Pushing Back The Time Of The Vacancy

  There are some sedevacantists that make the rest of us Traditionalists look bad. The world, in its ignorance, already sees us as  "strange." We dare to call attention to the fact (using solid Catholic theological principles) that there has been no pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, and Vatican Council II created a heretical sect that is not the Roman Catholic Church. There are, however, people who think that they can decide matters authoritatively and impose those beliefs on others. They don't merely attempt to expound Church teaching, they presume to invent it.

Many of my readers have problems with the Holy Week changes of Pope Pius XII, and even the mitigated Eucharistic Fast. If you want to say you prefer the pre-1955 legislation, that's fine (I prefer it too!). There are problems though for those who claim the changes are intrinsically evil. The Church is Indefectible and cannot give that which is evil or erroneous. The Holy Ghost would not permit the hand of Pope Pius XII to sign anything heretical or evil, unless he fell into heresy as a private individual prior to that and lost the pontificate. That implicitly moves back the time of the sedevacante. Some dare to explicitly declare Pope Pius XII an antipope, and some go back even further!

 Take the case of Richard Ibranyi, who used to be with Fred and Bobby Dimond. He set up his own little cult and decided (on his own authority, with zero ecclesiastical education and theological training) which popes were heretical and which were not. According to him, there has been no pope since 1130 AD! More common are those who put the time of sedevacante at the death of Pope St. Pius X in 1914 (not a saint for them since Pope Pius XII canonized him). One such individual is Mike Bizzaro (no, I'm not making a joke) who runs the website  http://www.gods-catholic-dogma.com.

 One of my readers in the comments of a prior post had asked me to expose him, and Mike sent a response saying all of my "followers" are going to Hell. His website is so bold as to state that if anyone thinks any other site is Catholic, e-mail him the link, and he'll tell you what's wrong! He knows with apodictic assurance that no one else has the Truth. I did a Google search and allegedly he runs the site along with one Victoria DePalma. (I cannot attest to the truth of Ms. DePalma's involvement, or Mike's last name, I'm going by what I found after he commented on my blog. He does not choose absolute anonymity as I do).

 I could write several posts over the next couple of months detailing all the incorrect teachings that are as far removed from Traditional Catholicism as you can get. However, I don't need to do so. The three-fold problem with Mr. Bizzaro is the same as that for Ibranyi, the Dimond brothers, Lionel Andrades, etc. First, they only accept defined dogmas and everything else is up for grabs. Second, the dogmas are interpreted, not by the approved theologians of the Church, but by them, as if they had Magisterial authority. Third, they are not qualified as theologians with the requisite education and training, and yet do not hesitate to condemn everyone else to Hell who doesn't agree with them. Pride goeth before the fall.

 I wanted to see why Mr. Bizzaro claims Popes Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII were false popes because of being heretics. On section 20, 20.1, and 20.2 of his labyrinth-like website, he gives the reasons. As I suspected, they are quotes purposefully pulled out of context to "prove" something he wants others to accept. He should look up the definition of calumny.  It's also no surprise that he (like Ibranyi, the Dimonds, and Andrades) is a Feeneyite. As I've written before, there's an old saying, "A proof-text taken out of context is a pretext." I can't go through all errors attributed to the three pontiffs he maligns, as it would take more than one post, but a sample of a couple of "heresies" from each pope will more than suffice to expose his lies.

Below is the dishonest "scholarship" of Mr. Bizzaro.

False Accusations Against Pope Benedict XV

 Mr. Bizzaro writes the following:

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Benedict XV" in ...
Pacem, Dei Munus Pulcherrimum, Para 21:

The heresy ...
"We humbly implore the Holy Ghost the Paraclete that He may graciously grant to the Church the gifts of unity and peace." 

 It's allegedly heresy because of the following:

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 18 Nov 1302 -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma > 
"Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and also Apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles (6:8) proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one'."

Note: "Benedict XV" is in violation of this dogmatic decree which states "the Church is One". Benedict XV is saying exactly the opposite, that the Church is still in need of oneness. 

Now, back to reality. Pope Benedict XV never even said what is attributed to him!  Pacem, Dei munus Pulcherrimum was written May 23, 1920. The quote in question is actually a quote Pope Benedict took from the Secret Prayer at Mass for the Feast of Corpus Christi. (See footnote 24 of the Encyclical, available online). The Church is infallible in Her disciplinary laws and Her liturgy. According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). Further, the encyclical is talking about peace and unity among the warring Christian Nations during World War One, when it was promulgated. It is not denying the "Church is One" as the Mystical Body of Christ.

The next "heresy":

The following statement by "Benedict-XV" in: Spiritus Paraclitus, Para 68: 
The heresy ...
"The voice of Jerome summons those Christian nations which have unhappily fallen away from Mother Church." 

Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Vatican Council of 1870, Pope Pius IX Session 2, Profession of Faith -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma >
"This true Catholic Faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear." 

Note: "Benedict XV" is in violation of this dogmatic citation by saying that heretic nations are "Christian" ... and by doing so implying that the heretics (in these heretic nations) might be getting to Heaven ... when they are not. 

Here, Bizzaro places a period in the middle of the sentence. It reads, "The voice of Jerome summons those Christian nations which have unhappily fallen away from Mother Church to turn once more to Her in whom lies all hope of eternal salvation.   Pope Benedict XV meant they were founded as Christian nations (not Moslem states, etc) and urges them to become Catholic because only in the True Church "lies all hope of eternal salvation." Sounds pretty Catholic to me. (Unless you end the sentence in the middle with a period and redact the other words I underlined).

False Accusations Against Pope Pius XI

Mr. Bizzaro writes the following:

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XI" in ...
Mortalium Animos, Para 2:
The heresy ...
"Founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life." 
  
Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Trent, Session 7, Baptism Section, Canon 8 -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma > 
"If anyone says that those baptized are free from all the precepts of holy Church, whether written or unwritten, so that they are not bound to observe them unless they should wish to submit to them of their own accord, let him be anathema." 

Note: "Pius XI" is in violation of this dogmatic decree in that he states that "differing in certain religious matters" is not a barrier to "agreeing as brethren" on other matters. This Canon 8 states the opposite, that religious differences causes one to be outside the Church and headed for Hell. Pius XI by stating that heretics may be seen "as brethren" contradicts this dogmatic statement which tells the truth about the pending damnation of all heretics.

Reality check. Bizzaro really did a number on this encyclical. Having stripped the sentence from the paragraph it appears to be saying heretics may be seen as brethren, when in fact, the encyclical actually condemns it.

Read paragraph #2 of Mortalium Animos in context:

"A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." (Emphasis mine to show how Bizzaro lifted the words out of context).

Notice he starts the sentence, fraudulently, with the word "founded." Pope Pius XI was talking about people who aim at "unity" founded on a belief...etc. What does Pope Pius XI say about those who do so? "Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule."

Next alleged "heresy":

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XI" in ...
Quas Primas, Para 18:
The heresy ...
"Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men." 

Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Pope Saint Leo the Great, Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Flavian section, 451 A.D. -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma; 
"For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. In other words, the Spirit of Sanctification and the Blood of Redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others." 

Note: "Pius XI" is in violation of this Source of Dogma which states that sanctification of the soul is inseparable from water baptism ... by which we enter the Catholic Church ... which alone is the empire of the Redeemer. Un-baptized pagans are not in the empire of the Redeemer so "Pius XI" is clearly lying again for the damnation of souls.

The encyclical has nothing to do with "water baptism" at all! It's talking about the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and it instituted the Feast of Christ the King. Immediately after the sentence Bizzaro quotes, he references His predecessor Pope Leo XIII, whom even Bizzaro acknowledges as pope. Here's what was actually written in context:

Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ." (citation to Pope Leo's encyclical Annum Sacrum, May 25, 1899). Bizzaro might want to push the time of sedevacante back to Pope Pius IX, before Pope Leo XIII.

False Accusations Against Pope Pius XII

 Bizzaro writes:

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XII" in ...
Anni Sacri, Para 14:
The heresy ...
"Let those who hold the government of state be persuaded that there is no more solid social foundation than Christian teaching and the safeguarding of religious liberty." 

Catholic corrections ... to the above heresy: 

Apostate anti-Pope "Pius XII" telling people to ... believe whatever they want (liberty) ... thus shoving them toward eternal Hell. 

Those who believe that there is such as thing as "religious liberty" ... are headed for Hell. 

Here, Bizzaro wants you to think Pope Pius XII was in favor of "religious liberty" where one religion is as good as another and Catholicism should not be the State religion as Vatican II heretically taught. Anni Sacri is about a program for combating atheistic propaganda throughout the world. Paragraph # 14 reads in full:

"Let the lies of the wicked be exposed by His light, let the surly arrogance of the proud be humbled, let the rich be led to justice, generosity and charity, let the poor and wretched take as their model the family of Nazareth, which also earned its bread through daily labor; finally, let those who hold the Government of State be persuaded that there is no more solid social foundation than Christian teaching and the safeguarding of religious liberty." Pius meant liberty for the Church based on Christian teaching.

Another alleged "heresy":

The following statement is by anti-Pope "Pius XII" in ...
Mystici Corporis, Para 103:
The heresy ...
"As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church."

Violates the following Dogmatic Decrees: 

Council of Florence, Session 11, Pope Eugene IV, 1442 A.D. -- Ex-Cathedra Dogma > 
"It (the Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Catholic Church before the end of their lives."

Note : "Pius XII" is saying the opposite of this dogmatic decree by Pope Eugene IV because this dogmatic statement clearly says that those who die outside of the Catholic Church will descend into Hell at the moment of death. For this statement of liar "Pius XII" to be true, Heaven would have to be "guiding" those who are outside the Catholic Church into Hell -- because that is where they are headed. This is, to say the least, completely ludicrous not to mention a spiritual impossibility since God or the Heavenly principalities cannot deceive or be deceived.

Once more Bizzaro lies to "prove" his calumny. The sentence reads thus: "As you know, Venerable Brethren, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly.

Once more he cuts off a sentence. The "example of the Good Shepherd" is to go looking for the "sheep that was lost" (Outside the Church), and bring him back to the fold (within the One True Church).

Conclusion

 Poor Mike Bizzaro and his lying, error-laden website "God's Catholic Dogma" is a sad example of what happens when laymen set themselves up as self-anointed "saviors." They will interpret Church teaching, not the approved theologians. They will even lie to make their point in some cases. And, of course, they tell you that you must "Follow me or burn in Hell." Please be careful when ascribing theological error. A preference for the old Holy Week Rites (pre-1955) does not make the Pope Pius XII Rites "evil" or "erroneous." To say otherwise can put you on the wrong track of pride and (God forbid) you start to set yourself up as a Magisterial authority. The day may come when one such person puts the time of sedevacante back to St. Peter himself. 

Time Off Purgatory

  In January of 2016, this incredible announcement was made, "A newly released document co-authored by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Christian Unity and the World Council of Churches promotes the upcoming January 18-25 ‘Week of Prayer for Christian Unity’ with the theme ‘Reconciliation: The love of Christ compels us.’

Encouraging commemorations in all dioceses of the world, the document notes the theme is drawn from the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. In 2017, it says, “Lutheran and Catholic Christians will for the first time commemorate together the beginning of the Reformation.” The text also states that “Catholics are now able to hear Luther’s challenge for the Church of today, recognizing him as a ‘witness to the gospel."
(See https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-catholics-now-recognize-martin-luther-as-a-witness-to-the-gospel).

So the heresiarch and apostate priest Martin Luther is a "witness to the Gospel" according to Bergoglio and his Vatican II sect. The 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Protestant "Reformation"which will be "celebrated" this year, began on October 31, 1517, when Luther nailed his so-called 95 theses on the door of All Saints' Church in Wittenberg, Germany. The full and proper name for the document is Disputatio pro declaratione virtutis indulgentiarum ("Disputation on the Power of Indulgences"). 

 Indulgences are a thing of the past for the Vatican II sect; after all, who needs them when everyone is assured of going straight to Heaven anyway? I doubt that most Vatican II sect members under the age of 40 even know what an indulgence is, including their malformed clergy. Surprisingly, there is still much that is misunderstood by Traditionalists about what indulgences are and how to make use of them--both for themselves and the Faithful departed. In this post I will set forth the teaching of the True Church regarding indulgences.

What is an Indulgence?

The word Indulgence is derived from Indulgere (Latin) which conveys the idea of sweetness in one's dealings with others. From the etymology, Indulgere could be applied to a mother's love for her child, the cancellation of a debtor's obligation by the creditor, or in this case, God's pardon of the repentant sinner.  The 1917 Code of Canon Law has this to say about indulgences in Canon 911, "Let all highly prize indulgences, or the remission of sin before God of the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven as to guilt, which remission the ecclesiastical authority grants out of the treasure of the Church, and applies to the living by way of absolution, to the departed by way of suffrage." 

 This definition in the Code has several factors to be examined:

• The negative element
• The positive element
• The value of indulgences and their source
• The gaining of an indulgence

Each factor will now be examined.

The Negative Element

 All actual sins impart a double wound on the soul. The first is called reatus culpae, which is the wound of guilt. This occurs when you turn away from God and towards creatures. As a result, you forfeit (either partially or completely) your divine friendship with God which consists in having sanctifying grace in your soul. Those unfortunate enough to incur mortal sin, turn totally away from God, lose sanctifying grace completely and are worthy of Hell. Those who commit venial sin, only partially turn their allegiance from God, and it lessens (but does not extinguish) sanctifying grace. Hence, those guilty of venial sin only are not worthy of Hell.

 The second wound is called reatus poenae, or liability to punishment. According to the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, mortal sin is an aversion from God, and venial sin is a turning toward creatures but not completely away from God. Therefore, mortal sin is a complete rebellion against God and deserves eternal punishment. Venial sin is not absolute rebellion and is deserving of a temporary punishment only.

Since mortal sin is both complete rebellion against God, and contains the lesser included offense of turning towards creatures over God, it merits not only an eternal punishment, but a temporal one as well, just like venial sin (See Summa Theologica, III, q. 84, art. 4). The guilt of mortal sin can only be removed either by Confession or an Act of Perfect Contrition cum voto (with desire and resole to go to Penance as soon as you can). The guilt of venial sin can be removed not only in Confession or perfect contrition, but also by hearing Mass devoutly, receiving Holy Communion with fervor, and pious use of Sacramentals. 

Indulgences remove the temporal punishment due after the guilt of sin has been eradicated. 

The Positive Element

 In certain cases both guilt and punishment can be remitted, but this is not the usual case except in the Sacrament of Baptism, where the soul of the person just baptized is rendered completely acceptable to God and can enter Heaven immediately. In its Decree on Original Sin, the Council of Trent declares, "For in those who are born again God hates nothing, because there is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism unto death, who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man and putting on the new one who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, guiltless and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to hinder their entrance into heaven." 

The rule is the opposite outside of Baptism. The Council of Trent infallibly declared:

CANON XII.--If any one saith, that God always remits the whole punishment together with the guilt, and that the satisfaction of penitents is no other than the faith whereby they apprehend  that Christ has satisfied for them; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.--If any one saith, that the keys are given to the Church, only to loose, not also to bind; and that, therefore, priests act contrary to the purpose of the keys, and contrary to the institution of Christ, when they impose punishments on those who confess; and that it is a fiction, that, after the eternal punishment, has, by virtue of the keys, been removed, there remains for the most part a temporal punishment to be discharged; let him be anathema.

Therefore, indulgences are good works by which we can remove some or all of the temporal punishment due to forgiven sins. Where does the power of these good works to remove sin come to us? Through "the treasure of the Church." By reason of the Hypostatic Union (the Divine and human natures of Christ united in the one Person of God the Son), the smallest act of Christ was of infinite value and could satisfy Divine Justice for the sins of the world. The incredible number of hardships and tortures Our Lord endured was thereby superabundant, but not wasted. These merits as well as those of the Blessed Mother and the saints are applied in later generations for the remission of our temporal penalties that remain after sin is forgiven. The One True Church ALONE is the dispenser of indulgences; She alone has Divine Authority.

When the wretched heretic Martin Luther dared to deny the treasury of the Church, he was excommunicated by a real Pope, Leo X, in the Apostolic Decree Exsurge Domine. He declared the following teaching of Luther condemned and heretical:

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

The Value of Indulgences

There are numerous accounts in the lives of the saints which inform us that one instant in Purgatory (where those with temporal punishments must suffer before gaining entrance to Heaven) is more painful than many years of suffering on Earth. Who wouldn't want to expiate their temporal punishments here rather than hereafter? 

Indulgences may be either partial or plenary. A plenary indulgence expiates all temporal punishment, while a partial indulgence remits just some. When a prayer has a number of days or years ascribed to it (e.g., an indulgence of 300 days) that doesn't mean 300 days come off your time in Purgatory, rather it means so much remission is gained by that indulgenced prayer (or pious work) as would have been gained by 300 days of penance during the era of public penitential discipline. 

 A plenary indulgence is gained by performing the proscribed work of the Church; however, if any venial sin remains, the plenary indulgence cannot be completely received since there is still the guilt of actual sin. In such case, the plenary indulgence becomes partial. According to Canon 926, "It is to be understood that a plenary indulgence is granted in such a way that if one cannot gain it in plenary form, nevertheless one gains it partially according to the dispositions one has."

As to the source of what may be indulgenced, the pope alone, as the Vicar of Christ on Earth, has the primary and supreme power over the granting of indulgences. 

The Gaining of a Plenary Indulgence

 There are seven requirements to gain an indulgence:

1. One must have the right intention of gaining the indulgence.

2. The good work prescribed (prayer, stations of the cross, etc) must be carried out faithfully and not substantially altered in any way. 

3. One must be baptized, not excommunicated, and in the state of sanctifying grace (at least at the completion of the prescribed work). 

4. Holy Communion must be worthily received within eight (8) days of the completion of the prescribed work.

5. Prayers must be vocal, the lips must move and the words mouthed at least silently. Mental prayer does not suffice. 

6. You must make a good Confession eight (8) days before or after the day on which you would gain the indulgence (fulfill the prescribed work). However, you must still be in the state of sanctifying grace on the day you complete the prescribed work.

7. You must pray for the pope's intentions. This does not mean a particular person who is pope, or that you can't gain indulgences in a time of sedevacante. "The Pope's Intention" comprises what any true pope would want:

• the exultation of Holy Mother Church
• the propagation of the One True Faith
• the uprooting of heresy
• the conversion of sinners
• peace and concord among Christian nations
• the other needs of Christianity

 N.B. You can apply an indulgence to yourself or to a departed soul, but not to another living person! For a partial indulgence, only numbers 1, 2, and 3 above apply. 

(The above was gathered from theologian Davis, Pastoral and Moral Theology, 3: 428-433. Also from theologian Hagedorn, General Legislation on Indulgences, CUA Press, [1924] I give full acknowledgement and credit to their works ). 

Conclusion

 The Vatican II sect has jettisoned indulgences as a thing of the past (at best) or superstitious (at worst). Know what indulgences are and make use of them. Don't suffer in the next world when you can easily expiate your sins now and grow closer to God in the process by doing these good works. Bergoglio hails the infamous founder of false Protestantism (and the denier of indulgences), Martin Luther, as a "witness to the Gospel." Remember the inspired words of St. Paul, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Galatians 1: 8). 

Prayers For Non-Catholics

 Praying for someone's conversion to the One True Church is a most Catholic act. You would think that there would be no controversy attached to this topic, but somehow controversy seems to find its way into almost every aspect of Traditional Catholic teaching these days. Without a pope, division is the logical result because "Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered..." (Zechariah 13: 7). We should strive to have as much unity as possible on topics where there is no clear answer. Too often Traditionalists forget the maxim of St. Augustine, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

Now, when it comes to straightforward prayers for Mr./Miss/Mrs. X who is a (Jew, Protestant, Hindu, Moslem, atheist, member of the Vatican II sect, etc.) to be enlightened by the grace of God to become a Traditionalist, we have no problem. However, someone raised the query, "Is it OK to pray for the soul of a deceased relative who was Protestant?" Ask the Vatican II sect clergy, and they will say it's OK to canonize him. Ask a Feeneyite, and they will tell you they are burning in Hell so don't waste your time. In medio stat veritas. "The truth stands in the middle." In this post I will explain and defend Church teaching against the infamous Dimond brother Feeneyites, and I will also revisit the Una Cum issue I tackled in my post of 7/10/17.

Are Prayers For Deceased Non-Catholics Permissible?

  There's an old aphorism, "A proof-text without context is a pretext." If you take something out of the context in which it was written and hold it up as "proof" for a preconceived notion, you're not interested in the Truth, just validating your point; "My mind is made up, so don't bother me with the facts." This is the hallmark of Fred and Bobby Dimond of "Most Holy Family Monastery" (MHFM). In their article Catholics May Not Pray For Deceased Non-Catholics, Fred and Bobby contort Church teaching. They begin with this general statement:

It’s a dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  All who die as non-Catholics go to Hell.  Therefore, prayers may not be offered for people who die as non-Catholics.  If a person was a non-Catholic or a heretic during life, unless there is evidence of a conversion to the true faith in the external forum, the person is considered to have died as he or she lived (i.e. as a non-Catholic and outside the Church).  Therefore prayers may not be offered for a person who, based on the last available evidence, was a non-Catholic or a heretic on the hope that there was a conversion in that person’s final days.  Prayers may only be offered for people who die with the true faith.  Here are some quotes that reiterate the Church’s teaching that Catholics may not pray for (or consider among the faithful departed) those who die as non-Catholics or without the true faith. (See http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholics-may-not-pray-deceased-non-catholics/#.WYvioNQrKt_).

It is true that there is no salvation outside the One True Church and all non-Traditionalist Catholics who die as such go to Hell. The rest is woefully wrong. They claim that unless there is evidence that the person converted, prayers may not be offered in the hope that there was a conversion in the person's final days.

Let's see what the Church has to say:

1. 1917 Code of Canon Law 
Canon 1240 speaks to the types of persons to be denied ecclesiastical burial. They include Masons, excommunicates, those who committed suicide, those who live as public and notorious sinners, etc. However, Canon 1241 says a person deprived of Christian burial "shall also be denied any funeral Mass, even an anniversary Mass, as well as all other public funeral services. Priests may say Mass privately for him and the faithful may pray for him. (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 495-497; Emphasis mine). Obviously the Church does not give up hope in a last minute repentance/conversion, but Fred and Bobby do.

2. Theologian O'Connell
"So far as the dead are concerned, the Exequial Mass and Anniversary Mass (or other public funeral offices)may not be offered for a person to whom ecclesiastical burial had been denied...It is not, however, forbidden to offer a Mass privately for such persons." (See The Celebration of Mass, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee [1941], pg. 45; Emphasis mine).

3. Theologian Szal
"But if he [a schismatic] gave no signs of repentance, then Mass can still be said for him, but only privately and in the absence of scandal." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 181; Emphasis mine).

What proof did the Dimond brothers give for claiming Catholics can't pray for deceased non-Catholics? A quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, "St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5. “Gregory says (Moralia xxxiv): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and his angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers…” Yes, THE SAINTS do not pray for dead and unbelieving men because they know for certain who they are, and we do not (except for Judas Iscariot, for the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, "...but the priesthood brings to them [i.e., evil clerics] in its train the same rewards the Apostleship brought to Judas--eternal perdition." pg. 213).

The other quotes from, e.g., Pope Gregory the Great, clearly mean prayers are not offered for non-Catholics publicly, because no one but God knows what happens between Him and a soul prior to death except by special revelation. We know the canonized saints are in Heaven; that is an infallible decree. We know Judas is in Hell. For everyone else, we may hope they were saved by God in the last moments of life, being brought into the Church infused with faith and sanctifying grace, because nothing is impossible with God. Prayers said for them, if they did not convert, are not "wasted;" they will be used by God for another poor soul--the same as prayers for someone whom is now (unknown to us) in Heaven are never "wasted."

Una Cum --Revisited

 In my post of 7/10/17 entitled "Una Cum," I defended the permissibility of attending a True Mass offered with the name of false pope Francis in the Canon when no other option is available. I specified that "It must be offered by a validly ordained priest who professes the Integral Catholic Faith whole and entire, who is not in actual union with Modernist Rome and specifically rejects all the errors of both Vatican II and the post-conciliar "popes."  Please refer to the aforementioned post for the background of the issue.

 In the comments section of that post, my conclusion was challenged by a reader who alleged to pass on a comment from Fr. Cekada who holds the view that Una Cum is impermissible to attend. I don't know if the anonymous commenter was the same person who sent me an anti-Una Cum article written by the late Patrick Henry Omlor. I also have no way to verify if the alleged comment was actually made by Fr. Cekada or not (I will assume, for sake of Charity, it was not). My training as a lawyer (and my thirst for knowledge when challenged) made me do further research. Fr. Cekada is alleged to have written, "There is no citation in the article to any Vatican decree. The author merely provides a link to an 1806 Latin-English missal for the laity in which [the] Latin text of the Canon contains the phrase “pro Rege nostro N.” (for our King, N.). The Missal of Pius V discontinued the mention of the king or civil rulers in the Te Igitur, and the practice was allowed only by way of privilege (as in Spain and Austria), where the ruler was a Catholic. Until I see an actual Vatican decree, therefore, I will treat the claim as nonsense."

I went back and examined Fr. Cekada's article The Grain of Incense available to view/download at traditionalmass.org. On page 10, footnote 50, Fr. Cekada writes, "... From [theologian Fr. Ignatius] Szal (183), though, it seems that the most the Holy See occasionally tolerated was a prayer for a lay heretic or schismatic in his capacity as a head of state (King, President, etc.) — but never one for a heretical or schismatic cleric." Here, Fr. Cekada cites to theologian Szal and admits that heretics and schismatics were prayed for liturgically! So why would he need a Vatican decree to support praying for the heretical King of England, to give credence to this already established fact? There is direct confirmation the King of England was mentioned liturgically, as you will read below. 

This changes his argument substantially to, "It's permissible to pray for a heretical head of state, but not a heretical cleric." Says whom? When I say, "whom" I mean what approved theologian, canonist, or decree of the Holy See supports this contention? Now Fr. Cekada is inferring something not expressly addressed. He also asserts that the heretic is prayed for "in his capacity as a head of state." I don't know where he got this idea, but it was not from Szal. Here is what Szal has to say on page 183 of his book The Communication of Catholics With Schismatics (cited previously in this post):

Benedict XIV, in an encyclical letter of March 1, 1756, condemned the practice of mentioning liturgically the name of the Bishop or Patriarch when he was recognized as a heretic or a schismatic. However, a favorable reply was given by the Holy Office on February 23, 1820, for the Archdiocese of Quebec. It was revealed in this case that prayers were said for the Pope, for the Bishop, and for the King, at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament. And at Solemn Mass there was sung the "Domine, salvum fac Regem." The continuance of both practices was tolerated. Here, then, there was question of a heretical monarch, but the same principle of tolerance could also find application when there was question of a schismatic.

 The foregoing answer was evidently within the memory of the Holy See in the following case. The President of the Greek States had asked that prayers be said for him. The Bishop had proscribed the words, Domine, salvum fac Praesidem after the "Domine, salvum fac Regem." The Holy See replied the arrangement could stand. 

 In another instance the Catholic Latin bishops were asked by the local governor to solemnize the feasts of the courts in their churches. They limited the solemnity to the Ambrosian hymn and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, after which the accustomed triple acclamation, "viva il Re," was made. In its response to the Bishop of Santorin the Holy See recalled former similar instructions, and stated that the prayers were to be directed not only for the temporal welfare of the governor, but also for his true happiness, namely, that he receive the precious gift of faith. 

The implications of the foregoing cannot be overstated. 

• We have positive proof that the Holy See has tolerated using the name of heretics and schismatics in the liturgical functions of the Church. 

• The general prohibition on mentioning heretics in the liturgy cannot be of Divine positive law, but only of ecclesiastical precept, for the Church cannot make exceptions to Divine positive law. There is nothing in the text of what Szal wrote to indicate you are only praying for the office. There is a declaration from the Holy See that prayers be directed not only to the office of a heretical governor, "but  also for his true happiness, namely that he receive the precious gift of faith" (conversion to the True Church). An office doesn't convert or have happiness; the individual does. 

• Even if a distinction could be made between the office and the heresy, what about permission to mention the King given for the Archdiocese of Quebec in 1820? Canada has no King--the King in question was the King of England! Furthermore, whomsoever holds the office of monarch in England also holds the office of the Head of the (false) Sect of England. He therefore has clerical authority as the head of a false religion. 

• Can't the points above be said of Bergoglio, and we pray for his conversion as Head of the Vatican City-State and perhaps as material-only pope, for his conversion? 

Few people have the time or ability to vet an article, such as the one written by Fr. Cekada. I have approximately four thousand (4, 000) books in my personal library, and I made the time to learn thanks to my readers. (We learn even when we disagree with each other). I am now more convinced than ever of the correctness of my position set forth in my post of 7/10/17 on "Una Cum."

Conclusion

 We should pray for the conversion of non-Catholics, that they may become Traditionalists (true Catholics) in this time of near universal apostasy. They need our prayers, and our help to see the truth. Do not bother with Fred and Bobby Dimond's "theology." Also, as much as I respect and admire Fr. Cekada, I call on him to re-think his position. Re-read Szal. If we are to get a pope back, we must get more unity than we have, and a "follow me or die" attitude helps no one on matters not settled. When dealing with non-Traditionalists (or even Traditionalists with whom we disagree), never forget the words of 1 Peter 3: 16-17, "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, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." 

Singing For Satan

 In the comments section of my post two weeks ago, I mentioned how in the early 1990s I had done an informal study of rock and popular music. Several of my readers expressed an interest in my findings. Therefore, this will be the first of a rotating series of posts (one per month), about my discoveries during the roughly five years (1991-1996) when I did this on my spare time. Why did I perform such a study? When I was a young teenager, I wanted to be a radio DJ. Back before satellite radio and iTunes, your favorite DJ was spinning the records you wanted to hear with commentary that would make you laugh or think. He/she became like a family friend whose voice you'd frequently hear on your favorite frequency! In my twenties, I actually was on a smaller radio station here in New York, reading the news as a part time gig. I got to know the radio business rather well, and although I never pursued a career in radio, I learned a lot about the music.

   My favorite radio station was WPLJ-FM, New York City, which from 1968-1983 played an AOR ("album oriented rock") format. Tony Pigg (real name Anthony Pignotti) was my favorite DJ with the most awesome and distinctive on-air voice I've ever heard to this day. His banter was witty and you could tell he loved his job; speaking and playing rock music to the largest city in America. Upon becoming a Traditionalist in 1981, there were certain messages in rock music that disturbed me, and I avoided those bands. There were those who sang openly about Satan, such as the band AC/DC and their songs Highway To Hell and Hell's Bells. On the cover of one album, a band member sports devil horns. (AC/DC was also street lingo in the 1970s for being bisexual).

 I stopped listening to the overtly evil music above. Of course, AC/DC claimed Highway To Hell was a song about how touring as a band on the road can be living "hell." A nice try to deflect criticism, but the lyrics to the song say something different:

No stop signs, speed limit
Nobody's gonna slow me down
Like a wheel, gonna spin it
Nobody's gonna mess me around
Hey Satan, paid my dues
Playing in a rocking band
Hey mama, look at me
I'm on my way to the promised land, whoo!
I'm on the highway to hell

"Hey, Satan, paid my dues" is about life touring on the road? Please. Hell's Bells proclaims, "Satan's gotcha, Satan's gonna getcha." People will also say "it's a gimmick, they don't really worship Satan;" perhaps in this case, but some musicians (like Marilyn Manson and King Diamond) are professed Satanists. So, I thought to myself, if I just stay away from the evil wackos, the rest of the music is OK.

 Something didn't feel right. The music I was listening to was leaving me feeling slightly depressed afterwards. In 1989, I met someone with whom I am still good friends today. He was a DJ on a small station in NY, playing CCM ("Contemporary Christian Music") which included "Christian Heavy Metal"! I learned quite a bit from him. He told me that the problem with secular rock and pop music are the lifestyles of the artists and the lyrics. He did not condemn all secular music. He does not claim that everything is evil unless specifically religious. He did bring out the need to beware and use discernment.

 As a father, he was vigilant as to what his children listened to and encouraged CCM. He told me what I already knew, that we are at war with the devil, the flesh, and the world. He reminded me that  not only was the overtly Satanic King Diamond evil, but so were those who (perhaps) used Satan for "shock value." Their lyrics and lifestyles tend to corrupt listeners because they send messages that are for the world--- and the values of the world--- which oppose God. I was fascinated. I began to research not just overtly Satanic (or Satanic-like) bands, but the ones considered "tame" and "good." I found many to be neither when I examined how they live and what they sing. There is power in words. Professional research now backs up what my friend knew decades ago. According to Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed articled appeared stating,
"Parents often are unaware of the lyrics to which their children are listening because of the increasing use of downloaded music and headphones. Research on popular music has explored its effects on schoolwork, social interactions, mood and affect, and particularly behavior. The effect that popular music has on children's and adolescents' behavior and emotions is of paramount concern. Lyrics have become more explicit in their references to drugs, sex, and violence over the years, particularly in certain genres. A teenager's preference for certain types of music could be correlated or associated with certain behaviors." (See http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/5/1488)

 So I began my research project with gusto, thinking that perhaps I'd put out a booklet warning people, and especially parents, about the dangers of rock, rap, and popular music. Life so often gets in the way of our plans, and I've amassed a lot of information, but no booklet. Now, I'm going to look over what I learned in the past,edit my notes and present it in a once-per-month post.  As the Vatican II sect does nothing to warn people of modern dangers (indeed, they even promote them), I feel it my duty as God's unworthy instrument to sound the alarm. Please, if you have a moment, leave a comment and let me know if you think continuing this series would be worthwhile.

The Evil Elements In Rock and Popular Music

   I don't need to state that as Traditionalists, we live in an unprecedented time of near universal apostasy.  Music exerts a powerful influence on listeners, as I found out on my own from personal experience. There are seven elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide

2. Nihilism/Despair

3. Drug and alcohol glorification

4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion

5. The occult

6. Rebellion against lawful superiors

7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

These elements are present in most of today's secular music in the form of the lyrics and lifestyles of the artists. Please remember these points:

• No one is without sin except Our Lord and His Blessed Mother. It's one thing if a singer was an alcoholic or drug addict and now repents, as opposed to someone who glorifies it by their songs or thinks it's "no big deal" in their own life.

• You must discern what is appropriate music for you once you have the facts. Would you feel comfortable listening to a song you like while Jesus and the Blessed Mother were sitting next to you? If not, you might want to re-think what you allow yourself to hear. 

• Don't delude yourself that YOU are not affected by the music because you are an adult. There's a reason advertisers are willing to spend $5 million dollars for a half-minute during the Super Bowl. People are persuaded through the media. Now consider the HOURS per week the average person listens to music. 

• "I only listen because I like the beat." Yes, but subconsciously, your mind hears the lyrics. You might even sing them to yourself without taking into conscious account what those lyrics really mean.  When lyrics are depressing, you can become depressed. When lyrics glorify what is wrong, you might come to regard it as less of an evil than it really is, thereby giving an opening to temptation and sin.

• CCM is Protestant, but most of it is general in theology (love of God and neighbor). If the lyrics are theologically heretical, avoid that particular song. I'm not advocating CCM, nor am I condemning it, since it is a viable alternative (especially for kids) to the secular music. It certainly does not belong in Church, but it is (for the most part) a wholesome alternative that makes us think of God.

• There is no such thing as an "evil beat." My spiritual father, the late, great Fr. DePauw was once accused by someone in the congregation of playing "an evil hymn"--Holy God We Praise Thy Name!  Father devoted a sermon (as only a former professor of Moral Theology could do!) to the topic. God allows us to make music. There is no "intrinsically evil" music. It is the lyrics that make it good or bad. There is the Catholic Holy God We Praise Thy Name, and the Protestant version which corrupted the lyrics! We, of course, used the Catholic hymn. 

• This is information, not a booklet. Use it to learn and teach others of the pitfalls in music. Some are going to have an emotional reaction, much like when I wrote a post against teaching kids about Santa Claus because it involves parents lying to children about a God-surrogate which could weaken trust in parents and belief in God.

• I will present the artists/groups in no particular order. Most are from circa 1964-1996. However, as this is an interest of mine, I also have added information over the years on more contemporary artists and kept up with developments of those who still perform. It's funny how some of the groups considered "hard rock" in the 1970s and 1980s are now played on Adult Contemporary "Lite Music" stations--once reserved for elevator muzak! 

• Remember the inspired words of St. Paul, "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. –Philippians 4:8

Let the exposing of the music groups and artists begin!

A Journey You May Not Want To Take

 Considered one of the "tame" groups, Journey was among the super-groups of the 1970s, hitting superstar status in the 1980s. They still put out albums today, and every lead singer must sound like the legendary Steve Perry whose incredible vocals made them world famous. Perry was ranked by Rolling Stone magazine as # 76 of the "100 Greatest Singers of All Time." Journey is tainted by two elements: the occult and promotion of sexual sins (adultery, fornication). 

1. The Scarab Beetle

Most of Journey's album covers feature a scarab beetle. The Evolution album and subsequent work depict the "winged globe" which signifies the omnipresence of the false sun "god" Ra. The album Captured shows the scarab beetle in a mirrored image. According to McClung Museum, " By far the most important amulet in ancient Egypt was the scarab, symbolically as sacred to the Egyptians as the cross is to Christians. Scarabs were already known in the Old Kingdom, and in the First Intermediate Period the undersides were decorated. They were probably sacred in the Prehistoric Period and had a role in the early worship of animals, judging from the actual beetles that were found stored in jars buried with the deceased and from those found in graves during the time of King Den of Dynasty I. A scaraboid-shaped alabaster box from Tarkhan seems to confirm that the scarab was already venerated at the beginning of Dynasty I. Scarabs are the most numerous amulets and were produced well beyond the dynastic periods." (See museum.unl.edu/research/entomology/Egyptian_Sacred_Scarab/egs-text.htm--Emphasis mine). 

Beetles of the Scarabaeidae family (dung beetle) roll dung into a ball as food and as a brood chamber in which to lay eggs; this way, the larvae hatch and are immediately surrounded by food. For these reasons the scarab was seen as a symbol of a "heavenly cycle" and of the idea of rebirth or regeneration. This explains their presence in being buried with the deceased.  The world of Egyptian magic has long been embraced by secret societies condemned by the Church, including Rosicrucian orders, Freemasonry, Theosophy, and the Golden Dawn. According to Perry, on his FB page, "Apparently, the scarab beetle appears on the majority of the Journey album covers because the band's former manager, Walter "Herbie" Herbert decided upon using this artwork for Journey's album covers, although there seems to be no explanation for why this was done." No one from the band ever questioned it? It seems to be an interesting way of getting the image of a false god introduced into your house; especially before iTunes. Would you want a pagan Egyptian "god" introduced in your home along with beautiful and proper images of Jesus, Mary, the angels and saints?

Remember what Deuteronomy 7: 25-26 says: "Neither shalt thou bring any thing of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema, like it. Thou shalt detest it as dung, and shalt utterly abhor it as uncleanness and filth, because it is an anathema." "Detest it like dung"-- what an appropriate condemnation for a filthy dung beetle with false ideas of reincarnation and an associated symbol of Ra.  

Jonathan Cain, the original keyboard player, now claims to be an "evangelical Christian," and his wife is a minister. He got into a public dispute with member Neal Schon who wants not to "mix religion and the band." Too late, Mr. Schon! See the picture of the album Captured below. 

2. Glorification of Sex in the Lyrics

 The song Lovin,' Touchin,' Squeezin' tells the story of a man cheating on his wife, while the wife's lover is also cheating on her:

Lovin', touchin', squeezin' each other

When I'm alone all by myself

You're out with someone else

Lovin', touchin', squeezin' each other

You're tearin' me apart

Every, every day

You're tearin' me apart

Oh what can I say?

You're tearin' me apart

It won't be long, yes, till you're alone

When your lover, oh, he hasn't come home

Cause he's lovin', who he's touchin',

He's squeezin' another

The song Anyway You Want It is about a nymphomaniac who needs sex "all night," and the man willing to give it to her.

Any way you want it

That's the way you need it

Any way you want it

She loves to laugh

She loves to sing

She does everything

She loves to move

She loves to groove

She loves the loving things

Ooh, all night, all night

Oh, every night

So hold tight, hold tight

Ooh, baby, hold tight

Their multi-platinum selling album Escape (1981) features the ubiquitous power ballad Don't Stop Believin.'  The song has been used on the successful TV series the Sopranos and young couples have (unfortunately) used it as their wedding song. It tells the story of a one night stand between two strangers. Not exactly the theme you want at your wedding.

Just a small town girl

Livin' in a lonely world

She took the midnight train

Goin' anywhere

Just a city boy

Born and raised in South Detroit

He took the midnight train

Goin' anywhere

A singer in a smokey room

The smell of wine and cheap perfume

For a smile they can share the night

It goes on and on, and on, and on (Emphasis mine)

Conclusion

There are many who knowingly or unwittingly sing for Satan. Some, like Marilyn Manson, are avowed Satanists. Others, like Journey, do Satan's work as his "useful idiots," or perhaps covertly.  In any case you must learn to discern--especially if you have young children and teens. Don't place your faith in this rotten world and its evil music. Rather, don't stop believin' in the One True Church of Jesus Christ.  

A Theory Of Everything

 In last week's post, I defended the dogma of Transubstantiation against pseudo-scientists who believe religion is the result of contact with extraterrestrials. However, there are many people who feel that legitimate science has rendered God "obsolete." God was a human invention to explain things we didn't understand, but now we know better. For many, science is the new "religion," and scientists the "priests."  One of the primary reasons the majority of scientists are agnostics or atheists is because of their attempted application of science to areas where science has nothing to say, for example, morality or metaphysics. Science cannot be used to determine right from wrong in morals. What experiment or equation "proves" adultery to be wrong? You can claim you disapprove of it, or you don't think it's advantageous, or you think you should treat others the way you want to be treated, but it's all subjective on the atheistic point of view. There can be no objective morals (i.e., right and wrong actions that would be that way no matter what anyone thought) unless there is a transcendent God.

 The "chief priest" among today's scientific establishment is Dr. Stephen Hawking, considered the most brilliant scientist alive (and one of the greatest geniuses ever). Born in 1942, Hawking is a theoretical physicist, having received his PhD in applied mathematics and theoretical physics from Gonville and Caius College in 1966.  In 1974, he made a theoretical formula and argument for radiation predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the event horizon. This radiation has subsequently been named Hawking Radiation. Should it be verified experimentally, he will receive a Nobel Prize. He taught at Oxford where he held the Lucasian Professorship, a chair once held by Sir Issac Newton. He has a plethora of academic honors and awards that would yield a list pages long. Most incredibly, he lost all control of his body as a result of ALS, a degenerative disease of the nervous system. He is confined to a wheelchair and speaks through an electronic voice synthesizer.

 Hawking has brought physics to the dinner table in the form of popular books such as the bestselling A Brief History of Time, published in 1988. His life was turned into a 2014 movie The Theory of Everything. Indeed, that is what Hawking wants to do; in his own words, "My goal is simple. It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all." As Hawking is a professed atheist, his answer will not be found in theism in general or a particular religion. He thinks science can explain our purpose. His 2010 book, The Grand Design (co-authored by Leonard Mlodinow, a fellow scientist and author), claims the laws of physics are the real explanation as to how the universe came into being.

 My purpose in this post is not to engage Dr. Hawking in a debate on science; as a former NYC science teacher, I'm woefully unqualified for the task. He's an expert in the highest degree, and I'm not. What I hope to show is that it is a categorical mistake to try to apply the scientific method to queries outside its field of competence. It's analogous to asking your medical doctor for legal advice; the doctor could be brilliant, but you can't diagnose a problem in contract law using medical knowledge. The Grand Design (hereinafter "TGD") asks many questions, several of which are beyond the scope of science to answer. These logical mistakes and flaws will be put forward to demonstrate that Hawking's thesis of a "self-caused universe" must fail.

Posing Questions Science Can't Answer

 In TGD, Hawkins asks some questions that humanity has thought about for ages, many of which science can answer. However, there are three queries that are outside the scope of empirical verification and have no place being answered by physics, to wit:

• Why is there something rather than nothing? 
• Why do we exist? 
• Why this particular set of laws and not some other? 

Attempting to answer these questions scientifically is absurd. I believe that my father and mother (God rest their souls) loved me. How can science prove or disprove if they loved me? It can't. I can offer many and good logical reasons for thinking they did love me, and I'm not being irrational for holding this belief.

Hawking states on page 180 of TGD that, "Because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing." That sentence caused me to do a double take. (For an amazing response to Hawking please see God and Stephen Hawking by Dr. John C. Lennox, a mathematician and professor at Oxford. Dr. Lennox is Protestant and has debated atheists publicly. Many of these insights I owe to him).  My training as a lawyer helps me spot a bad argument and faulty premises. I studied Constitutional Law for part of a semester under the great Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. He was fond of saying, "Just because a law is stupid doesn't make it unconstitutional. Don't think that anyone is immune from making stupid arguments or doing stupid things." The same holds for the brilliant Dr. Hawking.

 What, exactly, does Hawking mean by "nothing"? He can't mean non-being as in Neo-Scholastic  philosophy. The law of gravity is obviously something. Secondly, how can a law of physics, such as gravity, create anything? A scientific law is descriptive of the universe. This presupposes a universe that exists and is capable of description in the first place. Descriptions have no causal power. The laws of mathematics tell me 100 + 100= 200. I would be a fool to think if I have $100, and put it in my dresser drawer, the law of arithmetic will somehow cause my money to increase by $100.

Hawking's statement that "the universe can and will create itself out of nothing," is self-contradictory nonsense. It is a logical axiom known by all that "out of nothing, nothing comes." Many times when scientists speak of "nothing" they mean a quantum vacuum. Again, a quantum vacuum is not non-being, it is something! So the universe (which is something) was created by "nothing" which he identifies as gravity, and gravity is something, not non-being. The very statement is self-contradictory; the universe creating itself presupposes the universe had existence in order to give itself existence (if your head is spinning with all this illogic, it should be!). Poor Dr. Hawking isn't doing too well in making a case for a "self-creating universe."

 Kinds of Causation

 In Neo-Scholastic philosophy, we distinguish four kinds of causes, first expounded by Aristotle. 

1.  Material Cause. Think of a statue of The Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. The material cause would be, for example, marble. It's the material stuff out of which things are made. 

2. Formal Cause. This would be the image carved in the marble of the Sacred Heart. It tells us what the object is. 

3. Efficient Cause. This would be the sculptor. It is that by which the effect is produced.

4. Final Cause. That for the sake of which the activity is performed. In this case, to foster love and devotion to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ. 

(See An Introduction to Philosophy, by Fr. Daniel J. Sullivan, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, [1957], pg. 194)

 Hawking reduces all causes to material and formal causes, as scientists want to know what things are; this is the basis of experimentation. However, it would be ridiculous to think that a statue of the Sacred Heart appeared that way without a sculptor (efficient cause) and for no reason (final cause).  Since science cannot by its very nature of inquiry, answer questions pertaining to efficient or final causes, questions like "Why do we exist?" are not within the realm of the competence of science. Many scientists believe that only physics, chemistry, etc,  can answer questions about the world, therefore they will either dismiss the questions or answer on an atheistic point of view. Hawking claims God does not exist, nor are there any spiritual entities. The belief in life after death, he says, is a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark." And again, "We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special." Hawking believes we are devoid of purpose and have no Creator because of the limitations of science to answer metaphysical questions. 

Does God Need A Creator?

 Hawking has rejected God as Creator. Inevitably, people who so reject God somehow find the idea of "nothing creating something" as more intellectually satisfying than God Who always Is ("I AM WHO AM"). Someone will always ask, "who created God?" If the clear and convincing evidence points to God (which it does and I cannot go into it in a short post), then it must be so. 

Once I had a bad case of vomiting and diarrhea. Every few weeks, I would get another episode. I went to my beloved family doctor, who sent me for all kinds of tests, which revealed nothing. I went to specialists who were perplexed. Finally, a brilliant gastroenterologist asked me a strange question; "Have you ever been to a river in Africa?" I assured him that I had not. He thought I might have a rare bacteria (found in the Dark Continent) in my colon that would only respond to a certain powerful drug. I took the drug and was cured! I asked him how I got the bacteria. His response was, "I don't know, but who cares? You're better, so we got to the cause." Just because we can't explain the origin of the bacteria doesn't mean that it wasn't the cause of my illness. Likewise, even if we can't explain God's existence, that doesn't mean He didn't create the universe. 

 Hawking's Strange Views

 God seems needless and irrational to Dr. Hawking, but just like the "Raelian scientists" I wrote about last week, he seems to be fascinated (and frightened) by extraterrestrial life. Hawking claims he is more certain than ever that highly evolved aliens exist, but we shouldn't make contact. 

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has once again opened up about his fears and warned the world to be hesitant about making contact with alien life. He said planet Gliese 832c potentially had alien life but said humans needed to be wary."One day, we might receive a signal from a planet like this, but we should be wary of answering back," he in the documentary, Stephen Hawking’s Favourite Places. "Meeting an advanced civilization could be like Native Americans encountering Columbus. That didn’t turn out so well." He claimed alien life could be "rapacious marauders roaming the cosmos in search of resources to plunder, and planets to conquer and colonize". His fears have not changed since he first spoke out about it on the Discovery Channel in 2010. He said as he grew older he became more convinced humans were not alone. "After a lifetime of wondering, I am helping to lead a new global effort to find out," he said.

(See http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/07/28/stephen-hawking-is-deathly-afraid-aliens.html). 

Hawking also claims that "global warming" necessitates looking for another planet where we can all go and live (maybe with the aliens who colonize us?). 

Conclusion

God and science do not conflict when rightly understood. You cannot answer metaphysical questions by the scientific method. Hopefully, Dr. Hawking will realize that the answer to the "Theory of Everything," i.e., the cause and purpose of the Universe, lies in God. Then maybe he will find the true Faith before he dies. Unfortunately, because of his intelligence and prestige, many will think that atheism is the only rational worldview. People would do well to remember the words of Justice Scalia, "Don't think anyone is immune from making stupid arguments..."

I'll end with the following anecdote. In France, at the end of the 19th century, a young scientist was on a train seated next to an elderly gentleman praying the Rosary silently. The young scientist couldn't contain himself. He said, "Pardon me, sir. I can't help but notice those superstitious beads you use to pray." "Superstitious?" responded the old gentleman with shock. "Yes. You must understand that science has shown us there is no God." The old man still looking shocked said, "There isn't a God?" "No. I'm a scientist, and I know this to be true. I realize that you're old and were raised to believe in these things but they're just made-up stories and nonsense. You wouldn't understand the latest scientific theories, like me, but if you'd like I can send you some literature written in simple language so you'll understand that God, Rosaries, and Catholicism are all superstition and not real." "I would like that very much," said the frail older gentleman, still clutching his beloved Rosary.  "Great, please give me your address, so I can mail it to you."  The gentleman put down his Rosary and took out a business card, handing it to the young scientist. "This has my name and address on it."

As the young scientist read the card, a shiver went down his spine. He hung his head in shame, left his seat, and never came back to that seat for the rest of the trip. And who could blame him? The card read, "Dr. Louis Pasteur."

The Real Change You Can Believe In

 I have often expressed my disdain for those who preoccupy their time with strange topics rather than applying real Catholic principles to our extraordinary times. One such example is the fascination with UFOs. Fred and Bobby Dimond, the wannabe "monks" of Most Holy Family Monastery (sic), want to sell you DVDs on the subject, and Francis actually claimed in 2014 that he would "baptize Martians if they asked for the sacrament." ( See http://time.com/99616/for-pope-francis-its-about-more-than-martians/). This is most interesting coming from a man who claims atheists can go to Heaven! So we have both ends of the spectrum, false Traditionalists (the Dimonds) and Modernists in the extreme (Bergoglio), talking about UFOs.

 There's a real danger to dwelling on such subjects. In 1968, Eric Von Daniken wrote a runaway bestseller entitled Chariots of the Gods. It sold more than seven million copies worldwide and was made into a movie of the same name in 1970. The thesis of the book is that extraterrestrials came to Earth and are the basis of religion. For example, the angels of the Bible were really aliens in spacesuits, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was by an alien nuclear weapon. These aliens also allegedly explain the pyramids of Egypt and Stonehenge which were built by them. (For a great debunking of Von Daniken, See Crash Go The Chariots by Clifford Wilson).

  There is a quasi-religious and "scientific" movement called Raelianism or the Raelian Movement. It was founded by Claude Maurice Marcel Vorilhon (b. 1946), a sports car journalist who changed his name to "Rael" after an alleged encounter with a UFO in 1973. He met a being which he blasphemously claimed was called Yahweh. Rael wrote a book which states that advanced alien scientists from another planet with 25,000 years of scientific advances created all life on Earth through DNA manipulation.These scientists, Raël said, were originally called Elohim or "those who came from the sky." Rael claims on October 7, 1975 an alien spacecraft took him to their planet where he met Buddha, Mohammed, Moses and Jesus Christ, all of whom were presumably aliens, the same as those he met.

 At this point you're probably wondering why I'm writing on this subject. Obviously, Vorilhon ("Rael") and his followers are either (a) psychotic, (b) liars looking for notoriety, no matter how weird, (c) deceived by demons, or (d) any combination of a,b,c. True enough, and I'm not going to talk about sensationalist end times scenarios either. What got me angry was an article published by "Raelian scientists"  Damien Marsic, PhD and Mehran Sam, PhD. There is no indication as to which discipline(s) they received their doctorates, or from what accredited institute(s) of higher learning. I suspect they are "trained scientists" as much as the Dimond brothers are "trained theologians."

Marsic and Sam have claimed to have "scientifically proven false" the dogma of Transubstantiation! The purpose of my post shall therefore be to give the correct understanding of this most magnificent truth of the Faith, and to show the pathetic deficiencies in the arguments of "Raelian scientists" and others who dare to assail it.

The Dogma of Transubstantiation

 The Council of Trent infallibly declared, "And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation."

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.


CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

Transubstantiation Attacked "Scientifically"

 In an article entitled DNA Analysis of Consecrated Sacramental Bread Refutes Catholic Transubstantiation Claim (See http://atheistcreationist.org/news/dna-analysis-of-consecrated-sacramental-bread-refutes-catholic-transubstantiation-claim.html), Sam and Marsic state, like atheists, that they want to "debunk" the dogma to "...encourage others to engage in similar studies and help religious organizations rid themselves of superstition and irrational beliefs, thus contributing to elevate fellow human beings." (Please remember these "champions of rationality" follow a guy who takes trips in UFOs that no one else sees and without any tangible proof other than his own ipse dixit). 

 To attack Transubstantiation as "irrational" is not new. Sam Harris (b. 1967), one of the so-called "New Atheists," is fond of calling those who believe in it "mentally ill." He has said, "If your neighbor were to claim that every morning he mumbled some words in Latin over his pancakes and they became the body and blood of Elvis Presley, we would say he is mentally ill, and seek to have him committed. However, if it's a priest who mumbles the words over  bread and wine claiming they are now the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, for some reason he's considered sane." 

 Harris was raised in a non-religious home by a Quaker father and Jewish mother. Interestingly, he talks about Latin being mumbled even though too young to have been exposed to the True Church, and the Vatican II sect doesn't use Latin or the secret voice in the Novus Bogus "mass." Satan has a way of getting his pot shots at the True Religion, even by one such as Harris. Where his analogy to the crazy neighbor breaks down, is that Elvis Presley never claimed to be God, wrought miracles, or rose from the dead. We have good reasons to believe that Our Lord is True God and True Man, and what He told us about the Eucharist is true. That's the huge difference Harris' slipshod analogy fails to grasp. 

 The "scientific article" attacks Transubstantiation from a new (and woefully ignorant) angle; to test for human DNA within a "consecrated" host at a Vatican II sect church. To quote the article:

Consecrated hosts (sic) were collected during communion in 5 different Catholic churches in the United States and Canada and immediately placed into clean plastic bags to avoid contamination. A sample of cultured HEK-293 cells was used as the human control. Unconsecrated altar bread purchased from a church supply store was used as the wheat control.

This is both a stinging indictment against "communion in the hand" and proof that the Vatican II sect only gives lip service to belief in the Real Presence. Two pseudo-scientists have their followers take hosts from Vatican II "masses" to be profaned. Communion in the hand made it easy, and the cavalier way they handle their wafers is a systematic and tacit denial of the Real Presence. Thank God the hosts were not validly consecrated! How did Sam and Marsic justify this unethical confiscation? 

"This study could be criticized on ethical grounds for using deception to collect samples. Indeed, the individuals who provided us with the consecrated hosts obtained them during communion, pretending to be believers, and transferred them discretely into plastic bags instead of ingesting them. However, these individuals were all former Catholics who had felt victimized by the Church's dogmatic teachings and saw this action as contributing to their recovery. The moral dilemma of obtaining samples through deception is to be contrasted with the ethics of enrolling non-consenting newborns into a religious organization, endoctrinating children with unquestionable dogmas and instilling fear, guilt and shame in them with long-lasting consequences for their psychological well-being. Anyway, in agreement with our results, we are confident that no sentient being was physically harmed in the course of this study."

In other words, stealing wafers is justified because raising a child to believe in religion is a form of "child abuse." (However, allowing a child to be raised by two sodomites who commit acts contrary to nature is considered in our sick society to be "in the best interest of the child."). Why is Transubstantiation "false"? In their words, "As believers themselves agree that the appearance, taste and texture of sacramental bread are retained after consecration, it is unclear what the 'substance' that is allegedly transformed could be. If the host still looks like bread and tastes like bread after having been consecrated, the molecules responsible for the taste and texture can not have been affected. This leaves DNA as the most probable candidate. Indeed, if wheat DNA in a piece of bread could be replaced by human DNA, the change would not affect the bread's texture or taste." So unless the consecrated Host contains Christ's human DNA, no change must have occurred.  

Why Substance Matters--and Why Matter Isn't Substance

The whole attack on Transubstantiation revolves around ignorance regarding the philosophical term "substance." When I was a NYC science teacher, I would tell my class things like "water is a substance comprised of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen expressed as H2O." These two pseudo-scientists assume that the substance which changes in the bread must be at the molecular or atomic level; in this case DNA. 

 In Neo-Scholastic Thomistic philosophy, we distinguish between substance and accidents in all beings which exist. According to Thomistic philosopher Fr. Daniel J. Sullivan, "...all being is either being that exists on its own...or in another, in such a way that it has no existence apart from the other. The first way of being is found in such things as a maple tree, a robin, a race horse, a human being---independent centers of existence and activity, beings that go on being what they are behind the restless face of everyday change...we may define substance as a being whose nature it is to exist in itself." (See An Introduction To Philosophy, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, [1957], pg. 221; Emphasis in original.) Accidents are a being whose nature it is to exist in another, like the green of a leaf, or the movements of a bird in flight. Something needs to be green, and the movements of the bird are real but not the bird itself.

Can we subject substances to the scientific method? No. According to Fr. Sullivan, "Substance as such cannot be perceived by our senses: we cannot see it , touch it, imagine it. Our senses do indeed perceive beings which are substances, but it is the color, the shape, the taste of the thing that is known by our senses, not its being or substance. The existence of substance is known only by an insight of the intellect, which sees that behind the becoming of sense phenomena there exists the substance which is the subject of the change." (Ibid, pg. 223). Substance is therefore metaphysical--or "beyond the physical"--the very ground of existence. It is not molecules and DNA. Even had they gotten (God forbid!) a True Host at a Traditional Mass, they could not detect that which is not subject to sensory perception; with or without the use of scientific equipment. They sought to disprove a philosophical concept by equating it with matter. Pure ignorance. 

Conclusion

 Transubstantiation is the change by which one substance (bread or wine) becomes another substance (Christ) with only the accidents (sensible attributes) of bread and wine remaining. It gives us Traditionalists something the Vatican II sect no longer has--the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. It is imperative that we know the Faith. Don't waste your time dwelling on subjects not directly the objects of our Holy Religion. You see the sheer absurdity which results when people don't know the Faith, and attack a dogma on grounds they don't understand (or perhaps willfully misrepresent to lead whom they can astray). 

Leave speculation about UFOs and extraterrestrials to the likes of the Dimond brothers and Bergoglio.  Pick up a book by an approved pre-Vatican II theologian and grow deeper in the Faith; the truth is in there.