching:

    The Third Lateran Ecumenical Council 1179 A.D. 

    Canon 11: "...Let all who are found guilty of that unnatural vice for which the wrath of God came down upon the sons of disobedience and destroyed the five cities with fire, if they are clerics be expelled from the clergy or confined in monasteries to do penance; if they are laymen they are to incur excommunication and be completely separated from the society of the faithful..." (See http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum11.htm; Emphasis mine).

    Pope St Pius V:

    Cum Primum  April 1, 1566:

    "Having determined to do away with everything that may in some way offend the Divine Majesty, we resolve to punish, above all and without indulgence, those things which, by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures or by most grievous examples, are more repugnant to God than any others and raise His wrath: that is, negligence in divine worship, ruinous simony, the crime of blasphemy, and the execrable libidinous vice against nature. For such faults peoples and nations are scourged by God Who, according to His just condemnation, sends catastrophes, wars, famine, and pestilence ... and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to the same punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees [of ecclesiastical dignity]." (Emphasis mine).

    1917 Code of Canon Law

    Canon 2357: section 1:  Lay persons who have been legally found guilty of a crime of sexual immorality committed with a minor under 16 years of age or rape, sodomy, incest, pandering, are ipso facto infamous, besides being subject to other penalties which the Ordinary may deem proper to inflict.

    Canon 2359: section 2: Deprives clerics (guilty of the same crimes enumerated above) of "any office, benefice, dignity, or position which they may have and in more serious cases be deposed."
    (See Canonist Bouscaren, Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (1951), pgs. 931-932).

    Vatican II Sect Teaching:
    When the Vatican II sect was created by the Modernists, they sought to conform Christ to the world. Modernism is the polar opposite of Catholicism. By introducing false principles by which theology should be guided, they lead the way to acceptance of unnatural behavior. The "Constitution on the Church in the Modern World" (Gaudium et Spes) begins the moral decay:

    Para. #54:  "The circumstances of the life of modern man have been so profoundly changed in their social and cultural aspects, that we can speak of a new age of human history. New ways are open, therefore, for the perfection and the further extension of culture. These ways have been prepared by the enormous growth of natural, human and social sciences, by technical progress, and advances in developing and organizing means whereby men can communicate with one another. Hence the culture of today possesses particular characteristics: sciences which are called exact greatly develop critical judgment; the more recent psychological studies more profoundly explain human activity; ..." (Emphasis mine). 

    Para. #62: "In pastoral care, sufficient use must be made not only of theological principles, but also of the findings of the secular sciences, especially of psychology and sociology, so that the faithful may be brought to a more adequate and mature life of faith." (Emphasis mine). 

    The pagan aspects of psychology and sociology were thereby introduced. Vatican II joins modern psychology in the heretical teaching of humanity's "intrinsic self-worth." In Gaudium et Spes, para. 24 states, "...if man is the only creature on earth God has wanted for its own sake, man can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself," as if people possesses such value in themselves that it would cause God to create them.  In the Catholic meaning, the self-worth or "dignity of man" cannot be considered as a characteristic in people's very nature that imposes respect for all choices, because this dignity depends on right will turned toward the Good and is therefore a relative and not an absolute value. 

    The stage was set for a series of "declarations" that would weaken and collapse traditional morality in sexual matters. In 1975, the Modernist Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (sic) promulgated a Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics.  The declaration, approved by Montini (Paul VI), reverses the presumption of guilt on the part of those who commit sexual sins. Paragraph # 10 states: "It is true that in sins of the sexual order, in view of their kind and their causes, it more easily happens that free consent is not fully given; this is a fact which calls for caution in all judgment as to the subject's responsibility." (Emphasis mine). 

    (N. B. In sins of serious matter, it is presumed that free consent of the will is present, unless the Confessor finds out otherwise. One would--logically and naturally--presume that those engaging in sodomical acts are not coerced or unaware of what they are doing. Here, the declaration adopts erroneous principles of modern psychology that people are "born" homosexuals with desires they "can't help" and act upon them with less than full consent of the will---Introibo). 

    On October 1, 1986, the same Modernist Congregation, headed by Ratzinger at this time, released the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic (sic) Church On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. This 'letter" (or "declaration") states in para. #7: "Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of  themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent." Here, those who engage in unnatural vice are often "generous and giving" of themselves. Couldn't you say the same of all serious sinners, such as thieves and wife beaters? 

    In paragraph #10, we are treated to this gem: "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law." While I don't advocate violence against anyone, the State has the right to imprison such persons; and what, exactly, constitutes "violent malice in speech"? 

    I guess Pope St. Gregory the Great was guilty of "violent malice in speech" when he said, "Brimstone calls to mind the foul odors of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the Lord upon Sodom.  He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales stench and fire burns. It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone so that through this just chastisement they might realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire." (St. Gregory the Great, Commento morale a Giobbe, XIV, 23, vol. II, p. 371; Emphasis mine). 

    Vatican II Sect: Exonerating Sodomites
    The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, commonly known as the John Jay Report, is a 2004 report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic (sic) Bishops (sic). It can be read in full here: https://votf.org/johnjay/John_Jay_Causes_and_Context_Report.pdf

    The group The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests aka SNAP, had a stinging critique of the Report. Although I disagree with much of what SNAP publishes, they were on the mark with these four criticisms of the John Jay Report:
    Here are four of the most crucial fallacies in the document:

    --The crisis is and was unforeseeable, the report claims, because child molesters don’t have forked tongues or devil tails and can’t be easily detected. Fair enough. But the report essentially dodges the crucial question: Why don’t bishops quickly out and oust child molesting clerics the first time they sexually assault a child? (And why then, if predators can’t be spotted in advance, do bishops tout their alleged seminary “screening” processes as panaceas?)

    --The crisis was long ago, the report claims, because the bishops say so. Never mind the fact that only a handful of five and ten year olds march down to the police station and promptly report their own victimization, so it’s dreadfully misleading and dangerous to assume clergy sex crimes have gone down in recent years.

    --The crisis isn’t all that bad, the report suggests, because many of the kids who are or were violated had experienced puberty. Never mind the fact that child sex crimes, no matter at what age, are always illegal, immoral and hurtful. So the hair-splitting between pedophiles and ephebophiles (a distinction that seems to matter to few besides bishops) is, for the most part, at best irrelevant and at worst distracting.

    --Most important, the crisis isn’t the bishops’ fault, the document implies. It was what the New York Times calls the “Blame Woodstock” defense. At best, this is na├»ve. At worst, it’s deceptive. There are at least three reasons why it may appear to some that abuse ‘peaked’ in the 60s and 70s. The first is that victims during those years are old, strong, smart, healthy and desperate enough to finally be able to report their horrific pain. The second is that bishops are much more willing to disclose clergy sex crimes that are beyond the reach of the criminal and civil justice system than more recent clergy sex crimes that could result in prosecution and litigation and embarrassment. And bishops are more willing to acknowledge child felonies committed under their predecessors than themselves. (See  snapnetwork.org/snap_statements/2011_statements/051811_4_fallacies_in_new_bishops_abuse_report_snap.htm). 

    However, both the John Jay Report and SNAP fail to mention the "elephant in the room," namely, homosexuality in the clergy. A review of the report will show the large disproportionate number of male victims. Study after nationwide study has yielded estimates of male homosexuality that range between 1% and 3% (See Muir [1993] Homosexuals and the 10% fallacy. Wall Street J March 31). The proportion of lesbians in these studies is almost always lower, usually about half that of male sodomites. So, overall, perhaps 2% of adults regularly indulge in homosexuality. Yet they account for between 20% to 40% of all molestations of children.(Ibid). 

    If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as socially and personally horrific as child molestation, something must be desperately wrong with that 2%. Not every sodomite is a child molester. However, so many do molest children that the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual. Also absent from the Report is the removal of the prohibition on men with same-sex attraction (SSA) from entering the seminaries after Vatican II, causing many of the seminaries to become little more than "pink palaces" for perverts. 

    Now, Bergoglio goes so far as to state: "If they [gay priests] accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn't be marginalized. The tendency [same-sex attraction] is not the problem... they're our brothers." (Emphasis mine). The enemies of the Church were successful in setting up the Vatican II sect and helping to "make gay OK." That is why it will never be mentioned in a bad light by the sect, or by the godless media.

    The Ultimate Goal: Pedophilia as a "Civil Right"
    The sodomite acceptance (and even promotion) in society was unthinkable even 25 years ago. We now have "transgender" perverts convincing parents to mutilate their children's bodies. The final step will be legalizing pedophilia. There can be no negative news of homosexuals harming children; pedophilia is not to be seen as a sodomite crime against children. The campaign is to slowly but surely have it seen as a positive expansion of so-called "gay rights."

    In the U.S. and Canada, the North American Man-Boy Love Association marches proudly in many "gay pride parades" with the stated goal of removing the barriers to man-boy sex. Note the phrases they use are removal of “oppression towards pedophilia” and gaining the “liberation of pedophilia.” It is clear that those who advocate the legalization of sex between adults and children intend to argue that such conduct is a “civil right,” deserving of the same legal protections afforded to racial and ethnic minorities. The Vatican II sect is complicit in this goal, and covers up the obvious connection between homosexuality and molestation.

    Here are the facts:
    • Over 90% of child molesters are male
    • 25-40% of molestations are same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals
    • 43% of sex between teachers and pupils is homosexual
    • 50% of sex between foster parents and foster children is homosexual
    • In a study of 21 "group home" sex scandals — 71% were homosexual
    • Of those who commit incest: Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6%
    (See Freund K, Watson RJ (1992) "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study." Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 18:34-43). 

    Even as I write this post, transgenders are breaking down the last rationale society holds for rejecting pedophilia, i.e., the child cannot consent. However, children who think they are members of the opposite sex are now being allowed by parents to dress, act, and even mutilate themselves with drugs and surgery to become "who they really are" because it's allegedly "in their best interests." So who needs consent? We make children eat healthy food and get vaccinated without consent, so if my child feels attracted to a man at 7 or 8 years old, it might be in his "best interest" to have a sexual relationship with that man. God help us. 

    Conclusion
    Please pray for my friend Peter, that God may heal him and lead him into the One True Church. You don't know him, but God does, and hears our prayers on his behalf. Pray for all the Victims of Vatican II who have been physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually harmed. It was difficult for me to write tis post. I keep thinking of Our Lord's words, "It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble." (St. Luke 17:2). 

    Monday, April 11, 2022

    The Underrated Sacrament

    To My Readers: A Blessed Holy Week and Happy Easter to all! This week I am once more indebted to Lee for being my guest poster. Between work and religious duties, he gives me needed time off, and we all receive a great post from which to learn! As we celebrate the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Orders on Maundy Thursday, Lee reminds us of the importance of this great sacrament, and how the Modernists of the Vatican II sect invalidated it. A great read! 

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


     The Underrated Sacrament
    By Lee

    In my Vatican II sect youth, the parish priest of our church was giving a general instruction on sacraments. He said the most important of them all was Baptism and that the greatest of them all was the Holy Eucharist (Communion). What he said may indeed be true but now looking back and seeing the Novus Ordo for what it is and what it has done, I would say there is a sacrament far more important and greater than all the rest. It is Holy Orders.

    The Roman Catechism explains why, "If one attentively considers the nature and essence of the other Sacraments, it will readily be seen that they all depend on the Sacrament of Orders to such an extent that without it some of them could not be constituted or administered at all; while others would be deprived of all their solemn ceremonies, as well as of a certain part of the religious respect and exterior honor accorded to them." (Pg. 194 'The Sacraments of Holy Orders').

    Catechism on the Priesthood.

    The patron saint of parish priests, St. John Vianney, gives probably the most simplest description of why the priesthood is so important. In his Little Catechism he says some of the following about it:

    "St. Bernard tells us that everything has come to us through Mary; and we may also say that everything has come to us through the priest; yes, all happiness, all graces, all heavenly gifts. If we had not the Sacrament of Orders, we should not have Our Lord. Who placed Him there, in that tabernacle? It was the priest. Who was it that received your soul, on its entrance into life? The priest. Who nourishes it, to give it strength to make its pilgrimage? The priest. Who will prepare it to appear before God, by washing that soul, for the last time, in the blood of Jesus Christ? The priest -- always the priest. And if that soul comes to the point of death, who will raise it up, who will restore it to calmness and peace? Again the priest. You cannot recall one single blessing from God without finding, side by side with this recollection, the image of the priest.

    Go to confession to the Blessed Virgin, or to an angel; will they absolve you? No. Will they give you the Body and Blood of Our Lord? No.  

    The Holy Virgin cannot make her Divine Son descend into the Host. You might have two hundred angels there, but they could not absolve you. A priest however simple he may be, can do it; he can say to you, "Go in peace; I pardon you." Oh, how great is a priest! The priest will not understand the greatness of his office till he is in Heaven. If he understood it on earth, he would die, not of fear, but of love. The other benefits of God would be of no avail to us without the priest. What would be the use of a house full of gold, if you had nobody to open you the door! The priest has the key of the heavenly treasures; it is he who opens the door; he is the steward of the good God, the distributor of His wealth. Without the priest, the Death and Passion of Our Lord would be of no avail. Look at the heathens: what has it availed them that Our Lord has died? Alas! they can have no share in the blessings of Redemption, while they have no priests to apply His Blood to their souls!

    The priest is not a priest for himself; he does not give himself absolution; he does not administer the Sacraments to himself. He is not for himself, he is for you. After God, the priest is everything. Leave a parish twenty years without priests; they will worship beasts. If the missionary Father and I were to go away, you would say, "What can we do in this church? There is no Mass; Our Lord is no longer there: we may as well pray at home." When people wish to destroy religion, they begin by attacking the priest, because where there is no longer any priest there is no sacrifice, and where there is no longer any sacrifice there is no religion...

    If I were to meet a priest and an angel, I should salute the priest before I saluted the angel. The latter is the friend of God; but the priest holds His place. St. Teresa kissed the ground where a priest had passed. When you see a priest, you should say, "There is he who made me a child of God, and opened Heaven to me by holy Baptism; he who purified me after I had sinned; who gives nourishment to my soul." At the sight of a church tower, you may say, "What is there in that place?" "The Body of Our Lord." "Why is He there?" "Because a priest has been there, and has said holy Mass." (Chapter 9 Pgs.30-32).

    The Sin of Scandal
    While the priesthood and episcopacy are vital for the government, sanctity, and teaching of the Church, there is nothing worse than a lukewarm, spineless, and scandalous priest/bishop. While they have always been around in the history of the Catholic Church, it is flooded in the Novus Ordo Church, so much so, that it's no wonder why very few have any faith left in this day and age. The reason is clear, they aren't priests. See more on this a little while down below.

    In his book Duties and Dignities of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Liguori gives the best descriptions of what happens when a priest scandalizes people:

    He says, "St. Gregory; when the priest walks into the precipice, the people, too, are dashed to ruin. The bad example of the priest necessarily produces immorality among his people, says St. Bernard. Should a secular mistake the way, he alone is lost; but when a priest errs, he shall cause the perdition of many, particularly of those that are under his care, says the same St. Bernard. The Lord ordained in Leviticus that for the sin of a single priest a calf should be offered, as well as for the sins of the entire people. From this Innocent III concludes that the sin of a priest is as grievous as the sins of the whole people. The reason is, says the Pontiff, that by his sin the priest leads the entire people into sin. And, long before, the Lord himself said the same: If the priest that is anointed shall sin, he maketh the people to offend; Hence, St. Augustine, addressing priests, says, Do not close heaven: but this you do if you give to others a bad example to lead a wicked life. 

    Our Lord said one day to St. Bridget, that when sinners see the bad example of the priest, they are encouraged to commit sin, and even begin to glory in the vices of which they were before ashamed. Hence our Lord added that worse maledictions shall fall on the priest than on others, because by his sinful life he brings himself and others to perdition... Yes, says St. John Chrysostom, the life of the priest is the root from which the people, who are the branches, receive nutriment.

    St. Ambrose also says that priests are the head from which virtue flows to the members, that is, to seculars. The whole head is sick, says the Prophet Isaias; . . . from the sole of the foot unto the top of the head there is no soundness therein? St. Isidore explains this passage in the following words: This languishing head is the priest that commits sin, and that communicates his sin to the whole body. St. Leo weeps over this evil, saying, How can health be found in the body if the head be not sound? Who, says St. Bernard, shall seek in a sink the limpid water of the spring? Shall I, adds the saint, seek counsel from the man that knows not how to give counsel to himself? Speaking of the bad example of princes, Plutarch says, that it poisons not a single cup, but the public fountain; and thus, because all draw from the fountain, all are poisoned. 

    This may be said with greater truth of the bad example of priests; hence Eugene III. has said that bad Superiors are the principal causes of the sins of inferiors. Priests are called by St. Gregory Patres Christianorum; The Fathers of Christians. Thus also are they called by St. John Chrysostom, who says that a priest as the representative of God is bound to take care of all men, because he is the Father of the whole world." (Pgs 141-144).

    Cares of a Bishop

    In his other work Miscellany, St. Alphonsus doesn't let bishops off the hook when he says this:


    "We should be convinced of what St. Athanasius says, that the bishop before his consecration may live for himself, but that after his consecration he is obliged to live for his flock, of the salvation of whom he must certainly render an account, as the Lord has informed us through the mouth of Ezekiel: Woe to the shepherds; of Israel, that feed themselves: . . . Behold I Myself come upon the shepherds, I will require My flock at their hand* Hence St. Gregory says that at the tribunal of Jesus Christ, where every one will be obliged to render an account of his soul, the bishop will have to render an account of as many souls as he has subjects. 

    The Bishop of Sardis led an innocent life; still, because he did not attend, as he should have attended, to the care of his flock, God addressed to him through St. John this terrible reproach: Thou hast the name of being alive, and thou art dead? Whence it follows that the bishop, however holy he may be by the works of his life, if he is negligent in regard to the salvation of his flock, will be reproved at the tribunal of Jesus Christ, to whom he will have to render a rigorous account, not only of his omissions, but also of all the evils that have resulted therefrom...

    Oh, what a severe account will every bishop have to render to God of the obligation he has to exclude from the altar unworthy subjects and to admit those that are worthy! St. Francis de Sales trembled when he thought of this terrible account. This is the reason why he admitted to holy Orders only those who he had reason to hope would turn out well. In this matter he disregarded recommendations, nobility, and even the talents of the subject if these were not joined to a good life; because knowledge united with a bad life does usually more harm by appearing to add a certain respectability to vice. Hence it followed that he ordained few subjects, as is usually done by all good bishops, because in reality there are few that embrace the ecclesiastical state in order to correspond to the true vocation which they have, and in order to sanctify themselves; the consequence is, that there are few who become virtuous priests, and make themselves useful for the benefit of souls. The same saint said that the Church needs not many priests, but good priests."

    The Greatest Tragedy

    The biggest goal of Satan and his satellites has always been to destroy Holy Orders and why not, for it is the very sacrament that exorcises them by the authority of Christ. It is this sacrament which snatches souls from their grip so they can be hurled into hell. It is the sacrament that changes a man's soul and makes him another Christ (alter Christus), their greatest enemy.

    As the Roman Catechism of Trent says: "Bishops and priests being, as they are, God's interpreters and ambassadors, empowered in His name to teach mankind the divine law and the rules of conduct, and holding, as they do, His place on earth, it is evident that no nobler function than theirs can be imagined. Justly, therefore, are they called not only Angels, but even gods, because of the fact that they exercise in our midst the power and prerogatives of the immortal God." (Pg.195 The Sacrament of Holy Orders)


    With this in mind, the spirit of Anti-Christ ushered it's way in through Modernist, Masonic, clerics who committed the greatest crime known to man. Invalidate the priesthood. Nothing could have made Satan happier, it was like his royal flush because on June 18, 1968, the head of the Vatican II Sect — Bp. Giovanni Battista Montini  AKA impostor "Pope" Paul VI signed an “apostolic constitution” to change the Roman Catholic rite of ordination. The changes he introduced touched not only some of the more peripheral ceremonies but the very substance of the sacrament itself. The very words which Pope Pius XII, in 1947, had definitively decreed in were necessary for the validity of the sacrament of holy orders, were changed by Paul VI in such a way as to render the ordination of priests doubtful and the consecration of bishops definitely invalid (although even a doubtful rite, in any case, must be considered invalid in practice, per Catholic teaching).

    Below is an example of one of the essential changes for consecration of bishops.

    Traditional Roman Catholic form, per Pope Pius XII (1947):

    “Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore sanctifica."

    [Translation:] “Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing.”

    Modernist Novus Ordo form, per false pope Paul VI (1968):

    “Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo Iesu Christo, quem Ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui."

    [Translation:] “So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your name.”


    Not only does the Novus Ordo form totally replace the words decreed by Pius XII as essential to validity, they do not even in any way express that what is taking place is the consecration of a bishop! They do not even ask the Holy Ghost to make the ordinand into a bishop! Instead, even if one were to say that the totally abstruse phrase “Spiritum principalem” (“Governing Spirit”) is a clear reference to the Holy Ghost, the fact remains that it is not stated just what the Holy Ghost is supposed to be doing. God the Father is being asked to “pour out” the Holy Ghost (or at least that “Governing Spirit”) — but to do what? To what end? We’re not told. The Holy Ghost is poured out also in baptism, in confirmation, and in ordinations of deacons and priests, for example. in addition to changing the sacramental form of priestly and episcopal ordination, in his document 
    Pontificalis Romani Paul VI also abolished the major order of subdeacon and all of the minor orders (acolyte, exorcist, lector, and porter), none of which are sacraments, but whose denial was condemned by the Council of Trent and flies in the face of the Modernists’ favorite lie to seek to restore things to “antiquity” 

    …[F]om the very beginning of the Church the names of the following orders and the duties proper to each one are known to have been in use, namely those of the subdeacon, acolyte, exorcist, rector, and porter, though not of equal rank; for the subdiaconate is classed among the major orders by the Fathers and the sacred Councils, in which we also read very frequently of other inferior orders.

    Can. 2. If anyone says that besides the priesthood there are in the Catholic Church no other orders, both major and minor, by which as by certain grades, there is an advance to the priesthood: let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session 23).

    (Complete credit to Novus Ordo Watch for that above section).

    Also In the traditional rite of consecration, the bishop consecrating instructs the bishop elect in the following terms:

    ”A bishop judges, interprets, consecrates, ordains, offers, baptizes and confirms.”

    This has been abolished in the new rite.

    In the traditional rite, the bishop-to-be is asked to confirm his belief in each and every article of the Creed.

    This has been abolished in the new rite.

    In the traditional rite, the bishop-to-be is asked if he will “anathematize every heresy that shall arise against the Holy Catholic Church.”

    This has been abolished in the new rite.

    In the traditional rite, after the consecration prayer, the functions of a bishop are once again specified in these words:

    ”Give him, O Lord, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven... Whatsoever he shall bind upon earth, let it be bound likewise in Heaven, and whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, let it likewise be loosed in Heaven.  Whose sins he shall retain, let them be retained, and do Thou remit the sins of whomsoever he shall remit... Grant him, O Lord, an Episcopal chair...”

    This entire prayer has been abolished in the new rite.

    With the complete invalidation of bishops shown above, we now must see the changes made for priestly ordination in 1968. When Pope Leo XIII declared the Anglican orders invalid in 1896, it was due to the defects of form and intention that were done deliberately.

    Pope Leo XIII states “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does.  On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed.  On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament...

    For, to put aside other reasons which show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican rite, let this argument suffice for all: from them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite.  That form consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify... So it comes to pass that, as the Sacrament of Orders and the true sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood] of Christ were utterly eliminated from the Anglican rite, and hence the sacerdotium [priesthood] is in no wise conferred truly and validly...

    Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between ‘the law of believing and the law of praying,’ under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the liturgical order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the sacerdotium [sacrificing priesthood], but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things, which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.  In this way the native character – or spirit as it is called – of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself." Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896.

    In addition to this Michael Davies wrote in his book The Order of Melchisedech this information on page 79 of his book where he describes which prayers from the traditional rite of ordination were removed and why they might as well considered invalid.

    "The Bishop then addresses the ordinands and his "charge" to them includes the following:

    “For it is a priest’s duty to offer sacrifice, to bless, to lead, to preach and to baptize.”

    This admonition has been abolished.

    The Litany of the Saints then follows in the Traditional Rite.  It has been cut short in the New Rite. The New Rite abolishes the following un-ecumenical assertion:

    “That Thou wouldst recall all who have wandered from the unity of the Church, and lead all believers to the light of the Gospel.”

    Later on in the Traditional Rite, after pronouncing the essential form, which has been changed in the New Rite (see above), the bishop says another prayer, which includes the following: 

    “Theirs be the task to change with blessing undefiled, for the service of thy people, bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Thy Son.”

    This prayer has been abolished.

    In the Traditional Rite, the bishop then intones the Veni Creator Spiritus.  While anointing each priest he says:

    “Be pleased, Lord, to consecrate and sanctify these hands by this anointing, and our blessing.  That whatsoever they bless may be blessed, and whatsoever they consecrate may be consecrated and sanctified in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    This prayer has been abolished. 

    And this prayer was so significant that it was even mentioned by Pius XII in Mediator Dei para. #46:

    Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei Nov. 20, 1947: “… they alone [priests] have been marked with the indelible sign ‘conforming’ them to Christ the Priest, and that their hands alone have been consecrated, ‘in order that whatever they bless may be blessed, whatever they consecrate may become sacred and holy, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

    The Bishop now closes of each in succession, so that both palms meet and one of the attendants bind them together with a white fillet; each priest returns from his place. When this anointing and consecration of hands in finished, the bishops cleanses his hands, and then delivers to each priest the chalice containing wine and water, with a paten and host upon it, which each take with the fore and middle finger, so as to touch both the paten and the cup of the chalice, while the bishops says each:

    “Receive the power to offer sacrifice to God, and to celebrate Mass, both for the living and the dead, in the name of the Lord.”

    This exceptionally important prayer has been abolished in the New Rite. In the Traditional Rite, the new priests then concelebrate Mass with the bishop... At the end, each new priest kneels before the bishop who lays both hands upon the head of each and says:

    “Receive the Holy Ghost.  Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

    This ceremony and prayer has been abolished. In the Traditional Rite:

    “…the new priests then promise obedience to their bishop who ‘charges’ them to bear in mind that offering Holy Mass is not free from risk and that they should learn everything necessary from diligent priests before undertaking so fearful a responsibility.”

    This admonition has been abolished. Finally, before completing the Mass, the bishop imparts a blessing:

    “The blessing of God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, come down upon you, and make you blessed in the priestly Order, enabling you to offer propitiatory sacrifices for the sins of the people to Almighty God.”

    This blessing has been abolished.

    Later Michael Davies explains what this all means:

    "...the differences between the 1968 Catholic rite and the new Anglican Ordinal are so minimal that it is hard to believe that they are not intended for the same purpose… It will be found that every imperative formula which could be interpreted as conferring any specifically sacerdotal power denied to the faithful at large has been carefully excluded from the new rite.”  (Pgs 94-95).

    “If the new Catholic rite is considered satisfactory, then the entire case put by Apostolicae Curae [of Leo XIII] is undermined…" (Pg. 97).

    "If the new Catholic rite, shorn of any mandatory prayer signifying the essential powers of the priesthood, is valid, then there seems no reason why the 1662 Anglican rite should not be valid too, and still less can there be any possible objection to the 1977 Anglican Series III Ordinal...” (Pg. 99).

    "As a final comment on the new Catholic ordinal, I would like to quote a passage from Apostolicae Curae and to ask any reader to demonstrate to me how the words which Pope Leo XIII wrote of Cranmer’s rite cannot be said to apply to the new Catholic Ordinal, at least where mandatory prayers are concerned... " (Pg. 109). 

    Conclusion

    Thankfully, Our Lord Jesus Christ promised "that I will always be with you even unto the consummation of the world." He of course was speaking to the Apostles, His first bishops. It's also good to remember what Vatican I declared “Just as [Christ] sent the Apostles whom He had chosen for Himself from the world (as He Himself was sent by the Father), so too He willed that there be pastors and teachers in the Church unto the end of time.” The clergy who never stopped using the traditional rites of Holy Order and who uphold the Catholic Faith as it has always been taught must be it. If they are not as the Home Aloners believe we are in big trouble because what good is the infallible statement of Vatican I if nobody knows who and where are the pastors and teachers (what good is teaching)?

    A Prayer for Priests (From the Raccolta)

    O Jesus, Eternal Priest, keep Thy servants within the shelter of Thy Sacred Heart, where none may harm them. Keep unstained their anointed hands, which daily touch Thy Sacred Body. Keep pure and unearthly their hearts, sealed with the sublime mark of Thy glorious Priesthood. Let Thy holy love surround them and shield them from the world’s contagion. Bless their labors with abundant fruit, and may the souls to whom they minister be here below their joy and consolation, and in Heaven their beautiful and everlasting crown. Amen.

     


    Monday, April 4, 2022

    Contending For The Faith---Part 2

     

    In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

    Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:
    • The existence and attributes of God
    • The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
    • The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
    • The truth of Catholic moral teaching
    • The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 
    In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

    Campaign Slogans Against God
    In 1992, the detestable Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States using  the slogan, "It's the economy, stupid." The economic boom of the Reagan era was over, and sitting President George H. W. Bush was taking the flak. Bush was continuing to talk about abortion and the role of religion in public life, while Clinton was basically saying: "Jobs and prices are all that really matter." The catchphrase (and the message it represented) worked; Clinton defeated Bush in November. 

    Here in New York City ("The Woke Capital of the World"), it's fashionable to be atheistic, agnostic, or even indifferent about religious belief because "all beliefs are more or less good and lead to God." Many times I make acquaintance with one of these people and all they really have to offer is a bumper sticker slogan, much like Clinton in 1992. Many people don't know how to respond, and the foe of God appears to win with his "intellectual zinger."  Had I been running against Bill Clinton, I would have had a bumper sticker with a picture of an aborted child in the third trimester with the slogan, "It's a baby, stupid." 

    The thrust of Clinton's message was "a robust economy is of more importance than abortion." However, if abortion is murder, you're claiming that killing innocent babies is "no big deal" compared to inflation. The implicit premise is that abortion is not murder, so the economy is what really matters. Juxtapose a picture of Hitler with people being taken to Dachau, and have have the Fuhrer say, "We need to concentrate on what's really important, the economy, dummkopf!" Just like that the wind gets taken out of the sails in Slick Willie's slogan, and the debate shifts to where it belongs--the humanity of the unborn.

    In this post, I will present three such anti-God slogans, and how to respond.

    "If God Existed, His Presence Would Be Obvious"
    This is commonly called the argument of the "hiddenness of God." If God existed, He would make Himself known like things we see around us everyday. Skipping the complex philosophical arguments, the common-talking person will say, "Religious people keep trying to prove that God exists. No one tries to prove the Earth exists, or that trees exist. Surely, God should be as obvious as that! So where is God hiding?" 

    Four points may be made:
    • When you look at the Pieta, where is Michelangelo hidden? He is not inside the statue or a part of it, yet the existence of the statue itself points towards a creator. God is not just another piece of the universe like the Earth or a tree, so we cannot expect to perceive Him the same way. The universe cries out that there is a Creator. 
    • If God made Himself more obvious, people would not necessarily follow Him. People know they should eat right, exercise, not smoke, not drink to excess, etc., yet many people do it anyway. People who kept God's Laws would do it more from fear than love, stopping growth in character. It's akin to someone donating to charity whose sole motivation is to impress other people.
    • The Fall of our First Parents contributed to hiddenness. A more intimate experience of God was given-up as a consequence of Original Sin and living in a fallen world.
    • God is not the same as us and we cannot apply human expectations to Him; He has His own reasons. Isaiah 55:8, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. Romans 11:33-34, O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor?
    "Religion is the cause of wars and violence. If God existed, He wouldn't have a religion."
    This is not a direct attack on God's existence, but is an indirect attempt to show that religion is not good and cannot come from God if He did exist. This line is usually taken by the "I'm spiritual but not religious" crowd. Be prepared to hear the person mention the Inquisition, witch hunts, the Crusades, 9/11 terrorist attacks, etc. I suggest you do not get drawn into arguing about specific events (e.g., the Inquisition). Instead, attack the basic premise of this assertion because it is demonstrably false.

    • Just because people misuse religion to fight wars or incite violence, does not make the religion false. Christ did not want people unnecessarily fighting wars or doing acts of violence. There is the Just War principle. However, all of this can be misused. You can use a knife to cut your steak or stab your dinner guest to death. It's the misuse of the steak knife to kill someone that is wrong/evil, not the steak knife itself which was not intended for that purpose. 
    • There have been more wars and acts of violence from atheism. The Soviet Union under Stalin, Communist China, the French Revolution and its Reign of Terror, Hitler's Nazi Germany all had wars/acts of violence without religious causes. 
    • According to the Encyclopedia of Wars, (2004), by Phillips and Axelrod, only 123 out of 1,763 wars were motivated by religion. That's only about 7%. Hardly a majority. 
    "You Believe in Christ because you live in the United States and had Christian parents. If you lived in Saudi Arabia, you'd believe in Mohammed and Islam"

    I've heard this one many times. What's the unspoken premise? That geography and your surroundings growing up determine your beliefs. Hence, if you're born in India, you must be a Hindu; if you're born in Israel, you must be Jewish. While it's true that upbringing and culture have a strong influence on beliefs and behavior, they cannot be determinative unless you deny free will. Moreover, there is ample evidence that beliefs are not unalterably determined by circumstances. 

    Consider the following three assertions:
    1. Most people inherit their religious beliefs.

    2. There are very few who believe in Christ living in Saudi Arabia, and many such believers in the United States.

    3. Christ is True God and True Man.

    There is nothing that prevents all three statements from being simultaneously true. Ask the person who says this bumper sticker statement, "Do you believe that women should have equal rights with men?" Of course, he will respond "Yes." (If they start with the "What about trans-women" nonsense, change the question to "Do you believe in equal rights for LGTBQIA+ people?") Then say, "Well you only believe in that because you live in America. If you were living in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a Moslem and would be against equal rights for women and homosexuals, right?" They will protest that they believe in equal rights  not only because of where they live and how they were raised, but because they studied the issue and came to this conclusion. Then flip it on them: "Well that could also be equally true in matters of religion."

    This anti-religious statement claiming that circumstances determine religion is based on what is called the genetic fallacy in logic. The fallacy says that a proposition is wrong (or correct) based on where the idea originated. A claim is ignored in favor of attacking or exalting its source. 2+2=4 is true and doesn't become false because Stalin said it. 2+2=5 is wrong, even if St. Francis of Assisi said it. 

    Conclusion
    We live in an age of soundbites and memes. People repeat short and seemingly sagacious one or two line statements without bothering to think about what those sayings really imply. To defend against such attacks on God and His One True Church, always think about what this "witty person" is really spewing. When you can see the underlying contention, you can expose both the claim and the person making it to be--to paraphrase Shakespeare-- "shadows without substance."