World Jailbait Day

Someone in the blogosphere has suggested that "World Youth Day" should be renamed "World Jailbait Day." Not a bad idea considering that Mr. Bergoglio and his clerical henchmen do nothing to stop clerical child abuse once and for all, and the Modernist Vatican is controlled by a so-called "gay mafia." Every couple of years the Vatican II sect conducts these "World Youth Days" (WYD) as a "rah-rah" exhibition to make the children trust the perverts whom they should fear. Not only are they a danger to a young person's body, but---more importantly--they are a danger to the soul.

"Catechesis" will be taught most probably exclusively using Youcat the "Youth Catechism" that is heretical to the core. The "instruction" given at the beginning of Youcat says the following:

"Instructions for Use

 The Youth Catechism, which is written in Language suitable for young people, deals with the entire Catholic faith as it was presented in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC of 1997), without aiming, however at the completeness provided in that volume. The work is structured in Question-and-Answer format, and numbers after each answer refer the reader to the more extensive and in-depth treatments of the CCC. A commentary following the answer is meant to give the young person additional help in understanding the questions that are discussed and their significance in his life. Furthermore, the Youth Catechism offers in the margin a continuous series of supplementary elements, such as pictures, summary definitions, citations from Sacred Scripture, quotations from saints, and reliable teachers of the faith but also from non-religious authors. At the conclusion of the book, there is an index of subjects and persons to facilitate finding specific topics."

Forgetting the fact it's "abridged heresy" taking after the "Catechism of the (Modernist) Catholic Church," it  claims to use (1) citations from Sacred Scripture, (2)quotations from saints, (3) quotations from reliable teachers of the faith, and (4) quotations from non-religious authors.
Query: Into which of the above referenced categories does heretic Martin Luther belong? He's quoted no less than three times (See Youcat pgs. 93, 200, 201). To say the quotations are inane would be to understate the situation. On page 201, which concerns keeping holy the Sabbath, Luther is quoted
   "That is the difference between animals and man: the latter has a Sunday outfit, too." Profound.

Then, on page 139 the topics covered are priests and the forgiveness of sin. Next to that text there are quotes in the sidebar which supplement the text. One of them is a quote by the British actor Peter Sellers which reads, "The closest thing to a father confessor is probably a bartender." (In the Vatican II sect, I would've thought a convicted pederast would be closer, but it's now tautological anyway.)

 Youcat also contains quotes from:

• Roger Schutz, Protestant clergyman
• Atheist philosopher Ludwig Fuerbach
• Atheist philosopher Friederich Nietzche
• Atheist philosopher Erich Fromm
• Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer
• Protestant existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard

These are "reliable teachers of the faith"? Some are "non-religious authors" but none are quoted with the intent to condemn---they are quoted with approval. One could point out that even a broken clock is right twice each day, and a non-Catholic may say something sage. Perhaps, but if Jeffery Dahmer said something sagacious, I still don't think it belongs in a catechism.

 Its sexual teaching is just as disturbing. On page 222 we read, "The Church does not demonize masturbation, but she warns against trivializing it. In fact many young people and adults are in danger of becoming isolated in their consumption of lewd pictures, films, and Internet services instead of finding love in a personal relationship. Loneliness can lead to a blind alley in which masturbation becomes an addiction. Living by the motto ‘“For sex I do not need anyone; I will have it myself, however and whenever I need it” makes nobody happy." (Emphasis mine).

The Church (sic) does not "demonize" masturbation? St. Thomas Aquinas lists it as a sin against nature. But Youcat tells us it's wrong because of loneliness and it makes nobody happy. So the morality of an act is dependent on whether or not someone is made happy? When the youth are so brainwashed with heresy in Faith and morals, they will lose the former (if they ever had it!) and will give up the latter---perhaps to a predatory cleric of the Vatican II sect roaming about World Youth Day, seeking whom they may deflower. God save our youth.

Anthony, Eliot, and The Loss of All Sense Of Sin

 New York is the poster child for what's wrong with the world. Currently, we have two men running for public office who, only a few short years ago, resigned from another public office in disgrace. What's more sad is that polls have them both winning their respective races. Eliot Spitzer was elected governor in 2006. He was mentioned as Vice-President material. In 2008, he had to resign after he was found to be using a high priced call girl service, and the girl was only a couple of years older than his eldest daughter. His wife was publicly humiliated. He now has out a book on (get this) capitalism and how good morals (!) are needed. He never mentions his scandal and the damage to his family, except to glance over it in a few sentences in vague terms. He is leading in the polls to become NYC Comptroller.

Anthony Weiner never held a real job outside of politics. At 49, all he's done is hold elected office since graduating with his bachelors degree at age 22 (except working for a Congressman for about two years). In 2011, the married Weiner tweeted pictures of his genitals to woman around the country. When he accidentally tweeted the pictures elsewhere and they became public, he lied and lied until he had to admit to it and resign. He's now in the lead running for NYC Mayor.

 As recently as 1988, Senator Gary Hart had to drop out of the presidential race when it was discovered he was having an affair aboard his boat named the "Monkey Business." In 1987, after the failed nomination of Robert Bork to the US Supreme Court, President Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsberg, who withdrew his own nominations shortly thereafter when it was discovered he smoked marijuana in college. Then came Bill Clinton. "I never had sex with that woman Ms. Lewinski." He was impeached but not convicted. He said he didn't lie because the matter hinged on the meaning of the word "is."

I had an argument with a colleague at the time who defended Clinton by saying, "He only lied about sex. I wouldn't want my wife to find out." I pointed out there would be nothing to find out if he did nothing wrong in the first place. Second, what if he had molested a child? That's sex and he wouldn't want his wife (or authorities) to find out. "That's different, sex with minors is illegal." So, you're saying it's OK to lie about LEGAL sex, not all sex! I then pointed out that adultery is still on the books as a crime in New York State, but no one prosecutes it or the jails would be overflowing. I asked if he was against illegal sex, or only illegal sex for which you can be prosecuted. I think he got the idea. It's wrong to lie regardless of the subject matter.

When you divorce Church from State, morals go from public to private matters.  As Pope Pius XII once said, "The greatest sin of our age is that we've lost all sense of sin." When Vatican II clerics commit crimes against children, they are protected (and even promoted) by lies and cover-ups. They should be held to a higher standard of morality for the position of authority they hold, but they are not. Public officials are also beneficiaries of the collapse of morality in the wake and expansion of the errors of Vatican II. A poll released today showed that people didn't really care about the sexual wrongdoings of Spitzer and Weiner, but they would be concerned if it involved fiscal mismanagement. What makes them think men who lack character in positions of authority, and should be held to a higher standard, wouldn't try to steal if given the chance?

Neither Weiner nor Spitzer asked forgiveness of GOD. No one acknowledges SIN. No one does PENANCE. No one declares themselves no longer fit for public service because their sin made them unworthy. Yes, all can be forgiven by God, but that doesn't mean things can go back exactly as they were before in regards to the responsibilities you had been given. Now everyone has an "illness." Adulterers are "sex addicts" who need group therapy and couldn't help themselves. People made "mistakes in judgment" but never sin. When the "new springtime" of Vatican II eliminated sin and its temporal and eternal consequences from the public---when they began excusing and covering for the inexcusable---the public decline of morals began in earnest, getting progressively worse with each passing year.

 As a result we may have  two perverts in high positions of authority after having left such positions in disgrace only a short time ago. We have only the heretics and sodomites of the Vatican II sect (and those who follow their Modernist errors in morals) to blame.

Giving Clerics and Arguments Even-Handed Treatment

 The uncharitable, puerile, name-calling boors at the blog "Pistrina Liturgica" (PL) are still at it: desperately trying to "prove" ordination with one hand to be doubtful. (See my previous posts of 4/22/13 and 6/8/13). Calling Bishop Daniel Dolan "One Hand Dan" and Fr. Cekada "Tony Baloney" are but some of the insults they routinely throw around to besmirch the reputations of two good clerics. (For the record, one need not agree with every theological argument/position taken by a Traditionalist priest or bishop--especially during this unprecedented time of sedevacante--in order for them to be good clerics). Such sustained vitriol makes me want to send a few names their way but (a) I will never stoop to such a level and (b) my mother (God rest her soul) taught me never to insult the mentally challenged, so I decline to do so now.

 In their latest post of  July 14, 2013, PL is now publishing "The third in a series of our reactions to e-mail comments received as a result of our crusade to rescue the Rev. Mr. Nkamuke's priestly orders from a lifetime of wrenching doubt." The alleged doubt of the deacon's soon to come ordination arises due to the (also alleged) doubt of the (also alleged) one handed priestly ordination of Bishop Dolan.
 "
The post begins by quoting an email that specifically names me: "Funny how all the Cekada backstoppers like Introibo Ad Altare are completely ignoring the fact that he mistranslated Pius XII. You gave 5 examples to show how no one else ever translated it as "one and the same" and no one added extra words either [See our May 11 post]. I respectfully submit a SIXTH. Weird how everybody but Cekada including the "Novus Ordo" can get it right. Sede priests are idiots."

First, I'm not a "backstopper" for anyone. I follow the evidence and arguments where they lead. I disagree with Fr. Cekada on the Schiavo case. I also disagree with attendance at "una cum" Masses where no sedevacantist priest can be found. I disagree that Frs. Baumberger and Greenwell were invalidly ordained by Bishop Mendez. I also disagree with the SSPV that Thuc orders are per se invalid, and that you can deny those who attend such Masses Holy Communion. I also had theological disagreements with my spiritual Father, the late, great Fr. Gommar A. De Pauw.

Let's see what arguments PL actually employ:

1. The Correct Translation of Sacramentum Ordinis  (SO)

Fully conceding that Fr. Cekada mistranslated SO, it doesn't do one iota to help PL's assertion that one handed ordinations are dubious. As I've explained in previous posts, the phrase "imposition of HANDS" has been used in theology manuals to refer to both one handed deacon ordinations as well as two handed priestly ordinations and episcopal consecrations. I also pointed out that if this were not the case, Pope Pius XII was in ERROR when he wrote "the matter, and the only matter, of the sacred orders of the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopacy is the imposition of hands." He should have written, "the matter, and the only matter of the sacred order of the diaconate is the imposition of the one hand. The matter, and the only matter of the sacred orders of the priesthood and the episcopacy is the imposition of both hands." Remember, PL thinks that there may be an essential (i.e. substantial) difference in the matter of the sacrament depending on whether one or two hands are used. This being the case, a two handed ordination of a deacon must be held dubious, and Pope Pius' poorly worded phrase makes it seem like both hands are needed for the diaconate. True, he later specifies one hand for the ordination of a deacon, but that doesn't vitiate the fact that what he wrote prior would be (according to the principles laid down by PL) incorrect--the matter and the only matter of the sacred order of diaconate is not the imposition of HANDS, but the imposition of a HAND. Two hands may be substantially different from one hand, and render the deacon's ordination "dubious."

Fr. Cekada got it wrong on one point, but right on the overall conclusion. As I do not wish to be guilty of rash judgment against a priest, I will not ascribe bad motives, but priests are all too human. Hence, the correct translation of SO is inapposite as to whether one handed ordinations are dubious--as a matter of fact, the correct translation actually serves to vindicate the conclusion that such one handed ordinations ARE valid! I'm not ignoring the fact, I'm pointing out that it doesn't help PL's case one bit.

   2. Attempting to "Prove" a One Handed Ordination With Hearsay

PL wrote in a prior post 6/22/13: Today we will lay out four overarching reasons for believing that at least one 1976 one-handed priestly ordination is not the stuff of urban legend but is highly plausible. Be advised that the following are private reasons, and therefore we shall not disclose the identities of the reporters and witnesses. We know who they are, and we are personally satisfied as to their rectitude and veracity. Our object is not to persuade anyone else to adopt our position, but solely to let the unbiased observer know that our belief in at least one one-handed ordination is founded on clear-and-convincing evidence.

We will see that the evidence is far from "clear and convincing."

They write:In 1990, nine Roman Catholic Priests affixed their signatures to a letter addressed to the Rev. Daniel Dolan. The letter declared, in part, "... your ordination was done with one hand." Admittedly, some of these clergymen may not have checked the texts of the references cited in the letter, but they could scarcely have missed the hard, categorical assertion that the addressee had been ordained with one hand. They surely were morally certain of the allegation or their consciences would not have permitted them to sign their names. This sanguine inference must be true, because a priest has reported that many American clergy at the time were aware of the report of the archbishop's conferring one-handed priestly orders in 1976. (Apparently little was made of the event at first, owing to the great esteem in which the archbishop was held: Amost everyone then thought he could do no wrong.)  

Let's see:

• None of the nine claim to have witnessed the one handed ordination.
• The fact that NINE signed it does nothing to prove they were eyewitnesses to the event. Without such EYEWITNESS testimony, the number is meaningless--you have nine people who saw nothing.
• "They (i.e. the nine who signed the letter) surely were morally certain of  the allegation or their consciences would not permit them to sign it." I see, if "Tony Baloney" or "One Hand Dan" were to sign a letter or write an article we must ascribe to them every evil motive in the book because everyone knows they are liars and uneducated buffoons. However, when priests who agree with a position taken by PL sign something they are paragons of virtue whose motives are as pure as the driven snow. The fact that the letter was written years later and after he left the SSPV couldn't possibly go to show a motive to "get him" for leaving Clarence Kelly, right?
• A priest (whoever he is) has reported that many (quantify "many") American clergy at the time were aware of the report (reported by whom? being aware of a report of something is not the same of being aware that what is reported is accurate and true) of the Archbishop's conferring one-handed priestly orders in 1976. (Oh, please God, I can only hope none of those at PL are lawyers who have to present real EVIDENCE on behalf of their clients!!)

Next:

First-hand reports from former seminarians at Écône and Winona relate it was common knowledge that the '76 ordinations had been performed with one hand. At least one of these men, who later received his own priestly orders from one of the '76 ordinati, underwent conditional ordination as a safeguard against any future impeachment of his orders.
 What does this prove?

• If these "first-hand" reports are true wouldn't their consciences (to which PL gives great deference) compel them to speak out against all those so ordained and demand they stop administering the Sacraments until they are conditionally re-ordained? This obviously was not done.
• One priest, who heard the allegation, went to get conditionally re-ordained. This proves nothing other than (a) he erroneously believed one-handed ordinations to be dubious (if it even took place) and (b) he didn't want to endure the indignity of having himself called names by uncharitable cretins in their blog. 
• Suppose there's someone who wanted to get conditionally baptized, because he was a baby and was afraid the priest might have done something wrong. How does this prove anything, except perhaps for paranoia?

 Next:

A witness present at the '76 ordination confirmed in writing that the one-handed ordination happened, and he confided his irritation with the senior clergy in the sanctuary who did not intervene at the moment the defect occurred. Another individual, who was not present at the 1976 ordination, heard from others who were present that the archbishop had been "in a panic" following the ceremony but later composed himself after another party "explained" the validity of one-handed priestly orders. 

 

What does this show? Not much:

• If true, wouldn't the "panic-stricken" Archbishop check out the matter himself? If it's so evident that one-handed ordinations are dubious, wouldn't he demand re-ordination? After all he was trained pre-Vatican II and should know better, not like the so-called "Traddie" clergy with their "inferior" training as PL claims.
• Bishop Richard Williamson was in that ordination class. Has anyone asked HIM about the matter? Why isn't he known as "One Hand Dick"? (Sounds like a porno star). Why isn't everyone trying to "save" the countless SSPX priests who were ordained by Williamson?

Next:

If Daniel Dolan affirmatively knew he had been ordained with two hands, then by natural right and in natural justice he had a moral duty to deny immediately, vigorously, and unequivocally the nine priests' allegation that his "ordination was done with one hand." (A lofty refusal to "dignify a charge with an answer," as every wise man now knows, is an ethical failing as well as a public-relations miscalculation.)  However, no one seems to have a written record showing that Daniel Dolan, not a surrogate, emphatically controverted the priests' declaration in 1990. On the contrary, with Fr. Cekada's aid, Daniel Dolan in fact complied with the nine priests who urged him "diligently to research the problem and, to let us know any findings which shed light on this issue."

Where to begin?

• Whenever a priest or bishop sets out to confect a sacrament, validity is to be presumed, unless and until the contrary is shown.
• Principle and proof:
  Sacraments conferred by a Catholic minister, including Holy Orders, must be presumed valid until invalidity is proved.
   
  This is “the queen of presumptions, which holds the act or contract as valid, until invalidity is proved.” (F. Wanenmacher, Canonical Evidence in Marriage Cases, [Philadelphia: Dolphin 1935], 408.)
   
  “When the fact of ordination is duly established, the validity of the orders conferred is naturally to be presumed.” (W. Doheny, Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases [Milwaukee: Bruce 1942] 2:72.)
• Bishop Dolan has no "moral duty" to comply with rank calumny or to give credence to an incorrect presupposition, i.e., one-handed ordinations are dubious. PL puts the burden of proof on the wrong party. Merely stating something without solid evidence proves NOTHING.
• Bishop Dolan's compliance to research the matter is not an admission it happened. It's along the lines of "even if what you say is true, it makes no difference, and here's the reasons why."

    3. The Nail In PL's Coffin: Eastern Orders

I will now reproduce what I wrote in a previous post, because it is a defeater for PL's position.

The most absurd "rebuttal" to Fr. Cekada's work, occurs when PL attempts to refute his arguments that one handed ordinations are routinely used in the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. They do not claim his translation is wrong and that two hands are used. They do not claim he simply made stuff up. Their "argument" (I'm being kind in referring to it as such) is as ridiculous as it seems:
"SO WHAT!" (sic)

Remember, PL thinks that the plain meaning of SO is all that counts, so they go on to declare:
"Therefore, it seems to us very simple: after April 28, 1948, the only valid matter for priestly ordination in the Roman rite is the imposition of the bishop's (two) hands. Nothing else matters, so to speak. All this business about Byzantine, Coptic, or Maronite rites is not germane. If you're going to be an undoubted priest of the Roman rite in the wake of the promulgation of Sacramentum Ordinis, you must receive the imposition of (both) the bishop's hands. In light of the explicit definition found in Pius's apostolic constitution, one-handed conferral of priestly orders can only be viewed as a defect in the Roman rite of ordination. Whether one-handed conferral is an essential defect or not must wait until the Church decides the question, an event that may not happen for quite some time. In the meanwhile, a deeply solicitous regard for the salvation of souls demands that one-handed priestly orders be considered, for safety's sake, an essential defect. "

This is sheer ignorance at its worst. The underlying assumption PL makes is that it is possible for the Roman Pontiff to subtantially (i.e. "essentially") change the matter of a sacrament, so that what is valid in one rite might become invalid in another. Pope Pius XII could not declare that use of leavened bread for the Eucharist is an "essential" or "substantial" defect in the Latin/Roman Rite, so that a properly trained and validly ordained priest of the Roman Rite using it at Mass would not confect the Eucharist but an Eastern Rite priest would do so. Illicit, yes. Invalid, no. Likewise, to say that one handed ordination might be illicit is one thing, but not invalid.

Proof:

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

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

 Theologian John de Torquemada declared (1) that the Church had no power over the matter and form of the sacraments and (2) that the sacraments must be the same in the whole Church, since 'the unity of the Church is necessarily founded in the unity of faith and the unity of sacraments, in what concerns the substance of the sacraments.' Pope Eugene IV immediately approved this language. Further, the substance of a sacrament must at the very least convey Christ's meaning, so it would seem fully within the power of the Church to say that this or that form does or does not sufficiently express the meaning....In Extreme Unction, the Church never doubted the validity of the sacrament in the Orthodox Church, although the words of the form are various (See Leeming, Bernard Principles of Sacramental Theology (1962), pgs 420, 430).

It's clear that Pope Pius XII, could NOT have changed the substance (essence) of the sacrament so as to make the matter for the Latin Rite differ in validity from the Eastern Rites. It would result in this absurdity: A Latin/Roman Rite Bishop attempts to ordain a man to the priesthood using one of the Eastern Rites. Is it invalid? If the pope allows him to become a Bishop in the Eastern Rite, is it now valid? Or is it the subject (Roman or Eastern) whom determines what matter must be employed for validity? Bottom line: If it's valid in one Rite, it is valid matter for all Rites and can not be substantially different.

  4. Conclusion
 When it comes to theological matters, PL should keep their hands off. They cause strife and doubt where none should exist. Their "arguments" are based on their personal prejudices and they sift "evidence" to fit these same prejudices. There's an old aphorism that one should not speak or write about matters that one doesn't understand. In the case of PL, it would seem to dictate perpetual silence and no more postings.     

Vatican II Uber Alles

Jorge Bergoglio, aka "Pope" Francis is (literally) hell-bent on proving the alleged truth, goodness and beauty of Vatican Council II, which chased the True Church underground and set up a false Modernist sect in the once holy dwellings of Catholicism. This year Bergoglio will "waive" any further requirements to "canonize" Antipope John XXIII (Angelo Roncalli) and Antipope John Paul II (Karol Wotyla). His reason is evident: Anyone who promotes the Modernist heresy of the Council must become a "saint." From 1563-1958, the True Church canonized two popes (Pius V and Pius X), and beatified one pope (Innocent XI). Since its beginning in 1958, the Vatican II sect has six antipopes, two of whom (Benedict XVI and Francis) are alive. Of the remaining four, two will be "saints" and one (Paul VI) is close to "beatification." Can Antipope John Paul I be far behind?

  In a previous post, I railed against the idea of Wotyla (JPII) being a "saint" and I will now present the objections to Roncalli (John XXIII). Canonizations are infallible decrees:

Assertion 5: The Church's infallibility extends to the canonization of saints. This is the common opinion today.

Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.
Proof:
1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”

2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b) the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult.
(Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ's Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957], pp. 117-118.)
 
 After you consider the fact about Roncalli ask yourself, "Could the True Church infallibly declare such a man a saint"? If your answer is in the negative, then "Pope" Francis is not the infallible head of the One True Church, but the heretical antipope of a false sect.

Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII):

• Born in 1881 and ordained in 1904, he became involved with socialist societies as early as 1913 and signed a petition urging civil violence against civil authority and members of the Catholic Church (see Arade, Zsolt Pope John XXIII, Pgs. 38-40)

• Relieved of a teaching post in 1924 being suspected of Modernism

• The Magazine 30 Days also held an interview several years ago with the head of the Italian Freemasons. The Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy stated:  “As for that, it seems that John XXIII was initiated (into a Masonic Lodge) in Paris and participated in the work of the Istanbul Workshops.”

• When John XXIII was later “elevated” to the College of Cardinals, he insisted upon receiving the red hat from the atheist and notoriously anti-clerical socialist Vincent Auriol, President of the country of France, whom he had described as "an honest socialist."Roncalli knelt before Auriol, and Auriol placed the cardinal’s biretta on Roncalli’s head.  Auriol then hung a “broad red ribbon around the cardinal’s neck embracing him on each cheek with a little bear-hug that imparted personal warmth to formal protocol.” Auriol had to wipe away his tears with a handkerchief when Roncalli left to assume his new dignity as “cardinal.” At social functions in Paris, Roncalli (John XXIII) was also frequently seen socializing with the Soviet ambassador, M. Bogomolov, even though Bogomolov's government had resumed its pre­war policy of brutal extermination of Catholics in Russia.

• He gave a Moslem a "blessing" in which he suppressed the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity so as not to "offend" the infidel

• On July 18, 1959, John XXIII suppressed the following prayer: "Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or Islam." In his Apostolic Brief on October 17, 1925, Pope Pius XI ordered that this prayer be publicly recited on the feast of Christ the King. John XXIII removed from the Calendar of Saints the Fourteen Holy Helpers and a number of other saints, including St. Philomena.

• John XXIII also changed the rubrics for the Breviary and Missal.  He ordered the suppression of the Leonine Prayers, the prayers prescribed by Pope Leo XIII to be recited after Mass.  These prayers were also prescribed by Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XI. This included the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, a prayer that specifically makes mention of the battle that the Church wages against the Devil.  John XXIII removed the Psalm Judica me from the Mass. John XXIII then suppressed the Last Gospel, the Gospel of St. John.  This Gospel is also used in exorcisms. Next, John XXIII eliminated the second Confiteor in the Mass.  Only after all these changes did he introduce a change into the Canon of the Mass by inserting the name of St. Joseph. The request to have St. Joseph’s name placed in the canon was officially rejected by Pope Pius VII on September 16, 1815,and by Pope Leo XIII on August 15, 1892. 

• John XXIII, Pacem in terris #14, April 11, 1963: “Also among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.” Compare with Pope Gregory XVI encyclical Mirari Vos:

13. Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate." Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

• When he died, Roncalli was praised by Freemasons thus:

THE MEXICAN WESTERN GRAND LODGE
of free and accepted Masons,
at the death of
POPE JOHN XXIII

Publicly expresses its sorrow for the loss of this great man, who made a revolution in the ideas, thoughts and forms of the Roman Catholic liturgy.

THE ENCYCLICALS "MOTHER AND TEACHER" and "PEACE ON EARTH"
Made a revolution in concepts favoring
THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND HIS LIBERTY

Mankind has lost a great man, and we
the Freemasons recognize his elevated principles, his humanitarianism and his condition as a GRAND LIBERAL.

Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, June 3, 1963
THE MEXICAN WESTERN GRAND LODGE
Jose Guadalupe Zuno Hernandez, Esquire 

• He convoked Vatican II in 1959, to begin in 1962 and was the biggest boost the Modernists had helping them against the orthodox Catholic prelates led by the truly saintly Cardinal Ottavianni.

And this last reason is why Bergoglio will make him a "saint" of Modernism--everyone who fights against the Truth must be sainted and the Council "vindicated." Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear must flee the Vatican II sect with its "Satanic saints." Vatican II CAN'T EVEN BE QUESTIONED. How long before the assembly at the so-called "mass" will be asked to hold the arm outstretched and say "HEIL VATICAN II"!

When "The Light of Faith" Is Caused By The Flames Of Hell

"Pope" Francis put out his first "encyclical" (co-authored by now retired Ratzinger) entitled, Lumen Fidei, i.e., "The Light of Faith." I can only wonder what "faith" he's referring to since it's not the One True Faith of Jesus Christ as taught by the Roman Catholic Church. Further proof that the Vatican II sect is Modernist heresy and not the Roman Catholic Church (as if any more proof was needed), can be found merely by looking at the notorious figures mentioned without anathemas and, in some cases even approvingly, in what pretends to be papal teaching.

Lets take a look: Lumen Fidei (LF) paragraph #2: The young Nietzsche encouraged his sister Elisabeth to take risks, to tread "new paths… with all the uncertainty of one who must find his own way", adding that "this is where humanity’s paths part: if you want peace of soul and happiness, then believe, but if you want to be a follower of truth, then seek". Belief would be incompatible with seeking. From this starting point Nietzsche was to develop his critique of Christianity for diminishing the full meaning of human existence and stripping life of novelty and adventure. Faith would thus be the illusion of light, an illusion which blocks the path of a liberated humanity to its future.

Frederich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was the philosopher who proclaimed the "Death of God", was a hero to the Nazis, and died from an STD he got from a brothel. He is also thought to have been a homosexual by some historians.

In LF paragraph #16: "In Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, Prince Myskin sees a painting by Hans Holbein the Younger depicting Christ dead in the tomb and says: "Looking at that painting might cause one to lose his faith".The painting is a gruesome portrayal of the destructive effects of death on Christ’s body. Yet it is precisely in contemplating Jesus’ death that faith grows stronger and receives a dazzling light; then it is revealed as faith in Christ’s steadfast love for us, a love capable of embracing death to bring us salvation. This love, which did not recoil before death in order to show its depth, is something I can believe in; Christ’s total self-gift overcomes every suspicion and enables me to entrust myself to him completely."

Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1861) A Russian novelist of whom it is written, "From an analysis of religious perspectives in Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, Demons, and The Brothers Karamazov, James Townsend concludes that Dostoyevsky held orthodox Christian beliefs except for his view of salvation from sin. According to Townsend, "Dostoevsky almost seemed to embrace an in-this-life purgatory", in which people suffer to atone from their sins, in contrast with the Christian doctrine of salvation through Christ. Malcolm V. Jones has found elements of Islam and Buddhism in Dostoyevsky's religious convictions"

In LF paragraph #22: "This explains why, apart from this body, outside this unity of the Church in Christ, outside this Church which — in the words of Romano Guardini — "is the bearer within history of the plenary gaze of Christ on the world"  — faith loses its "measure"; it no longer finds its equilibrium, the space needed to sustain itself."

Fr. Romano Guardini (1885-1968) A thorough Modernist.  His first major work, Vom Geist der Liturgie (The Spirit of the Liturgy), published during the First World War, was a major influence on the Liturgical Movement in Germany, and so ultimately on the "liturgical reforms" of the Second Vatican Council.

LF quotes Martin Buber’s definition of idolatry as “when a faces addresses a face which is not a face.”   

Martin Buber (1878-1965) Jewish existentialist philosopher whose teachings reject Christ and the sound philosophical principles of Scholasticism.

Not exactly the roll call of Church Fathers, Doctors and Saints. But what more could we expect from Bergoglio and Ratzinger?  Having rejected the True Faith, all we can get is a hodge-podge of heresy which heaps praise upon the greatest disaster in  human history---Vatican II. This is not the light of Faith; it is the glow of the once brightest angel...Lucifer.

Slavery and Abortion



Texas State Senator Wendy Davis (D), has become the secular media darling for staging an 11 hour filibuster against a bill that would restrict late term abortions and make abortuaries (what an abortion mill should be called) "safe" for women (actually since half the babies murdered are female, it could never be safe for them). Seems pretty reasonable, not like those "fanatics" who want to take away a woman's "right to choose" altogether, right?

  I recently visited a web site www.catholicvote.org. They had posted an article entitled, "Five Questions the Media Should Have Asked Wendy Davis." It is a Vatican II site, and the author, who has his heart in the right place, did not really hit the nail on the head. One of the five questions he would have posed was this one:

"2. If you don’t believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins and at what point does an unborn child acquire human rights?"

 Someone tried to answer this question for State Senator Davis in a comment as follows:

"2. I honestly don’t know the answer to this question, many struggle with it. But I do know for a fact that any abortion restrictions would limit a woman’s right to her own body at any term of the pregnancy. When does the fetus’s right to life trump this right to her own body? You think at conception, many disagree."

The Modernist mindset truly has taken hold thanks to Vatican II. I responded to that comment as follows:

In reply to your response of the second question, I think the absurdity can be brought out by comparing abortion to slavery. In 1857 the US Supreme Court ruled that African-Americans (“Negros”) were 3/5 of a human being and can be property. If you think about it, the Confederacy was not pro-slavery, they were pro-choice. They didn’t force white people to own slaves; it was a matter of choice. The problem is that in order to be given the chance to make such a choice, you must deny the humanity of the object chosen. A Confederate politician could answer in similar fashion, “I don’t know if blacks are human. It’s above my pay grade. Many people struggle with it. But I do know for a fact that any restrictions on slavery would limit a white man’s right to own property and make a living. Many people think blacks are fully human, just like white people, but many disagree.”

Kind of like an 1850s version of Wendy or Barack, slavery can be justified because we "don't know" the answer to a "difficult question" on which many people disagree. The pro-aborts beg the question as to whether or not the fetus (Latin for "little person") is human and assume that it's part of a woman's body. From the first moment of fertilization, the zygote has a complete genetic code that is totally human and completely distinct from both mother and father. The fact that it depends on the mother for life no more robs him/her of humanity than someone who depends on an iron lung for life ceases to be human and becomes part of the machine because he/she can't live without it.

Every zygote becomes a fetus, and every fetus becomes a human baby--always human. Now even if I were to concede (and I'm not) that we don't know when the zygote "becomes human" that is enough to stop abortion. Think about it. If you go deer hunting and you see something move in the bushes that could be a deer or could be a fellow hunter, what do you do?  You can shoot and hope it's a deer, or you can refrain from shooting because it might be human. The innate moral law tells us that only the latter course is acceptable, even if it means a prize deer gets away. When in doubt, you must choose the side that favors the preservation of innocent human life.

 Texas Gov. Rick Perry called the legislature back into a special session for 30 days to pass the bill Davis killed. While pro-lifers peacefully gathered and sang "Amazing Grace" orange shirted pro-aborts were screaming "Hail Satan!"  A fitting slogan for the cheerleaders of death. Then again, the way things are going, they might want to substitute "Wendy" or "Obama" for "Satan." When you get right down to it, they all stand for the same thing anyway.

The Society of St. Pius X: A False Solution to a Real Problem

 I finished reading a small book by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) entitled, Sedevacantism: A False Solution to a Real Problem published by the Society's Angelus Press. It's rife with truths, half-truths and outright falsehoods, all nicely interwoven to give an aura of dogmatic certitude to the Society's position that sedevacantism is an "error."

I will now focus on some of the major points which misrepresent sedevacantism, and attempt to reinforce the SSPX's theological errors.

• The book categorizes sedevacantists as either “Rigerous,  “Conclavist” or followers of the Cassiciacum thesis. Let us first of all consider the latter, which can be superficially characterized as holding that we have a pope who has no authority, but whose authority would return if he returned to the faith. Now while this latter position is advocated by some highly intelligent individuals – Guerard des Lauriers, Bishop McKenna, Bishop Sanborn--just to name a few--the average "garden variety" sedevacantist does not know about this thesis or adhere to it. All they know is the theological truth that a heretic can't be pope. How we get a pope back; divine intervention, an imperfect general council, or the material/formal pope of the Cassiciacum thesis is up for grabs at this point. Technically speaking, the Cassiciacum thesis is known as sedeprivationism, meaning that the seat of Peter is deprived of it's power and the "pope" is a material pope, not a formal one. It's like the President of the United States who declares himself temporarily incapable of performing the authority of his office. Pursuant to the 25th Amendment, he retains the office, but with none of its powers which will be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President until the disability is removed. (This happened on July 15, 1985 when President Reagan needed surgery. For four hours, VP Bush was Acting President Bush until Reagan came out of anesthesia.) In sedeprivationism, the "pope" holds the office, but with none of its power unless and until he publicly abjures the heresy of Modernism as contained in the documents of Vatican II.

• .While it is true that there are a moderate number of  “conclavists” and a veritable host of  “popes,” (either self elected or followed by relatively small groups of people), the fact remains that the sedevacantist position is in no way tied to such groups. While it is regrettable that we do not have a true pope able to direct the activities of the Church, it should be clear that there is nothing that prevents any Catholic from being Catholic. Such has always been the case during periods characterized as being “inter-regnum.” As Catherine Emerick said, if there is only one Catholic in whom the faith exists, the Church resides in him.

• To call sedevacantists "rigorous" implies a kind of fanaticism, when in fact it's founded on very sane theological principles taught by all pre-Vatican II theologians.

• The sedevacantists are accused of holding that the "teaching Church no longer exists." This is false. The Church can exist without a live pope to sit on the throne. We may have to wait for the Restoration of the Visible Head of the Church, but the alternative is heretical; namely the Ordinary Universal Magisterium can teach error which contradicts the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church. Ironically, the author accuses sedevacantists (i.e. Traditionalists) of denying the Indefectibility of the Church since he confuses the Church proper with indefectibility of the teaching hierarchy; the latter of which CAN happen.

•  The author casts doubts on the validity of the Thuc consecrations on the grounds that he consecrated some individuals who were in one way or another unqualified. This is a red herring. First, it has nothing to do with disproving sedevacantism. Second, plenty of bishops have ordained/ consecrated unworthy individuals. As long as they applied due diligence, you can't blame them for the bad actions of others. Third, validity and worthiness are two separate issues. The proper principles of sacramental theology were not applied. A worthy candidate can be invalidly ordained/consecrated, and an unworthy candidate can be validly ordained/consecrated.

• In conclusion, the book never lets us face the reality that to follow the post-Conciliar “popes” requires that we become apostates as they have. The choice is clear. Either we obey the post-Conciliar  "popes", or we declare that the current pseudo-pope and the bishops in union with him are themselves not in the One True Church.  The SSPX gives a false solution to a real problem. If they do not soon adopt the true Traditionalist position of sedevacantism, they have no solutions to offer and, in effect, become part of the problem itself.