Chasing Your Dreams?

 

I'm sure almost all of us have had the experience of dreaming about something that seemed very real. Perhaps it was a nightmare and you woke up in a sweat with your heart pounding; you say a quick prayer of thanks to God that it was only a dream and not real. Conversely, you might have had a dream that was so delightful you never wanted it to end; you were talking with a deceased loved one, or maybe you had the ability to fly like a superhero and you woke up wishing the dream was real (or at least wishing the dream itself would have lasted longer). 

Almighty God has made use of dreams to communicate with humans on rare and special occasions. The three most famous accounts of such appear in the Bible: Genesis 28 tells of Jacob's dream and how it relates to his descendants; Genesis 37 to 39 tells of Joseph and the dream he had, as well as his ability to interpret dreams; and in the New Testament, St. Matthew's Gospel tells us in chapter one that St. Joseph was informed by an angel in a dream that Mary is pregnant by the Holy Ghost with Christ, and should not fear taking her as his wife. 

Unfortunately, dreams can also be an occasion for evil. One example is psychoanalysis of dreams by Freudian psychologists and psychiatrists giving dreams undue importance and, in many cases, telling the patients he/she should commit sin because the alleged interpretation of the dream "should be followed." 

Another example of dreams used for evil (and the subject of this post) is lucid dreaming. This phenomena is a kind of dream state in which the person is awake enough to realize they are dreaming. According to the Lucidity Institute, the term was first coined by Dutch author and psychiatrist Frederik van Eeden who used the word "lucid" in the sense of mental clarity. (See lucidity.com). Dreams are a big part of our lives — the average person dreams for two hours per night and roughly six years over the course of their lifetime. (See nih.gov/health-information/public-education/brain-basics/brain-basics-understanding-sleep). 

The theme of those who promote lucid dreaming is that dreams can impact our future, in this life and the next. Some proponents claim that lucid dreams help us experience joy while sleeping that maybe we cannot or simply have not experienced in real life. Co-authors of the book Lucid Dreaming Plain and Simple note, “Often when people become lucid, they report a kind of spontaneous euphoria in which they feel a strong sense of energy and mastery coupled with a profound sense of awareness and clarity.”

(See Robert Waggoner and Caroline McCready, Lucid Dreaming Plain and Simple: Tips and Techniques for Insight, Creativity, and Personal Growth (2020), pg. 10). 

This post will expose the occult and pagan origins of using lucid dreams, and how it opens one up to the demonic. (N.B. I wish to acknowledge the myriad sources, both online and hardcopy books, I used in my research. I attribute the information in this post to those sources, and take no credit for myself except in condensing the information into a terse, readable post---Introibo). 

The History of Lucid Dreams

Lucid dreams are dreams in which the person who is asleep is conscious that they are dreaming. They can control who they interact with, what they experience, and in some cases, when it ends. For centuries, Tibetan monks have been practicing “dream yoga” — a process by which the practitioner learns how to become conscious during dreams. Although they are not asleep while exercising dream yoga, the yogis are preparing for lucid dream experiences. Hindus have a similar practice called Yoga Nidra.

In the West, lucid dreaming is less associated with religion (though not completely detached) and more related to psychology. Interestingly, the Greek philosopher Aristotle alluded to the ability to be conscious while dreaming in On Dreams, stating, “When one is asleep, there is something in consciousness which declares that what then presents itself is but a dream.” (See classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/dreams.html). 

Dutch psychiatrist Frederik Willem van Eeden (d. 1932) coined the term “lucid dream” in 1913 in his article, “A Study of Dreams.” He noted that he intentionally avoided using the terms conscious and unconscious in his analysis, but he still suggested that lucid dreams are controllable by the dreamer. In the decades that followed van Eeden’s dream study, several other researchers tackled the topic of lucid dreams. In 1968, British occultist Celia Green published a book called Lucid Dreams (Institute of Psychophysical Research) in which she described how people could gain control of their dreams. A large body of research into the topic was performed in the 1980s and continues today.

In 2021, a team of international researchers attempted to speak with 36 participants who were asleep and engaged in a lucid dream. (See Benjamin Baird et al., “Two-Way Communication in Lucid REM Sleep Dreaming,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 25, no. 6 [2021], 427–428).  The results were mixed, but the research has spawned more interest in the scientific community to continue to investigate lucid dreams. The purpose was to see if people in lucid dreams had a sort of telepathic power. 

Why Study Lucid Dreams?

Those involved in lucid dreaming make several claims as to why people should want to cultivate those dreams. It has been claimed by various authors that by having lucid dreams you can:

• explore your inner self; open doors to the "unconscious mind" to reveal and help resolve hidden emotional conflicts or other problems
• find inspiration for writing, poetry, songs, and other so-called "artistic endeavors”
• achieve peace of mind and bodily health as lucid dreaming puts the person in a deep meditative trance
• achieve higher consciousness
• develop "hidden abilities" such as clairvoyance
• bring about bodily health through the deep dream state
• receive messages from "God," and spirits

The Occult Connection

My research has shown (as already indicated above) that most of those involved with lucid dreams are occultists seeking power over reality. It mostly began as a subject to be pursued in the pagan East. World-of-lucid-dreaming.com relates how lucid dreams "...helps [me] to enter altered states of consciousness at will." The same source tells us Tibetan Buddhist monks use lucid dreaming on their path to enlightenment. Just like lucid dreams, the aim of Dream Yoga is to awaken the conscious self from within the dream state, which they call "apprehending the dream." However, Buddhist monks have more esoteric goals in mind. Their aim is to harness the power of the conscious dream state and then complete a number of set tasks to take them to the next level, including:

• Practice sadhana (a spiritual discipline)
• Receive initiations, empowerments and transmissions
• Visit different places, planes and lokas (worlds)
• Communicate with yidam (an enlightened being)
• Meet with other sentient beings
• Fly and shapeshift into other creatures  (Emphasis mine).

Five Serious Dangers of Using Lucid Dreams

1. False ideas of Communicating with God. 

Many people (including Traditionalists) will be told that lucid dreams can put you in touch with God and allow you to communicate with Him. This belief that God communicates to us regularly, directly, and personally by dreams makes dreams become normal vehicles for supernatural activity (allegedly divine communication), rather than normal byproducts of consciousness that are most of them. One unfortunate result of this belief is when dreams become divinatory or vehicles for occult revelations. They can supposedly warn of future events, bring spiritual enlightenment, assist physical and mental healing, function as an adjunct to inner work, or guide in making daily decisions. In this role, they can become an actual replacement for the guidance of the Church. These dreams can also cause a lack of prayer, which is real communication with God. 

2.  Raising "Consciousness."

Although in the lucid dream sense, consciousness refers to being aware or knowing you’re in a dream, consciousness in the occult sense means connection to a "higher self "or some kind of universal energy. It is the heresy of pantheism, i.e., that the universe and "God" are One. It also goes along with the occult belief that "you are God"---the "god within." If you buy into it you are a heretic.

3. Falling Prey to Other Occult Practices.

All important skills for a Wiccan [witch], or any spiritual seeker. Working with dreams can also help develop your psychic skills. (See wicca-spirituality.com/dream-work.html; Emphasis mine). "Skills" that can be developed include clairvoyance, astral projection, and communication with the dead (necromancy). 

4. Talking to "Beings" in Your Dreams.

Those proponents of lucid dreams will often tell people to interact with people (or other things) capable of communicating with them. Remember that in a deep meditative state, you open yourself up to demonic influence. The pagan meditation that goes along with inducing lucid dreams purposefully is the same meditation techniques as pagans and shamans use to make "contact with the spirit world." 

As opposed to Christian meditation which is thought about something (e.g., the Mysteries of the Rosary, etc.) occult meditation is about stopping thought to induce a trance or altered state of consciousness (ASC). Trance states and ASCs have been traditionally associated with the occult world, demonism, and other forms of spirit contact, such as shamanism, witchcraft, neo-paganism, magic ritual, Satanism, mediumism, and yogic disciplines. 

David Wilcock, author of Awakening in the Dream and frequent guest on History Channel’s Ancient Aliens, has spent his life evaluating his dreams and trying to connect the dots with his spirituality. He writes, “My dreams were making it clearer that I needed to somehow form a bridge from the world of UFO research into the spiritual side of dreaming, lucidity, ancient spiritual teachings, and higher consciousness.” (pg. 268).  Do I even need to state how this "spirituality" is occult?

Stephanie Meyer, author of the occult Twilight series (which also spawned a franchise of movies) tells how the character of Edward the vampire (portrayed as "good" in the books and movies) actually came to her in lucid dreams:

"I woke up (on that June 2nd) from a very vivid dream. In my dream, two people were having an intense conversation in a meadow in the woods. One of these people was just your average girl. The other person was fantastically beautiful, sparkly, and a vampire. They were discussing the difficulties inherent in the facts that A) they were falling in love with each other while B) the vampire was particularly attracted to the scent of her blood, and was having a difficult time restraining himself from killing her immediately. For what is essentially a transcript of my dream, please see Chapter 13 ("Confessions") of the book."

 (See web.archive.org/web/20080730025156/http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/twilight.html). 

She further relates that after her dream, she began to hear voices that would not stop until she wrote what she heard:

"All this time, Bella and Edward were, quite literally, voices in my head. They simply wouldn't shut up. I'd stay up as late as I could stand trying to get all the stuff in my mind typed out, and then crawl, exhausted, into bed (my baby still wasn't sleeping through the night, yet) only to have another conversation start in my head. I hated to lose anything by forgetting, so I'd get up and head back down to the computer. Eventually, I got a pen and notebook for beside my bed to jot notes down so I could get some freakin' sleep. It was always an exciting challenge in the morning to try to decipher the stuff I'd scrawled across the page in the dark." (Ibid--Emphasis in original).

After she wrote her books, Meyers relates that "Edward" came to her in a dream to let her know he wasn't good. She told Entertainment Weekly, "(Edward told me) I had gotten it wrong, and he did drink blood like every other vampire and you couldn't live on animals the way I'd written it. We had this conversation and it was terrifying." (Emphasis mine). 

5. Leading to Immorality.

Lucid dreams give the dreamer total freedom. If you want to fly, you can fly. If you want to talk with George Washington, you can talk with George Washington (or at least the George Washington you consciously create in your dreams). If you want to have an affair with your neighbor…welcome to mortal sin.  If we are aware, and if we can choose our own adventure, so to speak, those choices in our dreams have eternal consequences. Unlike a typical dream that comes about without our consent and over which we have no control, the lucid dream would carry moral significance. "“But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman, to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart." (St. Matthew 5:28). 

Conclusion

If, by chance, you have a lucid dream, you have not done anything wrong. To actively pursue and try to cultivate such dreams is intimately bound with unproven assertions, such as psychological healing (at best), and occult practices, like pagan meditation (at worst). Instead of chasing lucid dreams, redouble your Traditionalist Catholic prayer life to get to Heaven. To be successful at that goal will get you happiness beyond your wildest dreams. "But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love Him." (1 Corinthians 2:9). 

Our Lady Of The Willow Tree

 

To My Readers: This week's guest post from Lee is about Our Lady of the Willow Tree, a beautiful and not well known story. Please feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

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

Our Lady of the Willow Tree

By Lee

One of the easiest spiritual works of mercy for faithful Catholics to practice with success is praying for the living and the dead. Praying for the dead relieves the suffering souls in Purgatory and whether it frees them completely or partially, they nevertheless will return us the favor when they enter Heaven for helping them. In like manner, praying for the living doesn't go without its rewards. One might ask what things should be prayed for on behalf of the living? It could be anything perhaps but one of the most desirous from God is the conversion of sinners and for those outside the Church to return. This fact is proven from the beautiful words uttered by our Redeemer in this parable, "What man of you that hath a hundred sheep: and if he shall lose one of them, doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert, and go after that which was lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, lay it upon his shoulders, rejoicing: And coming home, call together his friends and neighbors, saying to them: Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost! I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance."  Luke 15:4-7

The Story

Joan Carrol Cruz has done a great service for Catholics with many of her books. One in particular called Miraculous Images of Our Lady goes through the history of 100 images of the Blessed Virgin Mary found throughout the world which she painstakingly gives in detail. A particular story I found moving, unique, and approved by some popes was Our Lady of the Willow Tree. It brings to light my point from the introduction and shows how much Our Blessed Lady loves each of us even if we were to obstinately fall away from sanctifying grace. 

The account of the story from her book is as follows: 

Plantees (Vinay), Isere, France 1649

The events relating to the origin of the shrines at Plantees would seem beyond belief were it not for the testimony of witnesses, the formal inquiry conducted by the bishop, and the documents which may still be seen in the Provincial Archives in Grenoble. Finally, the events were given Church approval when, on two occasions, Pope Pius IX ordered the solemn crowning of Our Lady of the Willow Tree (Notre Dame l'Osier).

The main personage of this drama was Pierre Port-Combet, a farmer of the area who was a well-known follower of a heresy known as Calvinism. As such he harbored a great dislike for Catholics and all that represented the Faith. He had married a devout Catholic, Jeanne Pelion, but despite here protest, he disregarded his vow to permit her to raise their six children in the Catholic Faith and instead drew them into heresy.

On solemn holydays all work was suspended in the province so that the people might attend church services and spend the remainder of the day in private devotions. Pierre's great delight was to show public disregard for the Church, and in particular the holydays dedicated to the Blessed Mother. On that fateful day in 1649, on the Feast of the Annunciation, Pierre decided to show his utter disdain for the observances by performing work where all would see him. He chose to stand beside the road where the villagers would be passing on their way to Mass.

Drawing his knife, Pierre pretended to engage in manual labor by half-heartedly pruning a willow tree that grew beside the road. After his first stab at the tree he drew back in complete shock. The willow bled! Coming from the mark left by the knife were not just a few drops, but a large enough quantity to splash on Pierre's arms and hands. Pierre immediately thought he was injured, but he could find no wound on his arms or hands. After a moment of bewilderment, he stabbed at the tree once more-and again the tree bled.

At about that time Pierre's wife, who was on her way to church, drew near and saw the blood covering her husband's arm. Thinking he was seriously injured, she hurried to help him. While she searched for a possible injury, Pierre excitedly related what had taken place. Thinking to calm him, she took the knife and struck the tree, but nothing happened. More agitated than before, Pierre snatched the knife from his wife and cut a small branch. The tree bled even more profusely than before.

A neighbor, Louis Caillet, was passing by at the time and was called over by the agitated Pierre, who by now was thoroughly frightened. Despite repeated efforts, Louis Caillet could not produce even a trace of blood. It was obvious that blood only appeared at the hand of the heretic.

Neighbors passing by and other villagers became aware of the marvel, and as though with one voice they agreed that the prodigy was a warning for Pierre to convert and, instead of giving public scandal, he should observe the laws of the Church.  

There was also a law of the Province to contend with. Having gone contrary to the law by working on the feast day, Pierre was summoned to court. Testimony was heard from witnesses who had seen Pierre in the act of pruning the tree. The prodigy of the blood was likewise mentioned. As a result, Pierre received a fine for his disobedience of the law. The transcript of this hearing is kept in the Provincial of Archives in Grenoble. 

When Church authorities heard of the case and the prodigy of the blood from the willow, they also took action. A tribunal of churchmen was gathered for a formal inquiry, as ordered by the Bishop. The testimony of Pierre was taken, as the witnesses. In the end it was decided that Pierre had received a severe warning from Heaven. 

Pierre took the decision to heart and was seen from time to time at the willow tree in profound prayer. Some of those who saw him were his friends of the Calvinist movement; they were unmoved, and even threatened bodily harm should he abandon Calvinism. For this reason, Pierre resisted his return to the Catholic Church for seven long years-until Our Lady herself intervened. 

While Pierre was working in the fields on the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25th of the year 1656, he looked toward a small hillock called the Epinouse, or the Thornhill. There he saw a Lady clothed in white, wearing a blue mantle. Over her head was a black veil that partially hid her face. As the Lady advanced toward him, Pierre thought that she was lost and was coming to him for directions. Suddenly, displaying amazing speed, the Lady was standing next to him. 

With a heavenly sweetness the lady addressed Pierre: "A Dieu Sois-tu, mon ami!" ("God be with you, my friend!") 

For a moment the sweet sound of the voice and the beauty of the woman caused Pierre to hesitate. The Lady again spoke, "What is being said about this devotion? Do many people come?"  

"Yes many people come," Pierre replied.

Seeing satisfied with Pierre's reply the lady continued, "Where does that heretic live who cut the willow tree? Does he not want to be converted?"

When Pierre mumbled a vague answer, the Lady asked, "Do you think I do not know that you are the heretic?" Then in a more serious tone, the vision warned, "Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith you will be cast into Hell. But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray to advantage, not to neglect the source of graces which God in His mercy has made available to them."

Pierre was overwhelmed with remorse and moved slightly away toward his oxen. Realizing his rudeness he turned back, but the Lady had moved away and was already near the Thornhill. Running after her, Pierre pleaded with her to stop and listen to his apology and his plea for help. The Lady stopped and turned. By the time Pierre caught up with her he noticed that she was suspended several feet in the air and was slowly fading from sight. Realizing that he had been granted a vision of the Blessed Virgin, he fell to his knees and while sobbing uncontrollably, he pledged a complete reform. 

A few months later, on the eve of the Assumption, Pierre contracted a serious illness. The Augustinian Prior of Vinay heard his confession  and accepted him back into the Church. Remembering that the prodigy had occurred on the Feast of the Annunciation, Pierre completed his conversion  by receiving the Holy Eucharist on the Feast of the Assumption. Pierre's conversion influenced many others to return to the True Faith, including his son and five daughters, as well as many Protestants and Calvinists. 

The Lady's words: "Realize that your end is at hand..." were realized five weeks later, when Pierre Port-Combet died. In accordance with his final wish, he was buried at the bottom of the willow tree.

With approval of the directors of the Propagation of the Faith in Grenoble, the Reverend Fais, the parish priest of Vinay, helped Mme. de la Croix buy the field where Pierre had spoken to Our Lady. In due time, on the site of the apparition, a chapel was built which was dedicated to Our Lady of Good Meeting. Soon another even larger church was built at the site of the willow. This was dedicated to Our Lady of the Willow Tree. A statue sculptured according to Pierre's description was enshrined which soon attracted countless pilgrims. 

Unfortunately, during the French Revolution terrorists from Grenoble pillaged and desecrated the sanctuary. The highly regarded statue of Our Lady was taken from its niche and hacked to pieces. These pieces were recovered by some valiant women who hid them until religious freedom was secured. Also saved was a portion of the willow tree that had been stored in a decorative box in the oratory. 

Following the revolution, devotion to Our Lady of the Willow was revived. The Oblates of Mary Immaculate were given charge of the sanctuaries and in 1856, the second centenary of the apparition, Pope Pus IX decreed a solemn jubilee and a papal crowning for September 8th. For this celebration more than 30,000 people and 400 priests attended. Another crowning was ordered by the same pontiff in 1873.

The meeting between Our Lady and Pierre is depicted on a large wall painting in the chapel of Our Lady of Good Meeting. Between this chapel and the Thornhill, where Our Lady left him, a specially marked path approximately 400 yards long indicates the route taken by Pierre when he ran after the apparition.

The church built where the willow once grew was raised to the dignity of a minor basilica by Pope Pius XI on March 17th, 1924. Here is found the once-mutilated statue of Our Lady, and beneath Pierre's grave is at the foot of this altar. The casket containing a piece of the willow is located at about the same place where it formerly grew.

In the basilica, near the statue of Our Lady, are countless ex-votos. Of all the miracles of healing worked as a result of prayer before this image, more than 100 are said to be undoubtedly genuine since they had been witnessed and sworn to by reliable people who testified under oath and affixed their names to written documents. 

The shrines are located in the town of Plantees, five miles from Vinay. During the year, but especially on the feast days of Our Lady of the Willow, March 25th and September 8th and 9th, pilgrims wind their way from Vinay, up the terrain to Plantees to the shrine containing the image of Our Lady of the Willow Tree.    

Conclusion

True contrition requires a firm purpose of amendment. The lesson from the above story is for everybody who wishes to follow the truth and renounce their sins and errors once and for all. God has given us His mother as means to make this process easier. She continues to wait for us to call up on her through her cell phone (the rosary). "Upon the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and wept: when we remembered Sion: On the willows in the midst thereof we hung up our instruments." Psalm 137:1-2

Can A True Pope Teach Heresy?

On May 8, 2025, heretic and layman Robert Prevost became the seventh leader of the Vatican II sect, taking the name "Pope" Leo XIV (if you hear grinding noise coming from the Vatican, it must be the saintly Pope Leo XIII turning over in his grave).  He will continue on the path of Bergoglio as he fully accepts Vatican II. Born in 1955, he was but seven years old when the Council began and ten when it ended. He will continue to teach heresy, and the "recognize and resist" (R&R) crowd will be there to try and exonerate him at every utterance of error and evil.

What really caught my eye was a R&R website called Catholic Candle (catholiccandle.org). It is dedicated to the fanciful ideas and false teachings of R&R theology (not to be confused with Catholic theology). The articles are all seriously flawed, but the one I wish to refute is entitled It is Possible for a Pope to Teach Heresy and Remain the Pope? Their answer is, of course, yes, but Catholic theology answers that question in the negative as I shall demonstrate. 

False Ideas About Heresy

For anyone who wants to read the whole article they may do so here: catholiccandle.org/2025/01/12/it-is-possible-for-a-pope-to-teach-heresy-and-remain-the-pope/#_ftnref8. I will only concern myself with the main points. Catholic Candle ("CC") launches into a meaningless distinction between material and formal heresy, and a false idea about infallibility. 

1. CC holds that a pope can teach heresy as a material heretic.

The bottom line of CC is: Pope Francis has taught many heresies but never has he taught them using his ex cathedra authority.  These heresies do not show that he is not the pope.(Emphasis mine). 

The idea of a heretical pope is an oxymoron the same as square circle. From CC:

Definitions – In summary:

 A person is a formal heretic if he denies the Catholic Faith in its formal aspect, i.e., if he denies any statement which he knows is revealed by the infallible teaching authority of the Church (God).  Such denial involves rejecting the Church’s (God’s) infallible authority itself.

 A person is only a material heretic, if he denies a part of the Catholic Faith in its material aspect only.  In other words, a material heretic is a person who denies a statement of the Catholic Faith without knowing that the Church (God) teaches that this statement is infallibly true.  A denial of the material of the Faith only, does not involve rejection of the Church’s (God’s) infallible authority, because the person errs (only) about what the Church (God) teaches. 

Thus, a material heretic can be a Catholic.  However, a formal heretic cannot be Catholic, because in order to be Catholic, one must submit to every single dogma of the Faith that one knows the Church teaches; and yet the formal heretic rejects the Church’s (God’s) authority by denying part of the Faith, knowing that the Church (God) teaches it...

Having seen what it means to be a material heretic and what it means to be a formal heretic, these are the questions presented:

1.    Can a pope ever become a material heretic? 

and

 2.    Can a pope ever become a formal heretic?

Let us first ask if a pope can become a material heretic and then after that, let us ask whether a pope can become a formal heretic.

1. Can the Pope become a Material Heretic?

It is a very superficial supposition to think that a pope cannot be a material heretic (that is, the supposition that a pope cannot hold, even internally, an opinion contradictory to the Catholic Faith).  Further, it is superficial to think the pope cannot then teach his heretical opinion (e.g., through the pope teaching while he is ignorant).  These (false) suppositions are superficial because they fail to take into account the basic truths of the catechism that even children know.

The Teaching of the Church

Theologian Berry nicely summarizes, "Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separate themselves from the unity of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of government, and both reject the authority of the Church. So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her. They are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church. For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold." (See The Church of Christ [1927], pg. 226; Emphasis mine). 

CC may object that Bergoglio was not raised in a false sect, but was a material heretic because he doesn't know or realize that what he is teaching constitutes heresy. The objection fails miserably. Having shown that material heretics are not members of the Church, the alleged defense of ignorance falls flat. 

The Divine Law demands that the pope must, in the external forum (publicly), demonstrate that he knows and believes in the truths of the Catholic Faith. It is not required that he must have internal knowledge or intention to be heretical. If he denies even one dogma, he must be considered non-Catholic and a non-member of the Church, who can no longer be the head of the Church to which he does not belong. According to theologian MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy...gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity...Excusing circumstances have to be proven in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action gave rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (See, The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, [1932], pg. 35--Emphasis mine).  

Again, MacKenzie, "If the delinquent making this claim 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." (Ibid, pg. 48; Emphasis mine).

Finally, let's use basic logic. Are we to presume that Bergoglio (or now Prevost with his Doctorate in Canon Law) doesn't understand theology as well as CC? CC is culpably ignorant of the correct theological principles and spouts falsehoods. It is shown that (1) material heretics are outside the Church, (2) heretical depravity is to be presumed by any acts which signify heresy, and (3) a plea of ignorance from a cleric regarding the faith is dismissed as untrue because of his training and education. 

2.  CC has an erroneous idea of infallibility and papal authority in teaching.

In their flawed teaching of infallibility, the R&R are like the Feeneyites insofar as they limit obedience to ex cathedra decisions and claim popes can teach heresy when not teaching infallibly. From CC:

 

 A.  To Say that the Pope Cannot Make a Heretical Statement Means that He is Always Infallible When Making Any Statement about the Faith.

If the pope were unable to make heretical statements, then everything he said about religious matters would be infallible.  In other words, Catholics would be sure that everything he said on religious matters was protected from error and must be true.  In other words, under this supposition, the pope would always be infallible when making any statement about the Catholic Faith.

B.  It is Basic Catechism that the Pope Can Indeed Teach Heresy (Error) When He Does Not Invoke His Special Ex Cathedra Authority.

But it is basic catechism (which even children know) that the pope only teaches infallibly under certain carefully-enumerated conditions. 

For example, here is the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X showing when the pope is infallible, viz., on matters of Faith and morals only under certain conditions:

57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?

A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.

Notice the narrow conditions under which the pope is infallible.  All of these conditions must be fulfilled:  he must be teaching all Christians (not just a subset, such as his own diocese of Rome or a certain nation);  he must be using his full authority (not just partial authority); and he must be defining (not just commenting on or exploring) a doctrine regarding faith or morals (not Church discipline, Canon Law, or some other, lesser subject) to be held by all (not just some of) the Church.

Here, CC never mentions the secondary objects of infallibility. According to theologian Van Noort,

PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperiled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.

The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith. Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.

One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church’s rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.

When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the following individual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints. (See Dogmatic Theology, 2:110; Emphasis mine).

The pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole 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, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

"[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

"Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."

The pope's infallibility extends to universal disciplinary laws. The pope can give "opinionative" decisions, which by their very nature could be modified or abrogated. In that sense he could be "wrong," but not in promulgating universal disciplinary laws, or deciding upon doctrinal issues. CC demonstrates a misunderstanding of the 1870 Vatican Council's teaching on the papacy.

CC makes absurd claims, to wit: Contrary to fact, if it were true that a pope could never teach heresy, this would mean that the pope cannot err if he says something about the Faith or morals even at the dinner table or in a sermon or in private correspondence. False. The pope cannot give error or evil to the Church. It does not mean he cannot err as a private theologian "at the dinner table." 

Here's what the popes themselves have taught:

Pope Leo XIII:

In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [1870] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.

(See Sapientiae Christianae, para. #24; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius IX:

Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

(See Quanta Cura, para. #5; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XI:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

(See Casti Connubii, para. #104; Emphasis mine). 

In the face of all of the above, which R&R and Feeneyites deny, they will claim that in non-infallible teaching, a pope could introduce a heresy as an "innocent mistake." This is impossible because of the dogma of Indefectibility, which states that the Catholic Church must endure as an institution until the end of time, and must remain essentially the same until the end of time. This means that She must have perfect continuity of dogma and moral teaching, with no contradictions, perfect continuity of worship, and perfect continuity of all of its essential disciplines. It is based on the very words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: “Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (St. Matthew 28:20).

Christ also said to the Apostles: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.” (St. Luke 10:16). This means that every Catholic can, and must, listen to the Church teaching as the teaching of Christ Himself. What if they are not teaching infallibly? Such teachings are nevertheless protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching any pernicious doctrine. This means the Church cannot teach anything which is contrary to Catholic doctrine or morals, and which would be a sin to embrace. The Church also cannot impose evil disciplines, and thereby prescribe something evil to the faithful, making it sinful to observe; nor can the Church give anything which would constitute an incentive to impiety. 

This completely rules out any possibility of the pope teaching heresy, for the protection of the Holy Ghost precludes it. Theologian Fenton teaches:

To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.

(See "The American Ecclesiastical Review;" [August 1949], “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Part I”, pgs. 144-145). 

Hence, the protection of the Holy Ghost precludes the pope from teaching heresy to the Church. Only in his capacity as a private theologian could he teach heresy.

Did the Church Have Popes Who Were "Material Heretics"?

CC claims their thesis is true using two alleged "historical examples:"

We see that various popes have been material heretics.  Let us look at two examples that illustrate this: 

Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) taught heresy insistently both before and during his papal reign.  He was a material heretic and refused to be corrected until shortly before his death.[14]

Pope Nicholas I wrote a letter to the Bulgarians, in which he spoke as if baptism were valid when administered simply in our Lord’s Name, without mention of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.  But he was not teaching ex cathedra.  The question asked of Pope Nicholas was actually a different one: viz., concerning the minister of baptism, viz., whether a Jew or Pagan could validly baptize.  He correctly answered in the affirmative.  But Pope Nicholas then answered “that the baptism was valid, whether administered in the name of the three Persons or in the name of Christ only.”  This is heresy!  Cardinal Newman cites this example quoting St. Robert Bellarmine in De Rom. Pont., iv. 12. (Emphasis mine).

Fact: Neither Pope John XXII nor Pope Nicholas I were guilty of any heresy. Pope John XXII  preached a series of sermons in Avignon, France in which he taught that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God (Beatific Vision) until after the Last Judgement. It was open to debate among the theologians and had not yet been a made a dogma, so its denial is not heresy. Finally, he expressed his opinion as a "private theologian who expressed an opinion, hanc opinionem, and who, while seeking to prove it, recognized that it was open to debate." (Le Bachlet, "Benoit XII," in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 2:662.). Therefore, he lacked the pertinacity required for loss of office as he declared himself expressing an opinion, and was willing to submit his judgement to the Church.

What about Pope Nicholas I? Ironically, Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine proves Pope Nicholas not guilty of heresy. In Papal Error? A Defense of Popes said to have Erred in Faith, the great Bellarmine sets out to defeat the calumnies of the enemies of the Church who leveled charges of heresy at several popes. The same calumnies are now repeated by CC. In defense of Pope Nicholas, the Doctor of the Church writes:

The Twenty-Sixth [pope falsely accused of heresy] is Nicholas I, whom several condemn, because he taught that baptism conferred in the name of Christ, without expression of the three persons, was valid.  That is contrary not only to the Evangelical institution, but even to the decrees of other Popes, namely, of Pelagius and Zachary, who condemned the baptism of those who are only baptized in the name of Christ and not expressly in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; as is clear in the same place.  Nor can the response be given that, in the time of Nicholas, it was still not defined whether baptism was invalid if conferred in the name of Christ, for that was defined in the English Council, confirmed by Pope Zachary who preceded Nicholas. 

I respond: Nicholas was not defining a question on faith when he spoke, rather, he only expressed his opinion in passing as a particular doctor. For, what he intended to teach in that canon was not on the form of baptism, but only on the minister concerning which he had been asked. Therefore, after he responded and defined that baptism was valid, even if given by a Jew or a pagan, which the question was especially about, he added in passing that baptism is valid whether it is given in the name of the three persons or in the name of Christ alone. 

In this he followed the opinion of Ambrose as he says himself. Still, in my judgment, this opinion is false, but not heretical. There is no certain definition of the Church that is discovered on this affair, and various opinions are discovered among the Fathers. Now those canons of Pelagius and Zachary also do not obstruct the case. In the first place, Pelagius did not define anything, but only as a teacher in his epistle to Gaudentius explains his opinion. Moreover, the canon of Zachary is exceedingly suspect. In the first place, Gratian cites the epistle of Zachary to Boniface, when he places this canon, but such an opinion is not discovered in the epistles of Zachary to Boniface, which are extant in the volumes of Councils. 

Next, Bede makes no mention of this English council in his history, where he always makes mention of other English Councils. Nay more, Bede himself follows the contrary opinion, as he approves the opinion of Ambrose on baptism in the name of Christ. Still, one could not ignore a decree of an English Council, if it were real, which Zachary mentions, since he lived in the same time and still outlived Zachary. It does not seem at all believable that he would wish to contradict a Council celebrated in his own country and confirmed by the Apostolic See. Yet, if we admit the authority of this Council and Zachary, we can respond twofold. 

Firstly, with St. Peter Lombard: In that Council it was only defined that baptism was not valid without the invocation of the three persons. Still, it was not defined whether the three persons ought to be named explicitly, and hence this cannon is not opposed to the opinion of Ambrose and of Nicholas, who taught that it sufficed to implicitly name the three persons in the one name of Christ. St. Bernard also understood that canon of the Council in this manner as well as Hugh of St. Victor and all other teachers of that age who taught, not withstanding the canon of the English Council, that baptism in the name of Christ was valid.

It can be said secondly, that the English Council was not truly and properly approved by the Apostolic See, and therefore does not make the matter de fide. Zachary certainly praised the English Council, and cited its decrees for his proposition; still, he did not properly approve it as Pope and with the intention of confirming the acts of the Council. It is one thing for the Pope to confirm the decrees of Councils in earnest, and another to commend something that other [Councils] proposed.

 Bellarmine thus shows that (1) Pope Nicholas was not teaching the Church, but expressing an opinion as a private doctor. However, wouldn't that be professing heresy and cause loss of office? NO, because (2) it was not yet defined if the Three Persons of the Most Blessed Trinity need be named explicitly, or if it sufficed to implicitly name the Three Persons in the one Name of Christ. Pope Nicholas was therefore not a heretic, just as Pope John XXII was not a heretic.  

Heresy and Authority

Having shown CC to be clueless on Church teaching regarding heresy, infallibility, and the alleged "historical examples" of popes teaching heresy, the final section of the article must be addressed. It is alleged that the pope can never be a formal heretic and teach heresy ex cathedra. While it is true that no pope can teach heresy ex cathedra, no sedevacantist claims that such could ever happen or is necessary for a pope to lose his authority. The Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy and loss of Church membership. With loss of Church membership comes loss of authority. In the case of a heretic prior to election, no such heretic could ever attain the papacy as in the case of Prevost. Finally, the heresy must be manifest and done in his capacity as a private theologian.

The great saint, theologian, and Doctor of the Church Robert Bellarmine teaches, "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope and head of the Church, just as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church [precisely because he is no longer the pope!---Introibo] All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. St. Cyprian, in particular, laid great stress on this point." (See De Romano Pontifice, II:30)

 According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10).

Theologian Iragui: "...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."

(See Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], pg. 371). 

Canonist Badii: "A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."( See Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina [1921], pgs. 160, 165). 

Theologian Prummer: "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943],  2:453). 

1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 188, section 4: "There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” 

N.B. Theologian McDevitt writes:

"The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands." (See The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, [1946], pg. 139).

The great canonist Ayrinhac taught in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law,:

Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices. Canons 185-191 “...applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” (p. 346). 

How is heresy made manifest? According to theologian MacKenzie, "Words are the ordinary, but not the only means of communication. Complete externalization of thought may exist in signs, acts, or omissions." (Delict, pg.35) Let's break it down:

(a) Words. A dogma may be denied by a contradictory or contrary statement. For example, it is a dogma that "The Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." The contradictory statement negates it--"The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." A contrary statement is not a direct negation, but it goes against the dogma. Hence, Vatican II was heretical when it stated in Unitatis Redintegratio, para.#3 that Christ uses non-Catholic sects as a "means of salvation." It is heretical because if you can obtain salvation by being a Lutheran, then there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.

(b) Acts. Think of "Saint" John Paul II kissing the Koran which denies the Trinity and Divinity of Christ. Remember Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) celebrating Hanukkah with the Jews in 2012 when still a "cardinal."

(c) Omissions. Think of Bergoglio hiding his crucifix from the Jews and failing to try and convert them.

Heretics are incapable of keeping or attaining to papal office. In the case of one validly elected pope, should he fall into heresy as a private theologian, he falls from office. In the case of a manifest heretic prior to "election," he fails to attain the office. According to theologian Baldii, "Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics..." (See Institutiones Iuris Canonici [1921]; Emphasis mine).

Ergo, Robert Prevost (aka "Pope" Leo XIV) could not attain the papacy as he publicly professes the heresies of Vatican II and that of his predecessor Conciliar "popes." 

Conclusion

The first American false pope will begin to pile more heresy on top of Bergoglio's heap of errors and evils. Don't be fooled by the false R&R theology that seeks to keep people believing that a pope can teach heresy. If you want to make it through the Great Apostasy, better to put out the "R&R candle" and curse the darkness of the Vatican II sect.    

Contending For The Faith---Part 39

 

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.

The Error of "Being Zen"

I wish to acknowledge the many sources I utilized in the composition of this post; both online and in print. I take no credit except for condensing the material into a terse and readable post---Introibo

On a personal note: Please pray for the repose of the soul of my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD who went to Judgement  twenty years ago this May 6th.  

I was working late in my office and almost everyone at the firm was gone for the day. I work best when things are quiet, but I put on some "forest sounds" which I find soothing. A young associate must have heard the noises, as he opened the door and stuck his head inside. "Oh, it's you with those nature sounds! I like it; it's very Zen." The young man pulled his head out, shut the door and abruptly left. He's a member of the Vatican II sect. I hear lots of so-called "Catholics" of the Vatican II sect and other "Christians" saying this quite often here in New York City. 

According to Merriam-Webster, to "be Zen" means having or showing qualities (such as meditative calmness and an attitude of acceptance) popularly associated with practitioners of Zen Buddhism. Few who use the term are actual Buddhists, although some may practice pagan yoga and a large number perform some kind of pagan meditation. Being "Zen" is meant as a compliment, but if someone truley Christian knew about Zen, they would not find it agreeable at all.

Defining Zen depends on one’s perspective. For some, Zen is a philosophy of life. For others it is religion not philosophy. According to one expert, “Zen is an intuitive religion and not a philosophy or way of life.”​ (See John Blofeld, The Zen Teaching of Huang Po, on the Transmission of Mind [1958], pg. 10). Zen is inherently self-contradictory.

A good illustration of the problem can be seen at ibiblio.org/zen/faq.html. Read the “Frequently Asked Questions from alt.zen.” Here are the first three questions and partial answers. Question one is, “What is Zen (the simple question)?” We are told that Zen is sometimes called a religion, sometimes a philosophy. “Choose whichever term you prefer, it simply doesn’t matter.” Question two is, “What is Zen (the real question)?” One reply is that the essence of Zen is, “Have you eaten yet?” Question three is, “Why do people post such nonsense to this group?” The answer is that, according to Zen’s intuitive understanding, “words and sentences have no fixed meaning, and logic is often irrelevant.” The “Empty Gate Zen Center” (See emptygatezen.com/) is part of the International consortium of Zen centers known as the Kwan Um School of Zen, founded in 1977 by Zen master Seung Sahn. At its website, it describes Zen as follows:

 “Zen is keeping don’t know mind always and everywhere.”(Whatever that means). 

So how should Traditionalists define Zen? Perhaps most simply as an unusual sect of Buddhism that stresses enlightenment attained by mystical technique, contradiction and intuition. Zen is usually practiced by some form of meditation to make the mind blank and "become one with the universe." This is achieved by repeating a nonsensical question called a koan over and over. The most famous koan is, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Therefore, Zen is based on the heresy of pantheism; that God and the universe are one and the same.

There is much wrong with thinking God and the universe are one. The Vatican Council (1870), infallibly condemned the idea:

3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema.

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema.

5. If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema.

At one level, Zenists will argue that a "Catholic" (Vatican II sect member) can practice Zen to great benefit. At another level, the Zen doctrine of oneness makes Zen believers religious syncretists: all religions are believed to contain the same essence (Zen). While at odds with the Traditional Catholic Faith, Zen comports well with the teachings of Vatican II.

The heretical document Gaudium et Spes falsely attributes to pagan sects, like Hinduism and Buddhism (of which Zen is part), that they believe in God as the Creator of the universe. Paragraph #36 states: "...[All] believers of whatever religion have always heard His revealing voice in the discourse of creatures." The Eastern pagans completely ignore the idea of a God who created from nothing and who reveals Himself in His creatures. This is because these Eastern religions are convinced that reality proceeds through the emanation of an impersonal, cosmic, eternal force which is identically replicated in all things; from which force all comes, and to which all returns, becoming a part of it, and dissolving into it. That teaching of Vatican II isn't merely heretical, it's an outright lie easily detected by anyone familiar with pagan teachings. 

Vatican II is VERY Zen

Fr. Robert E. Kennedy, S.J. was born June 20, 1933 and was ordained a priest  (validly) as Vatican II was ending in 1965. He is also a Zen roshi ("Master") recognized by Buddhists as such. Here is his bio:

Robert E. Kennedy, S.J., author of Zen Spirit, Christian Spirit and Zen Gifts to Christians, is one of several practicing Catholic men and women who are recognized by the Buddhist community as zen teachers. He is a licensed psychoanalyst and professor emeritus of theology at St. Peter’s College in Jersey City. 

As a Christian Fr. Kennedy has found meaning and deep reverence in the practice of zen. He is active in interfaith work, teaching zen to persons of all faiths, conducting retreats in the United States, Mexico, Ireland and England. 

He studied zen in Japan with the Japanese master Yamada Roshi. He continued his study under Maezumi Roshi in Los Angeles and Bernard Tetsugen Glassman Roshi in New York; in 1997 he received inka, the formal seal of approval, from Glassman Roshi and received the title Roshi, or Master. He holds doctorates in Theology from the University of Ottawa and from St. Paul University in Ottawa, a Masters in Theology from Sophia University in Tokyo, and a Doctor of Ministry in Psychology and Clinical Studies from Andover-Newton in Boston. He is a graduate of the Blanton-Peale Institute of Religion and Health in New York. 

Roshi Kennedy [Notice his disdain for the noble title "Fr." preferring the pagan title Roshi] has written two books on Zen and Christianity: Zen Gifts to Christians and Zen Spirit, Christian Spirit.

In 2017, Roshi Kennedy received two honorary doctorates, one from St. Peter's University, and one from the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts. (Emphasis mine). 

In his book, Zen Spirit, Christian Spirit, Kennedy informs the reader:

...not all Christians will be interested in practicing Zen because of its disagreement with Christianity on theological and philosophical issues. Even though that may be the case, Zen can remind us of essential truths in our own Christian religion, which, because of our daily distractions, we tend to forget.(pg. 17; Emphasis mine).

In the opening chapter, Zen and the Jesuits, the apostate priest states:

Often I am asked by Christians, “How can you as a Christian Jesuit Catholic [remember when Jesuits were Catholic and Catholics were the only true Christians by definition?] priest teach us about the practice and beauty of Zen Buddhism? Wouldn’t it be more Christian to teach us about the practice and beauty of our own faith?” In attempting to answer these questions, I point to the fact that Jesuits believe that we are more Christ-like—not less so—when we reach out to the vast non-Christian world with admiration and collaboration. (Emphasis mine). 

Kennedy is applying the principle of Vatican II spelled out in Nostra Aetate. That document tells us in paragraph #2, The Catholic Church (sic) rejects nothing that is true and holy (vera et sancta) in these religions [pagan, non-Christian religions; principally Hinduism and Buddhism]. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. This is the false ecclesiology of Vatican II whereby all religions are more or less good because they "contain some truth." We now have millions of souls heading for Hell as they follow these false pagan religions to their eternal perdition.

After assuring us Zen is not pantheism, Kennedy states:

Zen reminds us that in our Christian tradition the risen Christ does not stand apart from us, objective to us, in heaven, even though many of our prayers use this kind of imagery. Zen Buddhists teach that only for the deluded is Christ a sentient being or concealed within sentient beings. For the wise and awakened a sentient being is Christ. Indeed Zen Buddhists understand the complete joy we experience as Christ grows greater and greater, and the “I” less and less. (Emphasis mine). God is not objective to us but within; welcome to pantheism. 

The truth is that Zen does attack God, precisely because it understands the implications of belief in the Christian God. Zen is pantheistic and you cannot separate the two.  Werner Erhard, founder of the Zen driven EST/The Forum declared that “the greatest single barrier to God is belief in God.” The famous psychoanalyst Erich Fromm observes that in Zen, “I truly follow God’s will if I forget about God.”​ (See Erich Fromm, Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis, [1960], pg. 252).

Zen and the Occult

Historically, there is little doubt as to the reality of demons operating behind the mechanism of idolatrous practice. In Zen, as in yoga, chanting and physical postures may become vehicles to open the door to the supernatural world:

To help awaken us to this world of Buddha-nature, Zen masters employ yet another mode of zazen, namely, the chanting of dharani and sutras. Now, a dharani has been described as “a more or less meaningless chain of words or names that is supposed to have a magical power in helping the one who is repeating it at some time of extremity.” Anyone who has recited them for any length of time knows, in their effect on the spirit they are anything but meaningless. When chanted with sincerity and zest they impress upon the heart and mind the names and virtues of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas enumerated in them, removing inner hindrances to zazen and fixing the heart in an attitude of reverence and devotion.... Dogen attached great importance to the proper position, gestures, and movements of the body and its members during chanting, as indeed in all other modes of zazen, because of their repercussions on the mind. In Shingon Buddhism particular qualities of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are evoked by the devotee through certain positions of his hands (called mudra) as well as body postures, and it is probably from the Shingon that this aspect of Dogen’s teaching derives. In any event, the prescribed postures do induce related states of mind.... Conversely, each state of mind elicits from the body its own specific response. The act of unself-conscious prostration before a Buddha is thus possible only under the impetus of reverence and gratitude.​ (See Philip Kapleau, ed., The Three Pillars of Zen, [1967], pg. 45; Emphasis mine).  

Zen’s emphasis on idolatry, mystical chanting, altered states of consciousness and psychic development can become vehicles to spirit contact. In Zen meditation, and in Eastern meditation generally, the practices adopted sooner or later bring one to the realm of psychic phenomena and spirits. As one expert admits:

Here we shall mention only one of the so-called negative effects: the phenomenon of makyo (literally, world of spirits), that is to say, apparitions, fantasies, or illusory sensations. Figures or things not actually present appear to the person meditating. They can be of a pleasant or an unpleasant nature. Sometimes Buddhas appear; at other times the mediator may face the specter of a wild animal or something just as terrifying; or lights may appear to play before the eyes. Less often sounds are heard, but at such times a person may seem to hear his name called out clearly.... Zen masters explain these effects as natural products of the mind.​ (See H. M. Lassalle, Zen Meditation for Christians, [1974], pgs. 39-40)

While such phenomena could at times be entirely mental, they could also at times involve covert or overt consorting with the biblical “principalities and powers.” Since all Zen practice is the same kind of meditation (sitting, breathing, concentration, chanting, etc.), it is simply a matter of who wishes to use these powers, not whether they occur. In part, these powers seem to come by Zen’s particular method of pagan concentration (joriki): The cultivation of certain supranormal powers is also made possible by joriki, as is the state in which the mind becomes like perfectly still water.... The state of blankness in which the conscious functioning of the mind has been stopped. Now, although the power of joriki can be endlessly enlarged through regular practice, it will recede and eventually vanish if we neglect zazen. And while it is true that many extraordinary powers flow from joriki, nevertheless through it alone we cannot cut the roots of our illusory view of the world.​ (See Op. cit. pg. 47). To be clear, joriki is a form of "mindfulness meditation" wherein the mind is "stilled" leading to altered states of consciousness, like shamans do before invoking "spirit guides" (demons). 

In The Three Pillars of Zen we find an in-depth discussion of psychic powers (somewhat reminiscent of mediums) and how one is to view and approach them: Makyo are the phenomena—visions, hallucinations, fantasies, revelations, illusory sensations—which one practicing zazen is apt to experience at a particular stage in his sitting. Ma means “devil” and kyo “the objective world.” Hence makyo are the disturbing or “diabolical” phenomena which appear to one during his zazen. These phenomena are not inherently bad.... Broadly speaking, the entire life of the ordinary man is nothing but a makyo.... Besides those which involve the vision there are numerous makyo which relate to the sense of touch, smell, or hearing, or which sometimes cause the body suddenly to move from side to side or forward and backward or to lean to one side or to appear to sink or rise. Not infrequently words burst forth uncontrollably or, more rarely, one imagines he is smelling a particularly fragrant perfume. There are even cases where without conscious awareness one writes down things which turn out to be prophetically true. Very common are visual hallucinations. You are doing zazen with your eyes open.... Without warning everything may go white before your eyes, or black. A knot in the wood of a door may suddenly appear as a beast or demon or angel.... Many makyo involve the hearing. One may hear the sound of a piano or loud noises, such as an explosion (which is heard by no one else), and actually jump....(See Kaplan, pg. 99). 

Does Roshi/Fr. Kennedy want Vatican II sect members to believe this is not demonic? 

Prevalence of Zen

As the Vatican II sect defends and admires paganism, the list of influential Zenists/Buddhists is quite impressive:

• Sports stars Tiger Woods and David Beckham
• Movie actors Richard Gere, Keanu Reeves, and Harrison Ford (think: Star Wars and George Lucas)
• Rock and pop singers Courtney Love (widow of the wretch Kurt Cobain, whose band was named Nirvana), and the late Tina Turner
• Even politicians like former President Bill Clinton, although not a convert, hired a Buddhist monk to teach him meditation. 

Why the attraction? There are several reasons:

• The pantheistic belief that "God is all" puts insects, plants, and even inanimate objects on the same level as humans. Tree-hugging environmentalists love it, even though the vast majority see nothing wrong with abortion
• Terms like "inner tranquility" and "enlightenment" are "spiritual" without being "religious." Therefore, atheists can hop on board and deny a Personal God for an impersonal force that allows them to still use the term "atheist" loosely
• There are no Commandments for ethics. Who am I to judge? (sound familiar?) Moral absolutes are absent and Hell is denied 
• Reincarnation is often taught which further erodes morals because if you live like a heathen, there is no Hell, just another life to try and "get it right" and achieve nirvana, which is basically extinction--so no one suffers in the end 
• Meditation and yoga are ubiquitous, with the Vatican II sect supplanting true meditation based on the spiritual masters (like St. Ignatius of Loyola) with pagan yoga-meditation. This "mindfulness" meditation is being taught in their schools and churches. Pagan meditation can open a person up to demonic forces as I've written above
• Many Vatican II sect clergy openly promote Zen

Vatican II "Popes" and Paganism

Vatican II's Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, promulgated on October 28, 1965 by Montini ("Pope" Paul VI). It made apostate pagan monsters like Roshi/Fr. Kennedy possible, and why people now think it's good to be "Zen."  Vatican II sect members can look to their false "popes" for guidance.

• Almost exactly 21 years after Nostra Aetate, on October 27, 1986, with permission of John Paul II, the Dalai Lama and the  Tibetan Buddhist monks of his sect placed a small statue of Buddha over the tabernacle of St. Peter Church in Assisi at the first Assisi Prayer Meeting for Peace with all the false religions. 

The True Church teaches: "And if you forget the Lord your God and go after other gods and serve them and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish," (Deuteronomy 8:19).

• Upon his arrival to celebrate a "mass" at a stadium in New Delhi, India, John Paul II receives a "blessing" from a Hindu religious woman for protection from their demon "gods." 

The True Church teaches: "Far be it from us that we should forsake the Lord to serve other gods," (Joshua 24:16).

• Under Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI), The "Pontifical Council For Interreligious Dialogue" wrote in 2007: "As Diwali approaches, your religious feast, I am sure all of you in your respective families, neighborhoods and communities will be taking time to share your joy with one another. On behalf of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue I am happy to have this opportunity, for the first time since taking office, to send you my greetings. Sensitive to your religious feelings and respectful of your ancient religious tradition, I sincerely hope that your search for the Divine, symbolized through the celebration of Diwali, will help you to overcome darkness with light, untruth with truth and evil with goodness." (Emphasis mine)

"Diwali" is the pagan Hindu festival of lights celebrated in autumn each year (October 20, this year of 2025). It symbolizes the victory of "light over darkness." Yet the light of Christ has no place in their demonic religion. "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14). 

• Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis) "canonized" Wojtyla ("Pope" John Paul II). 

"Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. " (Isaiah 5: 20). 

I shudder to think what Bergoglio's successor as leader of the Vatican II sect will do.

Conclusion

The Vatican II sect has welcomed pagan pantheism into the world. It even bases their spirituality on these pagan meditation practices. Zen is growing ever more popular and expanding its influence on our culture of the formerly Christian West. The problem lies (where else?) at the doorstep of the Robber Council and its false teachings and equally false popes. 

Traditionalists must stay strong by attending the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, receiving Holy Communion often, going to Confession, and praying the Rosary in Christian mediation. To "be Zen" is to be pagan and open oneself to demons.