The Pharmacist Who Peddles Subtle Poison

According to AFP: "Pope Francis on Sunday advised Catholics to take a special dose of spiritual medicine, offering some 20,000 boxes of "mercy" -- containing rosaries -- to pilgrims in St Peter's Square."  The story continues, "I now want to suggest a medicine. 'What?' you ask, 'the pope is now a pharmacist?'" Francis said, shaking a box resembling a pack of tablets, after reciting the traditional Sunday Angelus prayer from a window overlooking the square. Labelled "Misericordina, 59 Beads for the Heart" and emblazoned with an image of the human heart, the box contains a rosary and instructions in several languages."Can be used once a day, but in case of emergency can be taken as much as the soul needs," the instruction leaflet says, adding: "The dose is the same for adults and children."The unusual medicine box was inspired by followers of Polish nun Mary Faustina Kowalska, who was made a saint in 2000 and is known as the Apostle of Divine Mercy, according to the Italian news agency ANSA. "Don't forget to take your medicine, because it is good for the heart, the soul, the whole life," the pontiff said.

 I can already hear the usual suspects extolling the wonders of Antipope Francis. The SSPX, Michael Voris, Christopher Ferrara, "Fr" Nicholas Gruner, "Fr" Z, and the rest of the knee-jerk Vatican II apologists will use this story to "prove" how traditional and wonderful Francis really is; how his interviews were "misunderstood" because he has such great devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Some of you may be thinking, "Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day, so why berate Francis for promoting devotion to the Most Holy Rosary?" Just like rat poison, Modernists will give you something 99% ok in order to kill you with the lethal 1%.

There are several things wrong with Frankie's heretical "medicine":

1. It was inspired by the late Sr. Mary Faustina Kowalska (a Vatican II sect "saint")and her "Divine Mercy" apparitions which were CONDEMNED by the Holy Office in 1959. (See the excellent summary at Novus Ordo Watch http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/divine-mercy-condemned.htm

2. The Vatican II sect promotes a New Rosary, every bit as phony as the Novus Bogus "mass." It contains the Modernist "luminous mysteries" introduced by Antipope John Paul II in 2002. This destroys the link to the 150 Hail Marys representing the 150 psalms. This was NOT the form of the Rosary enjoined by the Blessed Mother. Indeed, one of the "luminous mysteries" is "his (sic--Christ's) proclamation of the Kingdom of God, with his (sic) call to conversion." As Pope Leo XIII taught:
"It is not dogmas of faith or doctrinal principles that the rosary offers to our meditation, but rather events to contemplate with one’s eyes and to remember, and these events presented with their circumstances of person, place, and time are thereby the better impressed upon our souls." (Encyclical Augustissimae Virginis September 12, 1897) The "proclamation of the Kingdom of God" is not a precise historical event like the Resurrection, but is imbued (like the other luminous mysteries) with the Modernist theology of Vatican II. The "Kingdom of God"  for Modernists is seen as humanity taken as a whole.

3. When will Frankie's followers get to pray the New Rosary? Certainly not during the "touchy-feely," banter-back-and-forth, Novus Bogus bread and wine service which the Vatican II sect sometimes still calls "mass." The "active participation" makes recitation of prayers and meditation on the things of God virtually impossible.

4.  The Rosary always has a Crucifix at the end, to remind us that it derives its efficacy from Christ's Sacrifice of the Cross. That efficacy in the Vatican II sect has been cut off, as the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass has been replaced with a false religion and an invalid "mass."

5. Typical of a Modernist, Frankie will talk out of both sides of his mouth. Rosaries are "pelagian" (a heresy) but they're also "good for the heart, the soul, the whole life." (For a wonderful expose on the "counting Rosaries is Pelagian" debacle, please see Novus Ordo Watch http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-counting-rosaries.htm)

 So we can now see the false and lying devotion to Mary being dished out by Antipope Francis as "medicine."  It's a prescription for spiritual suicide.

Can A Traditionalist Attend Mass At SSPX?

 Several Traditionalists, including one who commented on my last post, have asked my opinion as to whether or not attendance at the Mass at a Chapel of the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) is permissible. I write this post with the proviso that this is only my opinion based on my reasoning concerning the facts at hand and Traditional Roman Catholic principles. I am not a theologian, nor have I ever claimed to be one. Neither I, nor anyone else, can answer questions such as this one with authority. This is an area where reasonable Traditionalists can disagree since there is currently no hierarchy with Ordinary jurisdiction, because of the defection of the hierarchy following Vatican II. I hope and pray that Christ will lead us all to the right conclusions in areas where there are no clear answers in an era of unprecedented apostasy and confusion. In the days before the death of Pope Pius XII, you could always ask the Supreme Pontiff for a definitive answer to any query concerning our Faith, but we are now in a time of sedevacante.  With that said, I will outline my thoughts on the subject.

Always Evaluate the Particular Priest(s) Who Function At The Church/Chapel

 



Do NOT be concerned with the Traditionalist group (if any) to which they belong. Being a member of a Traditionalist group does not mean that the individual priests all subscribe to the "party line" of the leadership. All my readers know that I call the SSPX "pseudo-Traditionalist" because they want to be with "Pope" Francis, yet think they can decide what they will and will not accept from him, and that is simply not Catholic. I also recognize that many SSPX priests have not/do not adhere to this principle of the official leaders. Therefore, find out about the priest himself, and not the organization. There are basically three groups that run Traditionalist Churches and Chapels; The Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI), and independent Bishops and Priests. The SSPV and CMRI are both sedevacantist--the CMRI is declared as such and the SSPV is "open" to sedevacantism. As I attend the SSPV, I know all the priests (with one possible exception), and both Bishops are sedevacantists.

 It is only in embracing sedevacantism that we will avoid the pitfalls of being drawn into Modernism and someday bring back a real pope with an imperfect General Council. Therefore, what principles should be employed when evaluating a priest who runs a Traditionalist Church/Chapel?

1. You should always attend the Mass and receive the sacraments from a sedevacantist priest or Bishop, if at all possible.

   If you are lucky enough to be near a sedevacantist Church or Chapel, that is where you belong. You do not want to have the name of Antipope Francis in the Sacred Canon of the Mass. I have great respect for Fr. Anthony Cekada, who has written an excellent article "The Grain of Incense" available at www.traditionalmass.org. However, I do NOT accept his conclusion that it is an objective sin to attend a True Mass where the name of the antipope is used in the Canon. I agree with the CMRI that since no abjuration of heresy is required on the part of a SSPX priest who becomes a sedevacantist, holding the mistaken notion that Francis could somehow be the pope is not in and of itself heretical, AS LONG AS HE REJECTS VATICAN II AND ITS ERRORS. He then maintains the Catholic Faith, although mistaken on the issue of the identity of the pope. Therefore, if there is no other option, you may attend the Mass of a Traditionalist priest who inserts the name of Antipope Francis in the Mass and receive the sacraments from him. If something is not objectively heretical, although not ideal, it can not be sinful.

2. You must NEVER attend a Church or Chapel in actual union with Modernist Rome.

 

Avoid like the plague the Fraternal Society of St Peter (FSSP), and any other so-called "indult" or "Motu" organization which accepts Francis not merely in theory but in actual fact. Being in union with Francis means they must accept the legitimacy of Vatican II and its heretical teachings. To go there would be to accept the errors, like attending the services of the Greek Orthodox or Protestants.

 

   3. Make sure the priest has valid orders.

 

In the case of the above mentioned Modernist-sanctioned chapels and churches, most have invalidly ordained priests over and above the problem of union with heresy. You must be sure to have a real priest to avoid worshiping mere bread in an invalid Mass. In the case of the SSPV and CMRI, all are validly ordained. In the case of independents, ask who ordained them.  If they were ordained pre-1968, or by Abp. Lefebvre (and his lineage), Abp. Thuc (and his lineage), or Bishop Mendez (and his lineage), you are dealing with a properly trained and validly ordained priest. In the SSPX, you must ask if he was ordained by Abp. Lefebvre, or one of the four Bishops he consecrated, and that the Traditional Rite of ordination was used. The SSPX has been letting Vatican II sect "priests" join without getting a conditional re-ordination! They are invalid and all the sacraments they attempt to confect (except for baptism and matrimony) are invalid as well. Once, at the request of the candidate, Abp. Lefebvre used the new rite of ordination, which means he left the ceremony as just a deacon. Be sure of which Bishop ordained him and that the Traditional Rite was used. N.B. Those independents who are ordained by the "Old Catholic" sect "bishops" are dubiously ordained, as there are problems with their orders in America. You must not go to priests so ordained!!

 

 

4. The priest must accept Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB).

 

 Ask if he rejects the heresy of  Fr. Leonard Feeney, who denied BOD and BOB. The priest must accept this doctrine as explained by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII or you must not attend.

 

 

5.  He must expressly reject Vatican II's heresies

 

 

  Ask him if he rejects, as alien to the Divine and Catholic Faith, Vatican II's teachings on ecumenism, collegiality, etc. If he claims that Vatican II contains no heresy, but was merely "misinterpreted" or that Vatican II was only "pastoral" and such teachings are "not binding" you must press the issue and ask him if he rejects those "misinterpreted" or "non-binding" teachings. If he doesn't, he's in heresy.

 

 

6. Priests that use the Missal of 1954 are preferred over those that use the Missal of 1958. Those who use the Missal of 1958 are preferred over those who use the Missal of 1962.

 

 

The SSPV uses the 1954 Missal, with the calendar and rubrics of 1954, before the pre-Vatican II changes that were inspired by men who wished to further the Modernist agenda. Not heretical in and of themselves, the changes of Pope Pius XII in the calendar and rubrics were used by duplicitous individuals to get the faithful used to change. Thus 1954 is superior to the 1958 Missal used by the CMRI. The SSPX uses the rubrics and calendar of Roncalli (John XXIII), but some keep parts of his changes out and do not recite the name of St. Joseph in the Sacred Canon as added by John XXIII.

 

 

Summary and Conclusion

• Judge the priest(s) theological positions, not the organization.
• Always attend the Mass of a Traditionalist sedevacantist priest whenever feasible. (Some SSPX priests are "crypto-sedevacantists" who can't say what they believe or face expulsion).
• Ask the priest the name of his ordaining Bishop, and if the Traditional Rite of ordination was used to make sure he is a valid priest.
• NEVER attend the Mass of a "priest" who is in union with the Modernist Vatican (even if validly ordained).
• Ask if he rejects the errors of Vatican II (he must or he is a heretic)
• Ask if he accepts BOD and BOB (he must or he is a heretic)
• Ask what Missal he uses. 1954 is best, then 1958, then 1962.
• Any priest who refuses to answer such questions has something to hide and must be avoided at all costs.

Using these principles, if there is no option for you except an SSPX chapel, you may attend provided he rejects Vatican II's errors in principle and was validly ordained in the Traditional Rite. All SSPX priests are taught to reject the Feenyite heresy and they use the 1962 Missal with some pre-1962 rubrics. I know there are those who will disagree with my positions on the validity of Thuc Bishops and attending the so-called "una cum" Mass (using the name of Francis in the Canon). However, I am comfortable before God with the positions I have taken and conclusion I have drawn. I hope this helps Traditionalists in deciding where to attend Mass and receive the sacraments.

 

Remember too, that you should be strong in the Faith. Do not let the position of the SSPX on the "pope" make you soft. Rather, use it as an opportunity to forge friendships and influence others in that chapel (including the priest) to re-think their position on Francis with some well placed questions. In so doing you might get others to reject Antipope Francis and further expose his sect of darkness. Deo gratias.  

 

 

Intentionally Deceived Into Becoming Disciples of Hell

 I must say I was surprised to see a comment left on my last post of 11/8/13, by a Vatican II sect author I had cited. The comment was from Ms. Sherry Weddell author of the 2012 book entitled Forming Intentional Disciples: The Path To Knowing and Following Jesus. I had used her statistic that only 60% of Vatican II sect members who attend the Novus Bogus bread and wine service believe in a personal God. I reproduce here the "clarification" she left on my post:

"No. What I wrote is that according to the Pew Forum's 2008 US Religious Landscape, only 60% of all American Catholics of any age and attending any liturgy, practicing or non-practicing, believe in a personal God. Sherry Weddell."

 I can't understand how an intelligent woman fails to grasp what I wrote. Ms. Weddell should know from reading the post, and looking at my blog, that I am a  Traditionalist sedevacantist, (i.e. A True Catholic who realizes that Vatican II has taught heresy. Pre-Vatican II theologians always taught that the pope, as an individual, could fall into heresy and would immediately lose the pontificate. This is exactly what has happened in the wake of Vatican II and its six false "popes").  Those who adhere to Vatican II and its bogus hierarchy are NOT CATHOLIC. They belong to a man-made religion formed from the heresy of Modernism condemned in 1907 by Pope St. Pius X. This Vatican II sect occupies the former Vatican and its various buildings and institutions.

"American Catholics" is a term for the members of the Vatican II sect who don't merely reside in America, but are also infested with the manifold materialism and moral perversions that pervade our current society. Juxtapose this with "Roman Catholics who live in America." That phrase describes what's left of the True Church in Traditionalist sedevacantist Churches and Chapels. So, Ms. Weddell is talking about 40% of all members of the Vatican II sect of any age and "attending any liturgy" who deny the existence of a personal God. Here she must think that Traditionalists are concerned with the "Latin Mass." The problem is not the "liturgy" it's the loss of the True Faith and Morals brought about by Vatican II. Whether the Novus Bogus, or the "Extraordinary Rite," which is the Modernist tainted 1962 Missal with further heretical additions made by Ratzinger, they are equally imbued with all the errors of Vatican II. The Novus Bogus is always invalid, and the "Extraordinary" mess is usually invalid, as they are offered by invalidly ordained "priests" of the new rite of ordination (1968-present). Whether practicing or not, the lack of God's grace given in the True Mass and Sacraments in the True Faith, is what has caused the collapse of belief in a personal God.

 If Ms. Weddell had a survey of Traditionalists (whether of the Society of St Pius V, CMRI, or independent sedevacantist priests), she would see that we go to great lengths and hardships to attend the True Mass because we have the True Catholic Faith--whole and entire. The Catholic Faith which infallibly taught at the First Vatican Council:

1. If anyone denies the one true God, creator and lord of things visible and invisible: let him be anathema.

2. If anyone is so bold as to assert that there exists nothing besides matter: let him be anathema.

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

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


5. If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

 We Traditionalists ALL believe in a personal God and every other divinely revealed Truth of the Divine and Catholic Faith!!  Please read my fist post in 2010, to see my definition of what it means to be a Traditionalist. We are not the "Indult" or "Motu" organizations within the Vatican's heretical organization and falsely claiming the title "Traditionalist."

 
I thereby stand by what I wrote--with the additional comment that the Vatican II sect members have their faith robbed even when not attending a Modernist so-called liturgy.

Ms. Weddell's book is Modernism on steroids. It's a product of the "feel good religion." As I explained in my last post, Modernism seeks to reduce Faith from an act of the intellect adhering to unchanging Truth based on the authority of God, to warm and fuzzy feelings that want a "nice, nice, sweet, sweet" Christ. One that doesn't obsess over the murder of unborn children, or perverts raising children. A syrupy Christ who condemns nothing and whose "vicar" tells us "Who am I to judge?" This is the same pseudo-faith that is responsible for these other stats from the book:

Only 30 percent of Americans who were raised Catholic are still practicing.

Fully 10 percent of all adults in America are ex-Catholics.

The number of marriages celebrated in the Church decreased dramatically, by nearly 60 percent, between 1972 and 2010.

 What's Weddell's answer to this mess? One Mr. Jonathan Sullivan captures it well in an Amazon.com review:
Weddell begins with a review of the data that should be familiar to all of us: decreasing Mass attendance, Catholics leaving the Church for Protestant communities, and a general "disengagement" from the life of the parish by many of the faithful. But she doesn't just leave us with cold, hard facts. Thanks to her work with parishes across the country Weddell is also able to weave compelling anecdotes that put a human face on the crisis. Most surprising to me were the number of people who have left the Catholic Church not because they were failing to moving closer to Christ but because, as they more fully embraced their call to discipleship, they had no one in their parishes to support them or who understood the sudden fire that had been lit in them. That the Church is losing both unengaged and highly motivated members -- leaking from both ends, as it were -- should alarm all of us.

Let me see if I've got this correct--no further clarifications necessary---people are leaving the sect that claims to be the One True Church not because they fail to get closer to Christ, but because there was no one to "support" their "inner fire." Right. This lunacy comes from the heretical Vatican II declaration on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio paragraph #3

 For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them (protestant sects--Introibo Ad Altare Dei) as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Protestant sects a "means of salvation"?? Compare the teaching of the True Popes:

Pope Leo XIII

[Encyclical Satis cognitum, June 29, 1896]

The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same forever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ the Lord — leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition. “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church,and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ...He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation.” (St.Augustine, Sermo CCLXVII, no. 4)

 

 Pope LEO XIII

[Encyclical Tametsi, November 1, 1900]

Consequently, all those who wish to reach salvation outside the Church, are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a vain effort. 

 Pope LEO XIII

[Allocution for the 25th anniversary of his election,February 20, 1903]

This is our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate. 

Pope ST. PIUS X

[Letter Ex quo, nono labente, November 26, 1910,to the Apostolic delegates of the Orient]

And may God, the author and lover of peace, in whose power are the times and moments, hasten the day when the peoples of the Orient with return to Catholic unity, and, once more united to the Apostolic See, repudiating their error, will enter the port of eternal salvation.

 

Heretical and schismatics sects are not a means of salvation, and those who adhere to them have no hope of heaven, unless they are excused from fault because of invincible ignorance. Therefore the teaching of Vatican II, that non-Catholic religions are a means of salvation, is heretical, since it is absolutely contrary to Catholic teaching.

However, Ms. Weddell will assure us that the answer to the ills that face her sect is a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ." Can everybody say "Amen" my "born-again" Protestant brothers and sisters? Once more, faith is reduced to "feelings", "encounters", "walking with Jesus in the journey of Faith" and other sentiments. These sentiments can even send someone outside the Church to have their needs met because they had no one in the parish to help them, and they can just as easily be saved there as in any other religion, or at least those claiming to be "Christian." But to be "Catholic" is best, so let's emulate Protestants even more to retain and bring in members; and who cares about True Faith and Morals? Just tell everyone "The Great Story of Jesus" and we can dispense with all those pesky dogmas and "thou shalt nots."

 

Jesus Christ would never send someone out of the Ark of Salvation, for "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus). Whatever spirit is involved in Ms. Weddell's making disciples, it is not the Holy Ghost. A True Catholic has his meeting with Christ when receiving Him Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in True Holy Communion, and becoming as close as possible to Him this side of Heaven.

 

It is my hope that Ms. Weddell and her Vatican II sect members see the errors of their ways and convert to the True Church of Christ. The answer to what ails the world is not another variation of Protestant, feel good ecumenism. To have a Real Encounter with Christ, you must belong to His Church, the Traditionalist Catholic Church. That is the only place these deceived "disciples" will find the Way, the Truth, and the Life apart from a happy go lucky path of shortcuts, lies, and eternal death in Hell.

 

 

Is It Moral? Let's Have A Show Of Hands Please

 Antipope Francis has sent out a survey to the so-called "Catholic bishops" to see how once Catholic parishes deal with the moral abominations that plague our post-Vatican II world. These horrors include single mothers, sodomite "marriages" (that often result in adoption), surrogate motherhood, adultery in the form of divorce and remarriage, interfaith marriages, and "forms of feminism hostile to the Church." (I got a laugh out of the last one. It's much akin to lamenting "forms of National Socialism hostile to Jews").

•  Why do we need a survey? Isn't Frankie the "pope" and the pontiff should lead? No! The logical outgrowth of Vatican II's collegiality is the "Bishop of Rome"--as Bergoglio calls himself---is a "first among equals", like in the schismatic/heretical Eastern Orthodox. Frankie has said his sect will no longer be "Vatican-centric," which is a denial of the monarchical constitution of Christ's Mystical Body, the One True Church.

 This is the Modernist heresy of church leaders following the "truths" given by the "People of God" which springs from some inner experience of the divine and expressed as "vox populi, vox Dei." Speaking with his Modernist forked tongue, Frankie will seemingly contradict himself, so "conservatives" can put an orthodox spin on his heresy while he advances the Modernist agenda.
 Some pertinent examples:

• What can be done pastorally in the light of transmitting the faith for practicing sodomites who have married and have adopted children, asks the survey. What indeed? Sounds compassionate, but how can those who spit in the face of God and trash the Natural Law do anything before they repent and lead chaste lives? Children will be confused enough without anything less than an uncompromising message that the lifestyle is WRONG!

•  The survey questions how to "support" divorced and remarried adulterers on their "journey of faith" while the Modernist Vatican reaffirmed the ban on "communion" for such people after the infamous interviews given by Bergoglio.

• It bemoans the fact that marriage is seen as "provisional," yet Antipope Francis wants to make it even easier to get a phony "annulment" on exactly that basis.

  Recent polling shows that only 34% of the members in the Vatican II sect consider homosexual behavior to be morally wrong. According to Sherry Weddell, in her book, Forming Intentional Disciples: the Path to Knowing and Following Jesus, only 60% of Vatican II members who regularly attend the Novus Bogus bread and wine service believe in a personal God!!

Pope St. Pius X knew that Modernism leads logically to atheism. The saintly Pontiff explained it well in his famous encyclical Pascendi Domenici Gregis, in paragraph #6:

. We begin, then, with the philosopher. Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is commonly called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognizing His existence, even by means of visible things. From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject. Given these premises, everyone will at once perceive what becomes of Natural Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external revelation. The modernists simply sweep them entirely aside; they include them in Intellectualism, which they denounce as a system which is ridiculous and long since defunct. Nor does the fact that the Church has formally condemned these portentous errors exercise the slightest restraint upon them. Yet the Vatican Council has defined, "If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made, let him be anathema"; and also, "If anyone says that it is not possible or not expedient that man be taught, through the medium of divine revelation, about God and the worship to be paid Him, let him be anathema''; and finally, "If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men should be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal experience or by private inspiration, let him be anathema." It may be asked, in what way do the Modernists contrive to make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial; and consequently, by what legitimate process of reasoning, they proceed from the fact of ignorance as to whether God has in fact intervened in the history of the human race or not, to explain this history, leaving God out altogether, as if He really had not intervened. Let him answer who can. Yet it is a fixed and established principle among them that both science and history must be atheistic: and within their boundaries there is room for nothing but phenomena; God and all that is divine are utterly excluded. We shall soon see clearly what, as a consequence of this most absurd teaching, must be held touching the most sacred Person of Christ, and the mysteries of His life and death, and of His Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven.

 Without God, Antipope Francis will decide moral issues by popular survey in a religion that is devoid of God's grace and Truth. The people go on the path to perdition, and Frankie will cheer them on, giving approbation to their wicked desires. We are witnessing the geometric growth in the acceptance of homosexuality into law. Once Catholic Belgium is considering legalizing euthanasia for children, while Bergoglio condemns youth unemployment and the loneliness of the elderly as the "greatest evils" on Earth.

For those in the Vatican II sect, don't take the survey. Vote with your feet and get out now. Come to the Traditionalist Catholic Church---what's left of the once Roman Catholic Church---and cast the vote which could one day make you one of the elect.

10,000 Times Zero Is Still Nothing

Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), has recently declared that Jorge Bergoglio (i.e. Antipope Francis) is “a genuine modernist” who has made the “disaster” of the Church crisis “10,000 times worse.” Bp. Fellay and the SSPX are not sedevacantists. They believe Frankie is the pope, yet they go so far as to declare him a Modernist. Modernists are heretics, and as all pre-Vatican II theologians teach us: a heretic can't be pope.  But the SSPX will continue to jump through hoops, doing the mental gymnastics necessary to try and delude themselves that someone they call a "genuine Modernist" is still Catholic and the pope.

The SSPX recently published a post entitled, "Pope not Modernist says Modernist." In the post, they lament "Cardinal" Pell of Australia's defense of Frankie. They quote Pell as saying in response to Fellay's charge that Frankie is a Modernist: "To put it politely, I think that’s absolute rubbish! Francis said he’s a loyal son of the Church, and his record shows that. He’s very, very concerned for the day-to-day life of the people, and for those who are suffering, those not well off and those in difficult situations. He’s a completely faithful exponent of Christ’s teaching and the Church’s tradition."

I'm not sure what alternate universe Pell is from-- but here, where the sky is blue, Bergoglio is an apostate. The SSPX then states, "Cardinal Pell’s supportive words for Pope Francis are both interesting and contradictory. For it reveals that His Eminence does not grasp what Modernism truly is, nor recognizes that he is also infected with its errors." Headline: Pot Calls Kettle Black. The SSPX is both supportive of "Pope" Francis being the Vicar of Christ on Earth and contradictory in maintaining that an avowed Modernist can be pope and give evil to the Church in doctrine, morals, and discipline. The SSPX and their "blind-leading the blind" leader, Bp. Fellay don't recognize they are infected with the error of wanting some unity with a heretic. They don't grasp the Church's teaching on heresy and automatic loss of office.

The post goes on to relate what took place at a debate last year when Pell met infamous atheist Richard Dawkins. Pell called Genesis a myth, and then, after the example of Frankie, declared atheists can "certainly" attain Heaven. The SSPX gives citations to prove all this is Modernist heresy. They are correct. But the million dollar question is this: Why can't/don't/won't they cite to some of these authorities:

From a commentary on the 1983 Vatican II sect Code of Canon Law, "

Classical canonists discussed the question of whether a pope,in his private or personal opinions, could go into heresy, apostasy,or schism. If he were to do so in a notoriously and widely publicized manner, he would break communion, and according to an accepted opinion, lose his office ipso facto. (c. 194 §1, 2º ). Since no one can judge the pope (c.1404), no one could depose a pope for such crimes, and the authors are divided as to how his loss of office would be declared in such a way that a vacancy could then be filled by a new election. [J. Corridan et al., eds., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America (New York:Paulist 1985), c. 333.]

Or this from the great theologian and 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.”Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232


I won't beat the point to death, but if Bergoglio is a heretic, he's not Catholic. How can someone non-Catholic be the Visible Head of the Catholic Church? The teaching of the Church Herself will make it clear the he loses his authority ipso facto by Divine Law. Yet the SSPX will declare Bergoglio both a heretic and pope in the same sentence!

Equally disturbing is Bp. Fellay's remark that their "Modernist Pope" (an oxymoron of the same order as being a "Square Circle") has made the "disaster" "10,000 times worse." The SSPX tells their members not to go to the Vatican II sect because it's so bad. Modernist Rome has indeed abandoned the One True Faith. It was replaced with a false faith, false moral code, and phony sacraments. In a word, they are completely bereft of Catholicism. Vatican II has left zero of the One True Church. Once you get to zero, and multiply by 10,000, how are you any worse off?

The SSPX has all the right figures, but they still can't do the math.

 

Antipope Francis Is Guilty Of Many Things; But Not Of Being Catholic

The National Catholic (sic) Reporter (NCR) has an article written by one Eugene Cullen Kennedy entitled, "Pope Francis is guilty of being a Christian." Anyone familiar with NCR knows that its the apex of Modernism and the zenith of cheerleading for the Vatican II sect. Their definition of "Christian" is tenuous at best. Note well, that Modernists hate using the word "Catholic" and will substitute "Christian" at every opportunity as their sign of reverence to the god of ecumenism. So why, you may ask, is Frankie "guilty of being a Christian?" The answer should be obvious: Traditionalists reject him and his errors! The article will be reproduced below with my comments in red.


I never did quite believe that the "age of revelation" ended with the death of the last surviving apostle. We experience revelations every day, sometimes when it is both so great and yet so utterly human that we feel caught up in the mysterium tremendum et fascinans, the great and engulfing mystery of everyday faith.

The only "fearful and fascinating mystery" is how someone can write this in a paper containing the word "Catholic" in its title. CONDEMNED:Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.( Pope St. Pius X,  Lamentabili Sane, 1907).


That occurred on 9/11 when, for the first time on a large scale, we learned what people do when they know they are going to die. They do not wail or rend their garments, nor do they recite the creed or sign hurriedly on to any specific teaching they were to hold onto under pain of mortal sin that stamps your visa for eternal punishment.

Nor do those suddenly facing death experience "celestial flights" or other out-of-body phenomena that are sold as indulgences in the great evangelical marketplace, as they once were in St. Peter's Square. Those confronted by imminent death find their minds cleared, as the temple once was by Jesus, of such religious trivia.

And the author knows this---how? Living in New York and having a friend from Church (a NYC Fireman) die on 9/11, as well as knowing other victims and survivors personally, I am unaware of any research, study or first hand information that would support Kennedy's contention that no one held to specific religious doctrines in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Notice too, how he compares the dogmas of the Faith to "trivia" such as the statistics of a person's favorite football team.

9/11 revealed that those about to die do not seem afraid or plead for forgiveness for their sins, if they think about them at all. They all have one thing in mind -- those they love -- and they all do the same thing: They call them up -- spouses, family or friends -- to tell them they love them. This is so obviously the first thing in their lives that they do not think at all about the last things -- death, judgment, heaven or hell -- ballyhooed by generations of preachers as subjects we will be quizzed on in the SATs we must pass before the Last Judgment.

Again, Kennedy assumes as facts unproven assertions. I know one survivor of 9/11 who clearly and continuously had God in mind and prayed for help and forgiveness even as she thought of her son. Let's all pray for the grace of Final Perseverance and the grace of the Last Rites (along with perfect contrition) before we depart this life.

Pope Francis seems to understand all this: He speaks of Christian faith not as a bound volume of dogma but as a "love story"; he rides the bus after the conclave at which he was elected and pays his hotel bill, as the saying so well expresses it, "like any ordinary person."
That Pope Francis understands that the mystery of faith has an ordinary face perplexes some Catholics and, according to reports, moves others to complain about him. Francis irritates them by speaking to the world rather than just to the church as his predecessors did, and those who miss Benedict XVI "desperately," as one of them put it, feel challenged by Francis to view the world in the direct way that he does.

When Ratzinger looks orthodox in comparison to Frankie, what irritates anyone with an iota of Catholicism left, is his utter contempt for the One True Church.


In a Washington Post article, "Conservative Catholics Question Pope Francis's Approach," writers Michelle Boorstein and Elizabeth Tenety explore some of the papal discontents of traditionalist Catholics. Their concern began when the new pope "told non-Catholic and atheist journalists he would bless them silently out of respect." They were also upset when "he eschewed Vatican practice and included women in a foot-washing ceremony."

"traditionalist (sic) Catholics" are not here meant as Sedevacantists who are the True Catholics, but anyone holding some Catholic sensibilities. To "respect" the denial of God Himself is blasphemous.


They have also been alarmed by his urging Catholics not to be obsessed with just a few issues, saying they should see these teachings, including those on certain sexual matters, "in context"; that is, in relationship to the Gospel basics. You could hear their resonations in Francis' telling journalists on the flight home from Rio de Janeiro for World Youth Day that it was not his role to judge gays "if they accept the Lord and have good will."
"Behind the growing skepticism," the article continues, "is the fear in some quarters that Francis's all-embracing style and spontaneous speech ... are undoing decades of church efforts to speak clearly on Catholic teachings."
Indeed, the True Church always spoke clearly. It was the heresy ushered in at Vatican II that caused any "effort" in trying to make the false seem to be True.


Family counselor and radio adviser Gregory Popcak is from Ohio, but he might as well come from New Orleans because of the betrayed lover feeling with which he sings the traditionalist blues. He told the Washington Post he was sent into deep prayer "after several clients used Francis's public words to push back on Popcak when he explained church teachings on sex and love." Did he teach, as do traditionalists who envision the path to salvation as a tightrope walk across the Grand Canyon on a windy day, that failure to renounce the sexual feelings that enter uninvited into people's imaginations are always a mortal sin when in reality, they are homely evidence of our being ordinary, garden-variety humans?

The "Traditionalist blues" lament the departure of Catholicism from our once holy churches. This beats singing "Michael Row The Boat Ashore" while the Vatican II ship is sinking into the abyss. Christ told us that the road to Heaven is "narrow" and many travel the wide path to Hell. (See St. Matthew 7: 13-14). Thoughts that enter "uninvited" are NOT sinful unless and until willfully entertained.  "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart." (St. Matthew 5:28).

At first, Popcak reacted to Francis by feeling "frustrated, then ashamed," the Post says, but in a separate online essay, he identified himself in the story of the prodigal son as the "good kid who stayed behind, did everything his father told him to do" while "people who left the Church, who hated the Church ... were suddenly realizing that God loved them, that the Church welcomed them, and all I could do is feel bitter about it."
Let's see if we have this straight. Despite Jesus' telling his followers to welcome the lost sheep whose return would bring more joy in heaven than the 99 that did not go astray, Popcak and those for whom he speaks are irritated by a shepherd whose voice is heard and heeded by Catholics who, sometimes feeling fleeced rather than found by other pastors, slipped out of the sheepfold. Francis displeases the Popcak conservative by being the good shepherd whose message of acceptance and welcome would go unheard if he spoke only to those inside the church and not to the world at large.
Popcak is no Traditionalist. He should see that Frankie is a fraud. There's nothing wrong with inviting those outside the fold back in, BUT it must be on Christ's terms not their own. Homosexual? Who am I to judge? Go for it! Abortion? Don't worry! We "obsess" over millions of murdered children. Atheists can go to Heaven too, so don't worry about what you believe or what you do as long as YOU think it's OK. "Have your cake and eat it too" is the motto of Frankie the Fraud, inviting a world of sinners to remain in sin yet have "participation" in Frankenchurch--the Vatican II monster of ecumenism gone wild.

 

In short, traditionalists who prefer leaders who season their public utterances with a dash of masochism are dismayed to find that Pope Francis is a Christian who sees a suffering world spread out beyond St. Peter's Square and who understands the church not as an exclusive gated community of self-satisfied believers but as a field hospital that does not ask for a believer's ID card but takes in and cares for all those wounded by life.

Traditionalists claim that by such statements, Francis is undermining all the hard work his predecessors did to underline "Catholic identity" in a relativistic, secular world. But perhaps he is the first pope to which that outside world has given its attention for many decades. Perhaps that is why the European Parliament has invited Francis to address its members. The world, more suffering than sinning, turns toward Pope Francis as in a conversation people turn to the person who is making sense of things. Obedience, which that many traditionalists prefer so blind that you need a guide dog to follow it, comes from the Latin ob audire that means "to listen to." In the Scriptures, we read that the lost sheep recognize and respond to the voice of their shepherd. Something like that is occurring in the great world that hears Francis who disarms its nations, so to speak, because they find they do not have to raise their defenses against him. They want to hear what he has to say precisely because he is, as the traditionalists charge, guilty on all counts of being a Christian.

Once again, Frankie tells people what they want to hear, DON'T repent. Stay in sin, and "god" will love you as you are on your terms. Frankie is guilty of being an ecumenist not a "Christian." That appellation rightly belongs exclusively to the True followers of Christ--Traditionalist Catholics. The weight of the credible evidence is manifest to any juror that Jorge Begoglio is not guilty on the charge of being Catholic and acquitted of the charge of holding the office of pope.  

A Hands-On Application Of Sacramental Theology For The Culpably Ignorant

The blog "Pistrina Liturgica" (PL) is obsessed in their futile attempt to "prove" priestly ordination conferred with one hand to be "doubtful" and requiring conditional re-ordination. What this is really about concerns their near pathological hatred for Bishop Daniel Dolan (whom they insultingly refer to as "One Hand Dan" because of his alleged ordination with only one hand by Archbishop Levebvre) and Father Anthony Cekada (known as "The Blunderer" or "Bonehead" due to his alleged lack of learning and their unproven "erudition"). I have posted on this issue several times as I called them out to refute Fr. Cekada's article "The Validity of Ordination Conferred With One Hand" available at www.traditionalmass.org. (For the background, please see my posts of 4/22/13, 6/8/13, and 7/14/13).

 They failed miserably to refute Fr. Cekada's contention that one handed ordinations ARE VALID.
Now, after a self-imposed "hiatus" PL is back with an alleged refutation they will publish on-line. They want you, the Traditionalists reading it, to be the judge. Fair enough. This post will be my last word on the subject. I will lay down the points that must be directly proven and/or refuted for PL's case against one-handed ordinations to be successful. The latest post from them tells us nothing, except that the soon to be published "refutation" is going to be translated into French, Spanish, Italian, and German. It should really be made readily available in Braille, because there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. I can hardly wait to see the sophistry on parade. In this post of 10/17/13, PL informs us of an alleged "lively discussion with a very lucid 89-year-old Dominican in Milan, an erstwhile student at the Angelicum, who concurred that one-handed conferral of priestly orders was sufficiently dubious as to call for conditional ordination." Unless his identity is made known, and the citations he used to draw his conclusion fully discussed, this is a fallacious appeal to authority. An elderly Dominican whose identity and scholarship are unknown proves zilch. Also, I must ask, "Is he a Traditionalist?" If not, he's an apostate who clings to the Vatican II sect,  and obviously incapable of seeing pernicious heresy under his nose. Nevertheless, here are the principles and issues that must be addressed, and the principles will be enumerated first :

1. For every valid sacrament there must be:

•  proper matter (sensible signs, e.g. water for baptism)
• proper form (words that determine the form, e.g. THIS IS MY BODY over the bread at Mass to become the Holy Eucharist)
• proper administrator (e.g. priest for Extreme Unction, bishop for Holy Orders)
• proper intention (the one who administers the sacrament must intend to do what the Church does in the administration of the sacrament e.g., in Penance the priest must intend to absolve the penitent from sin)
• there must be no obex of the sacrament on the part of the recipient which renders the sacrament null and void (e.g., the female sex renders Holy Orders invalid).

2. For a sacrament to be deemed invalid on the grounds of the matter or the form, there must be a SUBSTANTIAL change.

"A substantial change takes place when in ordinary usage and prudent estimation the matter no longer remains of the same species and name as that determined in the sacrament (e.g. to use milk in baptizing)...A change is accidental when the matter remains the same in usage and name but altered in some accidental quality (e.g. to use leavened bread or a square host)." (See Halligan, Nicholas, The Administration of the Sacraments, (The Mercier Press) 1962, pg.8)

3. Sacraments conferred by a Catholic minister, including Holy Orders, must be presumed valid until invalidity is proved.

 

This is “the queen of presumptions, which holds the act or contract as valid, until invalidity is proved.” (F. Wanenmacher, Canonical Evidence in Marriage Cases, [Philadelphia: Dolphin 1935], 408.)

 

“When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed.” (W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.)

 

4. The Church can not change the substance of the sacraments

 

"It is well-known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the sacraments"--Pope St. Pius X, Ex Quo Nono 1910

 

 

"The Church is forbidden to change, or even touch, the matter or form of any Sacrament. She may indeed change or abolish or introduce something in the non-essential rites or "ceremonial" parts to be used in the administration of the Sacraments, such as the processions, prayers or hymns, before or after the actual words of the form are recited..." Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, 1896

 

"Theologian John de Torquemada declared (1) that the Church had no power over the matter and form of the sacraments and (2) that the sacraments must be the same in the whole Church, since 'the unity of the Church is necessarily founded in the unity of faith and the unity of sacraments, in what concerns the substance of the sacraments.' Pope Eugene IV immediately approved this language." (See Leeming, Bernard, Principles of Sacramental Theology (The Newman Press:1962), pg. 420).

 

 

 

THE PROBLEM:

 

At his priestly ordination of 1976, it is alleged that Archbishop Levebvre used only one hand to confer the priesthood. Bp. Dolan's orders are now called into question by PL.

 

 

 

 

ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED:

 

A) There is no positive proof that a one handed ordination ever took place.

 

• PL supplies no known witnesses who were at the ordination. We have only their word that these anonymous witnesses exist. There are no known signed, sworn declarations by anyone.
• There is no video or photographs to show a one handed ordination
• A letter signed by nine priests in 1990, asked Fr. Dolan to stop all priestly functions until he was conditionally re-ordained due to his alleged one handed ordination. These priests were not present and saw nothing. They also had an axe to grind with Dolan for leaving them. One has to wonder what motivates them to write the letter 14 YEARS later! It was never an issue while he was working with them.
• PL has a serious contradiction with which to contend. PL wrote "First-hand reports from former seminarians at Écône and Winona relate it was common knowledge that the '76 ordinations had been performed with one hand. At least one of these men, who later received his own priestly orders from one of the '76 ordinati, underwent conditional ordination as a safeguard against any future impeachment of his orders." It is clear that they contend that the ordinations (plural) were done with one hand. Bp. Richard Williamson was a member of that ordination class, yet PL does not impeach his orders or those subsequently ordained by him. In the comments section of the 9/1/13 post, "The Reader" states, "As for Bp. Williamson, we have no asseveration about his orders from the nine priests who signed the 1990 letter to "One Hand Dan," and therefore, what we cannot talk about we will pass over in silence." Really? What about the other alleged witnesses and the "common knowledge" that the ordinations were conferred with one hand? Now you claim your sole evidence is a letter written by priests who were not there?  Which is it? It's contradictory. One priest, Bp. Sanborn, retracted his name.
• The fact that Bp. Dolan did not publicly denounce the charge proves nothing. Nor does the fact that Fr. Cekada researched the issue. Neither ever claimed it happened. Lefebvre never denounced the assertion that his ordaining bishop was a Freemason, yet that does not prove he was one. This is the fallacious appeal to ignorance, i.e. "You can't prove one hand wasn't used, so it must be so."
  

It's clear that in the absence of clear and compelling evidence that one hand was used, it must be dismissed as false. (See principle # 3 above). If PL wants to prove its case they MUST:

Bring forth photographic and/or video proof of a one handed ordination, OR have signed sworn testimony by people whose identity is made public that they witnessed same. They must also clear up the confusion as to whether one hand was used on Dolan alone, or on everyone as PL made contradictory assertions. If it was on everyone that one hand was used, when will PL go after Bp. Williamson and those ordained by him, since they are motivated by their zeal for the salvation of souls and the greater glory of God (wink, wink).  If getting ordained with one hand were a crime, no jury in this nation could convict Bishop Dolan.

 

B) It must be proven that ordination with one hand to the priesthood and episcopacy is a substantial defect.

 

 

If the use of one hand is only accidental, the sacrament is valid--period. (See principle # 2 above). Yet "The Reader" at PL writes in the comments of the 7/17/13 post:"Besides, we have scrupulously avoided saying the defect is substantial, so your premise is wrong to begin with." Well if it's not substantial (or "essential" in the non-technical terminology they employ) WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM? You must think it MIGHT be substantial or there is no question of doubt.

 

Looking at the words Pope Pius XII used in Sacramentum Ordinis, defining the matter and form of Holy Orders: In paragraph #4 we read: "Wherefore, after invoking the divine light, We of Our Apostolic Authority and from certain knowledge declare, and as far as may be necessary decree and provide: that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands;.."(plural)

 

Pope Pius XII knew full well that ordination to the diaconate is given by the imposition of one HAND. Yet, he clearly places ordination to the diaconate alongside with ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy which employ both HANDS. This unambiguously shows that the phrase "imposition of HANDS" may refer to one OR two hands.

 

Theology manuals written by great pre-Vatican II theologians of the highest erudition and orthodoxy (and which were used by the Church to train Her priests) use "imposition of hands" to mean one or two hands. These theologians knew that the diaconate is conferred with one hand only, yet refer to it as an imposition of HANDS.

 

Examples: According to theologian Henry Davis, "The diaconate is more probably conferred by the imposition of HANDS of the ordaining bishop together with the Preface which is the form..." (See Davis, Henry Moral and Pastoral Theology, Volume IV (1935), pg. 15 Emphasis mine).

According to theologian Pohle, "The ordination rite for the diaconate contains only one imposition of HANDS..." and later, "According to all extant rituals the Holy Ghost is communicated when the bishop lays his HANDS upon a candidate to make him a deacon." (See Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments Volume IV (1924), pg 70, 104 Emphasis mine).

If PL is claiming a substantial difference between the use of one handed and two handed ordinations (and they MUST or their argument collapses), they must explain why Pope Pius XII put the diaconate in the same plural category as the priesthood and episcopacy. They must explain why theologians did the same. They must show that ordination as a DEACON would be dubious if two hands were employed (if there is a substantial difference, then using two hands for a deacon must be as dubious as a one handed ordination for a priest). They must cite to pre-Vatican II theologians who unequivocally declare one handed ordinations to the priesthood as dubious or invalid. Good luck, you'll be needing it.

 

 

C) It must be proven that one handed ordinations are valid in the Eastern Rites exclusively.

The Syrians, Copts, and Maronites all employ one hand to ordain priests and/or consecrate bishops. That means that one hand alone is the substance of the sacrament of Holy Orders. Remember principle # 4 above: the Church can not change the substance of the Sacraments. Pope Pius XII can define the matter, but he can't alter it so that one hand remains valid for the Eastern Rites, but two hands are necessary for the Latin Rite. Using one hand may be illicit (like using leavened bread for Mass), but never invalid. If there is a substantial difference between one and two handed ordinations, PL must answer (with citations) these queries:

If an Eastern Rite bishop ordained a Latin Rite candidate to the priesthood using the one-handed Eastern Rite of ordination, would it be invalid? Why?
Is it the subject (Latin Rite) who somehow possesses an obex due to Sacramentum Ordinis?
What if a Latin Rite bishop ordains according to the Eastern Rite using one hand? Is it invalid because he is a Latin Rite Bishop, or would it be valid only on a candidate of the Eastern Rite because he wouldn't have an obex?
How does Pope Pius have the authority to change the substance of the sacraments which Pope St. Pius X and Pope Leo XIII decreed can not be done?
Since Pope Pius XII defined the form of Holy Orders, does the use of a different form by the Eastern Rites make them invalid if employed by the Latin Rite? Why? Why not?

Conclusion

If PL can't refute and respond to everything above, their case is lost. You be the judge. I really can't wait for PL's refutation of Fr. Cekada's article to come out. I want to get a hard copy and put it in its rightful place---in between the latest issue of the National Enquirer and the Charmin.