Getting Ready for the Next Antipope

                                      GOOD RIDDANCE

Today, the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, February 11, 2013, Fr. Joseph Ratzinger aka "Pope" Benedict XVI announced he would abdicate his pretended papacy on February 28. Rather than speculate on why he's doing so (I'll touch on that in the coming days), let's all keep in mind what the new conclave will bring: more heresy.

 Ratzinger was the first non-bishop to be Antipope, having been "ordained" to the episcopacy with the invalid Pauline Rite in 1977. The next Antipope might not even have valid priestly orders, but could be just a layman if he were ordained in/after 1968. A group of heretics all appointed by Ratzinger and John Paul the Great Apostate will elect another heretic as "pope." Will he proceed under the guise of "orthodoxy" like Ratzinger, who had the appellation of "God's Rottweiler", or will he be such an out-and -out Modernist, who will shed the last vestiges of Catholicism, allowing birth control, abortion, the end of clerical celibacy, sodomite "marriage," and priestesses?

I'm hoping for the latter. Just maybe enough people will wake up, and the Traditionalists can have an imperfect General Council to elect a True Pope to succeed Pope Pius XII (d. 1958). Stay tuned.

Defending Their Own

When thinking about the moral and spiritual mess that is the Vatican II sect, I'm often reminded of the aphorism, "And who shall guard the guards themselves?" With rampant pederasty, and brave talk about "zero tolerance" for any credible accusation of such behaviors, what is one to make of the following news story?

From Catholic News Agency:

The Archdiocese of Newark affirmed its decision to allow a priest accused of abusing a minor to remain in ministry, stressing that they are complying with authorities and prohibiting any interaction alone with children.
“We have not received any complaints from the prosecutor’s office…since Father has been back in ministry,” said Jim Goodness, the archdiocesan communications director.
“We’re doing exactly what we’re supposed to be doing,” he told CNA on Feb. 5.
On Nov. 21, the Catholic Advocate – the archdiocesan newspaper – announced that Father Michael Fugee had been appointed co-director of the office of Continuing Education and Ongoing Formation of Priests. He had been, and remains, director of the Office of the Propagation of the Faith. Both are positions at the Newark chancery.
On Feb. 3, the Star-Ledger ran a story about the appointment, calling it a “high-profile position.”
Goodness contested that characterization, saying, “it certainly is not a prestigious assignment…Father simply has to send out emails and notices to the priests in the diocese talking about this or that seminar or workshop if they want to take advantage of it, that’s it.”
In 2001, Fr. Fugee was charged with criminal sexual contact and endangering a child’s welfare.
The priest told police he had twice groped a teenage boy’s crotch while they were wrestling in the presence of the boy’s family members. One instance took place while he was on vacation with the boy’s family in Virginia in 2000, he said, and the other was about a year prior to that.
During his 2003 trial, Fr. Fugee protested that his confession to the police was false and that he had lied. The jury convicted him of aggravated sexual contact.
Fr. Fugee appealed the decision, and in 2006, an appellate court reversed his conviction, saying that the trial court had given inadequate guidance to the jury. Goodness said that “there was no basis for those original verdicts.”
 

Oh my Goodness! (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) The man admitted to having a deviant disorder, by being "homosexual or bisexual", then states he lied under oath to the police. So we have a sodomite version of Bill Clinton who is now going to have charge over the formation of "priests"?!? Even SECULAR papers have weighed in on such madness: (From the Herald)

"An archdiocesan review board determined Fugee could be returned to ministry but with no contact with children. This is a clear violation of the so-called Dallas Charter. The charter states that “for even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor — whenever it occurred — which is admitted or established after an appropriate process in accord with canon law, the offending priest or deacon is to be permanently removed from ministry and, if warranted, dismissed from the clerical state.”
The archdiocese may want to play word games — playfully wrestling with a minor versus grabbing the boy’s crotch. The criminal conviction was overturned, but Fugee’s admitted conduct — criminal or not — was not acceptable behavior. Rather than err on the side of respect for victims, the archdiocese put the needs of clergy ahead of the people it serves.
Fugee should not be in active ministry. One strike and you’re out. Those are the rules agreed upon by the bishops themselves. Yet the archdiocese placed Fugee in 2009 at St. Michael’s Medical Center in Newark as a chaplain. When hospital administrators found out, Fugee was removed. Church officials had notified the head of chaplains at the hospital about Fugee’s history, but not administrators. Again, this is a pattern that seems to never stop."

Beginning in the mid-1960s, the Vatican II sect began to admit men with "SSA" (i.e. Same sex attraction) into the seminaries. By the late 1970s some, such as Immaculate Conception Seminary serving the Diocese of Brooklyn and Rockville Centre, was known as the "Pink Palace." Can it be that now they have reached high places of authority, and will defend their fellow perverts while attempting to look "vigilant" against such things? When even secular writers notice such sophistical legerdemain meant to defend the indefensible, it seems entirely plausible. Even the names make you shake your head, men like "Goodness" and "Cardinal Law" doing everything to subvert the former and break the latter.

After 51 Years, the Score: Prophets of Doom 2, Antipopes 0

When Angelo Roncalli, "Pope" John XXIII, opened Vatican II he had the following to say on October 11, 1962:

"In the daily exercise of Our pastoral office, it sometimes happens that We hear certain opinions which disturb Us—opinions expressed by people who, though fired with a commendable zeal for religion, are lacking in sufficient prudence and judgment in their evaluation of events. They can see nothing but calamity and disaster in the present state of the world. They say over and over that this modern age of ours, in comparison with past ages, is definitely deteriorating. One would think from their attitude that history, that great teacher of life, had taught them nothing. They seem to imagine that in the days of the earlier councils everything was as it should be so far as doctrine and morality and the Church's rightful liberty were concerned.

We feel that We must disagree with these prophets of doom, who are always forecasting worse disasters, as though the end of the world were at hand."

 Well, the end of the world for the True Church as we knew Her DID take place. The unmitigated disaster that is Vatican II proved Roncalli and his merry band of heretics wrong. Now listen to Ratzinger:
 
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI asked nuns, brothers and priests not to listen to the "prophets of doom" who say that consecrated life has no future or that it has no meaning in today's world.

"Do not join the prophets of doom who proclaim the end or the lack of meaning of consecrated life in today's church; rather clothe yourselves with Jesus Christ and put on the armor of light ... remaining awake and vigilant," Pope Benedict told consecrated virgins and men and women who belong to religious orders.

Now, for a reality check:

 From 1965 (the close of Vatican II) to 2002:
the number of brothers declined from 12,271 to 5,690, a decrease of 54%, and projected to drop to 3,098 by 2020

the number of nuns declined from 179,954 to 75,500 a decrease of 58% and projected to drop to 39,282 by 2020

it is now projected that in 2020 there will only be appox. 22,000 nuns age 70 or less

      (Source: Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II by Kenneth C. Jones, Roman Catholic Books, Inc., 2003)

"By their fruits thou shalt know them.." saith Our Lord Jesus Christ. It doesn't take a prophet to see that the errors of Vatican II in conforming to the world has lead to the very decline and soon-to-be death of the vocations Ratzinger refuses to acknowledge. Heretics are of the "father of lies" (i.e. Satan), and it would take an incredible liar or a man deluded to think that you can continue on the path of Vatican II and expect anything but the death and destruction of all things good, true and beautiful.

The Two Faces of Ratzinger: Genuine Faith or Genuine Heresy

 Ratzinger's heresies never end.  Get this from the Catholic News service:


VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Faith and charity can never be separated nor opposed to each other, just as faith by itself isn't genuine without charity, Pope Benedict XVI said.

"Faith is knowing the truth and adhering to it; charity is 'walking' in the truth," the pope said in his annual message for Lent, which in 2013 begins Feb. 13 for Latin-rite Catholics."Faith is genuine only if crowned by charity."

The text of the pope's message was released by the Vatican Feb. 1.

"It would be too one-sided to place a strong emphasis on the priority and decisiveness of faith and to undervalue and almost despise concrete works of charity, reducing them to a vague humanitarianism," Pope Benedict said.

"It is equally unhelpful to overstate the primacy of charity and the activity it generates, as if works could take the place of faith."

 If "Faith is knowing the truth and adhering to it" what conclusion must we draw about "Pope" Benedict who took the Anti-Modernist Oath in 1951 upon his priestly ordination and has two earned doctorates? He knows the Faith and REJECTED it, making himself a heretic. "Faith and Charity can never be separated nor opposed to each other...." and "faith by itself isn't genuine without Charity"?
Really? Let's see what the Council of Trent dogmatically defined:

Canon 28.
If anyone says that with the loss of grace through sin faith is also lost with it, or that the faith which remains is not a true faith, though it is not a living one, or that he who has faith without charity is not a Christian, let him be anathema
With every mortal sin, charity is lost but NOT Faith. Therefore, Faith and Charity CAN be separated. Notice the cleverness of Ratzinger. Had he clearly reiterated the true teaching and said "But ideally, Faith and Charity SHOULD always accompany each other in the believer who strives to live in the state of grace" there would be no problem. Instead, he makes a denial of defined dogma seem like an expression of an ideal; something beautiful. Have nothing to do with the Vatican II sect.

Fellay of Souls: Will Failure to Embrace Sedevacantism Lead Souls To Fry In Hell ?

 Bishop Bernard Fellay, General Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, refuses to simply say "no" to Modernist-occupied Rome and continues to seek "full communion" with Ratzinger. Fellay would be well-advised to remember that EVERY pseudo-Traditionalist group that made the horrible mistake of recognizing Ratzinger as pope and "reconciling" ended up having their Faith destroyed, sacraments compromised or invalidated, and morals brought down to the level of the Vatican II sect. We learn from history that we don't learn from history.

Think of what has happened to:

The Fraternal Society of St Peter


It was formed in 1988 by 16 priests who left the SSPX because they disagreed with Arch. Lefebvre's consecration of four bishops without papal approval. These men thought they could have "Catholic Tradition" at the same time as being in "full communion with Rome" (exactly what Bishop Fellay is now claiming the SSPX should do). Well, the FSSP has now experienced how Rome inevitably treats those who are foolish enough to make a compromise deal with it. Since the days of the FSSP's founding, Rome has done the following to them:


1.Demanded that the FSSP priests concelebrate the novus ordo "Mass" at least once per year (on Holy Thursday's chrismal Mass)

2.Demanded eleven years after its founding that the FSSP's priests “must celebrate with the postconciliar [novus ordo] missal if, by chance, a celebration takes place in a community which uses the modern Roman Rite” This was demanded even though at the time of its founding in 1988, the FSSP was granted the "exclusive use" of the traditional Mass!  Notice: eleven years. It may take time, it may not - but eventually modernist Rome will make all its sheep fall in line.

3.Demanded that the FSSP allow its priests the right to say the novus ordo Mass if they so desire (agreement made in 2000). Because of the deterioration of the formation of Society of St. Peter priests, some of its priests wanted to say the new mass on other occasions also, and Cardinal Hoyos forbade the society’s leadership from preventing this.

4.Demanded that the FSSP not criticize the New "Mass", and even admit that the New "Mass" is the official rite of the Church - something to which a traditional Catholic would never agree.

5.Removed and replaced the FSSP's superiors with men who were more to its liking: About twelve years after the FSSP's founding and initial agreement with Rome, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, acting as head of Ecclesia Dei, imposed his own choice of superior general on that society and his own choice of rectors to replace the two that the same cardinal ordered removed from their positions in charge of that society’s two seminaries.
6.Here is a revealing quote from Fr. Gabet, former North American District Superior of the FSSP, which reveals the all but novus ordo mentality:

"We see Vatican II, and we look at those documents, and we see them, like Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in light of Tradition. It is not just Vatican II, but it is all the councils. Vatican II is certainly one of them — from Nicea all the way to Vatican II." Source: This interview at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1610361/posts

 This info was gleaned from www.truetrad.com.  A web site dedicated to preventing the SSPX from entering the sect of Ratzinger. I made some editing for brevity and put quotations around New "Mass", etc. The web site goes on to note that this is what happens when you enter Ratzingers web:



1.An organization either begins with a "compromise mentality", or else develops one (such as the SSPX leadership, many priests, and many faithful are now doing!)

2.This mentality progresses into the desire to be in "full communion" with Rome even if it means concessions on important matters. The organization's leaders develop an overconfidence in their ability to defend against the crushing power of modernist Rome, as well as a misplaced trust in Rome's sincerity. They forget the last 20 years of history.

3.An agreement is made. Concessions are made by the organization.

4.There is a waiting period before Rome does anything. Rome is patient. It might be 10 years!

5.Demands begin to be made. Changes. A backing down from the former "hardliner" stance. New leadership is put in. The new leaders lack the spirit of the founders. Softening on condemnations of the errors of Vatican II, the New Mass, etc.

6.The organization begins to lose its focus, zeal, and begins to crumble.

7.Eventually there will is very little substantial difference between it and the New Church."

 They see the poison, they see through the deceit and they even refer to the Vatican II sect as the "New Church." Yet, they still cling to the idea that Ratzinger can be a Modernist heretic and remain pope! Only when the real culprit is publicly rejected, and Ratzinger is denounced as an anti-pope can they be free of any notions of "reconciliation." You don't negotiate with the pope, you obey. And you don't negotiate with Satan, you renounce him with all his pomps and works. If not, you may be spending Eternity with him.

"Punk Priest" Move Over---Now You Can Go "Breaking Bad in The Land Of Oz With Monsignor Meth" !

I couldn't have made this story up if I tried. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

"The Catholic priest busted for allegedly dealing crystal meth was suspended after church officials discovered he was a cross-dresser who was having sex in the rectory at Bridgeport's St. Augustine Cathedral.
Monsignor Kevin Wallin was relieved of his duties in May, but the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport had continued to pay him a stipend until his Jan. 3 arrest -- a day he was planning to fly to London on vacation.
Now dubbed "Msgr. Meth" by some, Wallin seemed to live a life that easily could have been ripped from the script of "Breaking Bad," the popular AMC series about a high school chemistry teacher turned crystal methamphetamine producer. At one point, Wallin was selling upwards of $9,000 of meth a week, according to his indictment.
In his post-priesthood, Wallin, 61, bought an adult specialty and video store in North Haven called Land of Oz that sells sex toys and X-rated DVDs. Investigators believe the shop helped him launder thousands of dollars in weekly profits.
Wallin's arrest sent shock waves through the Bridgeport and Danbury communities where he was known as a charismatic speaker who was involved in many charitable activities, and who enjoyed Broadway musicals and show tunes. He often attended musicals with his mentor, former N.Y. Cardinal Edward Egan and parishioners.
"There is an evil invading our world and it has come to our church," said Maria Spencer-Fonseca, a long-time parishioner at St. Augustine as she stood outside the cathedral Thursday. "This was a work of evil -- and I am praying for the monsignor."
"I can't fathom it," said 77-year-old Therese Ruppert, a parishioner at the Church of St. Peter in Danbury, where Wallin was pastor from 1996 to 2002. "He was so spiritual. His sermons were wonderful. He had such knowledge of theology."

 Of course, the "bishop" will plead ignorance to what was going on. Why was this man getting a stipend if he was relieved of his duties? The part that really got me was the parishioner who claims he was "spiritual" and had "such a knowledge of theology." Let's not forget that Ratzinger has two earned doctorates, one of which is in sacred theology. He received them before Vatican II and he took the Anti-Modernist Oath in 1951 when he was ordained a priest. He knew theology, but he didn't believe it and live it. In the same way, you can know Greek mythology but you don't believe it or run  your life in accordance with it. Arch-heretic Fr. Karl Rahner was noted for his devotion to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, yet his heresies belie that it was a false and lying devotion, bereft of any benefit to himself and probably more for show; to appear holy and above reproach. As our Lord said, "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." (St. Matthew 7:15).

  If any member of the Vatican II sect wants one of their "priests" really checked out, accuse him of being a secret Traditionalist who offers the Traditional Mass somewhere. Now THAT'S something the "bishop" would NEVER tolerate!!

The Mystery of Faith....Or The Mastery of Fake

Much has been made by "conservative" members of the Vatican II sect regarding the change of wording in the so-called "institution narrative" of the 2011 edition of their "mass." One of the strongest arguments against the validity of the New Rite was the change in the Words of Consecration over the wine from "for you and for many" to "for you and for all." The Catechism of the Council of Trent had made it clear that Our Lord was expressing the EFFICACY of His Sacrifice (i.e. the many who would actually be saved) and NOT the SUFFICIENCY (i.e. that all receive sufficient grace for salvation). In the words of the Catechism of Trent:

"The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race. When therefore ('our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles.

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine." (Emphasis mine)

 Now, Ratzinger has changed the word "all" back to "many", therefore the "conservatives" assert that any question regarding validity is cast aside. There are three problems with this line of reasoning:

1.  Since 1968, the revised rite of ordination to the priesthood and consecration to the episcopacy have been rendered invalid, and if there is no valid priest the will be no valid Mass regardless of what words are used
2. There is ample evidence that reciting the words in the form of an "Institution Narrative" (i.e. as simply telling the story of a moment in history) does not confect the Sacrament since the intention to consecrate is not present
3. The words "the mystery of Faith" are still absent from the consecration formula over the wine

I will leave the arguments for points 1 and 2 for another day, and call the readers attention to the oft overlooked third argument.

Here's what The Catechism of Trent has to say about those sacred words:

"The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith. In this passage, however, these words bear a meaning different from that which they have when applied also to Baptism. Here the mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ veiled under the species of wine; but Baptism is justly called by us the Sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith.

Another reason why we call the blood of the Lord the mystery of faith is that human reason is particularly beset with difficulty and embarrassment when faith proposes to our belief that Christ the Lord, the true Son of God, at once God and man, suffered death for us, and this death is designated by the Sacrament of His blood."

Pre-Vatican II theologians differed as to what constituted the words effectuating Transubstantiation. Some held the "short form" theory, that only the words "This is the Chalice of My Blood..." are sufficient. Others, including Aquinas, hold that all the words, the "long form" is necessary. Since the Church has not definitively pronounced which is correct, the safe course of using the long form and omitting nothing, must be held in practice. To do otherwise would put the validity of the Mass at stake.

Assuming we have a validly ordained priest, and further assuming that pronouncing the Words of Consecration as an "Institution Narrative" does nothing to invalidate the Sacrament, the omission of the words "the mystery of faith" render validity dubious at best. Furthermore, the phrase was taken out of the Consecration Formula and placed before the so-called "Memorial Acclamation" which states "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." That is NOT the "mystery of faith"--- it actually is supposed to denote the alleged Transubstantiation that just took place!  How many members of the Vatican II sect know this and understand what it means? It's ambiguous place outside the Consecration Formula, lending itself to be misunderstood, is a subtle DENIAL of the Real Presence.

 In other words, the Novus Ordo Missae contains a denial of the Real Presence doctrine. For if a given expression has always had a particular meaning in its original context, and the very same expression is used in the very same setting but with an altogether different meaning attached by its ambiguous placement, which different meaning is explicitly acclaimed, then one may reasonably infer that the original meaning was not only suppressed, but that the innovator has intended its denial. This shows a defect of intention within the rite which is another reason to hold it as dubious at best!

Lest anyone say that the words "the mystery of Faith" do not appear in pre-Vatican II Eastern Rites, and they validly consecrate, let the theologian Capisuccus explain:

 "And this does not change the fact that all those words which the Latin Church uses in the consecration of the wine are of the essence of that form. For it is one thing to say that all those words are not of the essence of the form as such, and it is another thing to say that they are not of the essence of the form that the Latin Church uses. Therefore we say that although all those words are not of the essence of the form as such, they are of the essence of the form in which they are found, such as that form which the Latin Church uses."(See Controversiae theologicae selectae pgs 213-218--Emphasis mine).

Couldn't the Church change the form? In a word, "No." As Pope St. Pius X taught, "[I]t is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever [emphasis mine] to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments (Pope St. Pius X, in the letter Ex quo, nono, Dec. 26, 1910).
To summarize:

1. The words "the mystery of Faith" may be necessary to the validity of the Mass, at least in the Latin Rite by the Will of Christ transmitted by the Apostles in Sacred Tradition
2. The words have been placed outside the Consecration Formula, leading people to believe "the mystery of Faith" refers to Christ having died, risen, and coming again on the Last Day. This is a tacit denial of the Real Presence and gives the rite a defective intention. If the rite does not intend Transubstantiation to occur, then it would be invalid.
3. The Church has "no right whatsoever" to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments, as Pope St. Pius X taught.
4. Hence, by changing the words "for all" back to "for many" in their 2011 edition of the "Novus Ordo Mass", they still did nothing towards making it valid even presupposing a valid priesthood and an efficacious "Institution Narrative"

As a logical consequence, if the Church has no right to change the substance of the sacraments, and She is Indefectible by the Will of Christ (i.e. can not give evil in official teachings and administering the sacraments), then the New "Mass" did not come from the Church! She has no authority to change, so a change means no authority was present in those who presumed to promulgate it (Paul VI) and his heretical successors who falsely claim to hold the papal throne.