God Has A Real Sign For Ratzinger And Francis

Former Antipope and still heretic Joseph Ratzinger, has reported that "God told me to" resign the (anti-) papacy during a "mystical experience in prayer." I think all should review what the Church says about True and false supernatural private revelations. I reproduce here the Traditional teaching as set forth by one Fr. Peter Joseph.

There are three sources, ultimately, of revelations, visions, prodigies, and suchlike things: God, man, or the devil.

Under the heading of God, I include God’s holy creatures, such as Our Lady or another Saint or an angel.

Under man, I mean any human knowledge or skill or trickery or imagination or any human activity or machine or device causing anything to happen.

Under the devil, I include the devil himself or any one of the other demons.

The power of the devilVery few people are aware of the devil’s full powers, and his ability to deceive. Many Catholics think that as soon as any prodigy occurs, it must be the work of God. But, as I said, messages and prodigies can issue from three sources ultimately: God, man, or the devil. It is the work of discernment to identify who is at work in a given case.

It is knowledge of diabolical trickery which makes the Church cautious here. My next part on the power of the demons is taken from Father Jordan Aumann, a Dominican priest, who taught for many years at the Angelicum University in Rome.

What the devils can and cannot doThe devils cannot do the following:

(1) Produce any kind of truly supernatural phenomenon;

(2) Create a substance, since only God can create;

(3) Bring a dead person back to life, although they could produce the illusion of doing so;

(4) Make truly prophetic predictions, since only God knows the future absolutely, and those to whom He chooses to reveal a portion of it. However, the devil’s intelligent conjecture about the future might appear to mere mortals a prophecy;

(5) Know the secrets of a person’s mind and heart. However, their shrewd intelligence and observation may enable them to deduce many things about a person.

But the devils can do the following:

(1) Produce corporeal or imaginative visions;

(2) Falsify ecstasy;

(3) Instantaneously cure sicknesses that have been caused by diabolical influence;

(4) Produce the stigmata;

(5) Simulate miracles and the phenomena of levitation and bilocation;(6) Make people or objects seem to disappear by interfering with a person’s sight or line of vision;

(7) Cause a person to hear sounds or voices;

(8) Cause a person to speak in tongues;
(9) Declare a fact which is hidden or distant.

Whatever nature or science can cause, the devils too are able to cause, according to what God may permit. See the Book of Exodus where the magicians and sorcerers of Pharaoh were able to accomplish some of the prodigies wrought by Moses and Aaron (Ex 7:11-12; 7:22; 8:7; 8:18-19; 9:11). Close to 200 A.D., Tertullian writes, "first of all, they [the demons] make you ill; then to get a miracle out of it, they prescribe remedies either completely novel, or contrary to those in use, and thereupon withdrawing hurtful influence, they are supposed to have wrought a cure." (Apology of the Christian religion, 22).

In the face of the fallen angels’ power to deceive, it is no wonder that the Church is always very slow to declare a miracle or message authentic.

The devil has superhuman intelligence and is very clever, and to pretend that you can definitively judge in favour of something’s authenticity, without help, is presumptuous.

To know if something is false, it suffices to know that it says something contrary to the teaching of the Church. Hence, it is easier to pronounce against visionaries than in their favour. But the mere absence of doctrinal error is not enough. There have to be other positive indications.

The following quotations are from the final chapter of the rock-solid book Spiritual Theology (Sheed & Ward 1980) by Dominican Father Jordan Aumann.

Signs of the divine spirit

"The following characteristics are general signs of the divine spirit:

1. Truth. God is truth and cannot inspire anything but truth in a soul. If a person believed to be inspired by God, therefore, maintains opinions that are manifestly against revealed truth, the infallible teach­ing of the Church, or proven theology or philosophy or science, it must be concluded that the individual is deluded by the devil or is the victim of excessive imagination or faulty reasoning.

2. Gravity. God is never the cause of things that are useless, futile, frivolous, or impertinent. When his spirit moves a soul it is always for something serious and beneficial.

3. Enlightenment. Although one may not always understand the meaning of an inspiration from God, the effect of any divine movement or impulse is always enlightenment and certitude rather than darkness and confusion. This is true both for the effects on the individual who receives the inspiration and its effects on others.

4. Docility. Souls that are moved by the spirit of God accept cheer­fully the advice and counsel of their directors or others who have authority over them. This spirit of obedience, docility, and submission is one of the clearest signs that a particular inspiration or movement is from God. This is especially true in the case of the educated, who have a greater tendency to be attached to their own opinions.

5. Discretion. The spirit of God makes the soul discreet, prudent, and thoughtful in all its actions. There is nothing of precipitation, light­ness, exaggeration, or impetuosity; all is well balanced, edifying, seri­ous, and full of calmness and peace.

6. Humility. The Holy Spirit always fills the soul with sentiments of humility and self-effacement. The loftier the communications from on high, the more profoundly the soul inclines to the abyss of its own nothingness. Mary said, ‘I am the servant of the Lord. Let it be done to me as you say’ (Lk 1:38).

7. Peace. St. Paul speaks frequently of the peace that comes from God (Rom 15:33, Phil 4:9), and Jesus mentions peace as one of the manifestations of his spirit (Jn 14:27). This is a quality that always accompanies communications from God; the soul experiences a pro­found and stable serenity in the depths of its spirit." (pp. 402-3)

Fr Aumann mentions other signs also: Confidence in God, Flexibility of will, Purity of intention, Patience in suffering, Self-abnegation, Simplicity, Liberty of spirit.

Signs of the diabolical spirit

"…[S]ince the devil may disguise himself as a good spirit and even cause what appears to be authentic mystical phenomena, it is helpful to mention briefly the various signs of the diabolical spirit.

1. Spirit of falsity. The devil is the father of lies, but he cleverly conceals his deceit by half-truths and pseudo-mystical phenomena.

2. Morbid curiosity. This is characteristic of those who eagerly seek out the esoteric aspects of mystical phenomena or have a fascina­tion for the occult or preternatural.

3. Confusion, anxiety, and deep depression.

4. Obstinacy. One of the surest signs of a diabolical spirit.

5. Constant indiscretion and a restless spirit. Those who constantly go to extremes, as in penitential exercises or apostolic activity, or ne­glect their primary obligations to do some personally chosen work.

6. Spirit of pride and vanity. Very anxious to publicize their gifts of grace and mystical experiences.

7. False humility. This is the disguise for their pride and self-love.

8. Despair, lack of confidence, and discouragement. A chronic characteristic that alternates with presumption, vain security, and un­founded optimism." (p. 412)

Fr Aumann mentions other signs also: Impatience in suffering and stubborn resentment; Uncontrolled passions and strong inclination to sensuality, usually under the guise of mystical union; Hypocrisy, simulation, and duplicity; Excessive attachment to sensible consolations, particularly in their practice of prayer; Lack of deep devotion to Jesus and Mary; Scrupulous adherence to the letter of the law and fanatical zeal in promoting a cause.

Signs of the human spirit

"The human spirit is always inclined to its own satisfactions; it is a friend of pleasure and an enemy of suffering of any kind. It readily inclines to anything that is compatible with its own temperament, its personal tastes and caprices, or the satisfaction of self-love. It will not hear of humiliations, penance, renunciation, or mortification. If any director or confessor goes against its inclinations, he is immediately branded as inept and incompetent. It seeks success, honors, applause, and pastimes. It is always a great promoter of anything that will arouse admiration or notoriety. In a word, the human spirit neither understands nor cares for anything except its own egoism.

"It is sometimes difficult in practice to judge whether given man­ifestations proceed from the devil or from a purely human and egois­tic spirit, but it is always relatively easy to distinguish between these two and the spirit of God. It will be possible in most cases, therefore, to determine that a given spirit could not possibly be from God and that it must be combatted, even if one is not sure whether it is in fact from the devil or the human ego." (p. 413)

Some norms for discernment

"The following norms are offered as guides for the spiritual director in the discernment of spirits so far as they pertain to revelations and prophecies:

1. Any revelation contrary to dogma or morals must be rejected as false. God does not contradict himself,

2. Any revelation contrary to the common teaching of theologians or purporting to settle an argument among the schools of theology is gravely suspect.

3. If some detail or other in a revelation is false, it is not necessary to reject the entire revelation; the remainder may be authentic.

4. The fact that a prophecy is fulfilled is not of itself a conclusive proof that the revelation was from God; it could have been the mere un­folding of natural causes or the result of a superior natural knowledge on the part of the seer.

5. Revelations concerning merely curious or useless matters should be rejected as not divine. The same is to be said of those that are detailed, lengthy, and filled with a superfluity of proofs and reasons. Divine revelations are generally brief, clear, and precise.

6. The person who receives the revelation should be examined carefully, especially as to temperament and character. If the person is humble, well balanced, discreet, evidently advanced in virtue, and en­joys good mental and physical health, there is good reason to proceed further and to examine the revelation itself. But if the individual is exhausted with excessive mortifications, suffers nervous affliction, is subject to periods of great exhaustion or great depression, or is eager to divulge the revelation, there is cause for serious doubt." (p. 430)

Curiosity

Is the information useful for the salvation of souls? If it is merely to satisfy curiosity it is unlikely to be of divine origin. Some seeming seers act like mediums, give information on births, marriages, legal processes, diseases, political events, etc. God does not run an Inquiry Office. Some are very clever at observing, or very intuitive, and can work with little things. At séances, furniture is often pushed about, or a spirit moves a person’s hand to write messages, etc. God has never done these things in any approved revelation.

Curiosity sticks out in people who claim to tell you what was the ultimate fate of Princess Diana, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, etc. We’d all love to know who’s in Heaven and who isn’t! A lady I heard of claims to know where every deceased person is: funnily enough everyone’s either in Purgatory or Heaven! I suppose it would do harm to business and popularity to tell people that certain relatives are in Hell! Actually, anyone who pronounces on famous people is immediately to be disbelieved.

Also suspect are revelations that merely give truisms and platitudes.

Why does the devil do it?

Catholics ought be very cautious in giving credence to visions and messages before they have received approbation from the Church. The devil has raised up many false mystics in recent years. People ask: "Why would the devil be behind a revelation which encourages people to pray and fast and do penance? That would be Satan divided against himself."

Fair question. Why would he do it?

Answer: For a number of reasons: to distract people from the genuine private revelations; to lead them into exercises not blessed as such by God; to bring private revelations into complete disrepute; to cause disenchantment and even a crisis of faith when a seer is later plainly seen to be false; and, worst of all, subtly to lead some people out of the Church altogether. The devil is willing to lose a lot, if he can gain in the long run.

The devil rejoices when Catholics reject the tried and true means of spiritual growth to chase after the extraordinary and the unapproved. The Church is extremely careful before approving a private revelation, for she knows how "even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor 11:14). She must avoid both credulity and unfounded scepticism. "Do not quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying, but test everything," directs St Paul (1 Thess 5:19-21). And St John warns, "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God" (1 Jn 4:1). Some spirits are quite easy to discern; others very difficult. Priests in particular must be examples of prudence and obedience in this area."

 

We can now see why God has not spoken to Herr Ratzinger. According to the news reports, " Benedict also praised the “charisma” of his successor, Pope Francis, saying that his actions as the leader of the Catholic Church show that his election was “God’s will.”

God would never want anyone to stay in the heretical Vatican II sect which is false, since God is Truth. Nor would He want praise lavished upon the evil Antipope Francis. If Ratzinger experienced anything, it could not be of Divine origin. Only Satan would want the damnation of millions of souls through the heretical teachings of Vatican II, exemplified by Francis.  If  Ratzinger claimed God told him to remember his Anti-Modernist Oath, formally abjure his errors, and embrace the True Catholic Faith once more---then we all have reason to rejoice and believe it.

Theological Malpractice

The Vatican II sect has its share of apologists. They are mostly laymen and ironically spend much time attacking Protestants, even though the Vatican II sect is every bit as Protestant as the sects they attack. Dr. Art Sippo, a physician, is one such Vatican II apologist. He calls Protestants "prots;" and while claiming that the Protestant apologists are "uncharitable," he uses many ad hominem attacks and calls them names. He hasn't blogged in quite some time, but if you go his "Art of Attack" blog (www.art-of-attack.blogspot.com), you will see his last post was against Martin Luther.

The problem with Sippo and his ilk is that they want to be part of the Vatican II sect and yet have the ability to hurl anathemas like in the days pre-Vatican II. These apologists get no support from the Vatican II "bishops" on that account. They do, however, score brownie points for attacking Traditionalists and defending Vatican II at all costs. Dr. Sippo's number one enemy is Dr. James White, a Calvinist apologist who attacks anything/everything non-Calvinist as "apostate" and "not Christian." Sippo once had a debate with White, and like the mature man he is, when things weren't going his way, Sippo stormed out of the debate and never returned.

Dr. White operates his "Alpha and Omega" ministries, aimed at making converts. Interestingly, White posted a video on Youtube in 2008, when it was rumored that Ratzinger would "rehabilitate" and remove the excommunication of his fellow German heretic Martin Luther. (This may still happen by Francis in 2017, the 500 year anniversary of the so-called "reformation"). Dr. White GETS IT!! He openly states that the True Church (i.e. pre-Vatican II) was "theologically consistent" but post-Vatican II, it's in shambles. He challenges Sippo and every member of the sect to compare the popes of the early 19th century (he probably meant to say early 20th century), with the post-Vatican II "popes" and see that you can't reconcile them!!  I have posted his video below---- a must see!!

While a Calvinist sees clearly the problem, Art Sippo continues to denigrate the "prots" that his own sect emulates. Why would a member of the Vatican II sect want to attack them anyway? Vatican II's Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 3 states that Protestants "are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church" and -- note well! -- "have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation" because "the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using [them] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."  

Poor Dr. Sippo condemns that which is now embraced! What will Sippo do if/when Luther is extolled by Francis? Stay away from these Vatican II lackeys. Sippo's "medicine" of Vatican II theology is worse than the theological disease of Protestantism he wants to destroy. Indeed, every criticism he makes of Protestant theology can be leveled at Vatican II. So the next time he attacks Dr. White, all White needs to do to refute him is to say, "Physician, heal thyself"!

Bishop Williamson, Guess Who's The Real Dummy

Bishop Richard Williamson, the expelled Bishop from the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), has had quite the tumultuous life. Raised Anglican, he converted to Catholicism as the Modernists of Vatican II took over. He had enough True Catholic sense to realize something was wrong, and joined the SSPX seminary in Econe. In 1976, the then 36 year old Williamson was ordained a priest by Archbishop Lefebvre. He was one of  the Archbishop's most notorious sycophants. He rejected sedevacantism because Abp. Lefebvre did not officially embrace it. He would later comment that if the Archbishop had openly declared himself a sedevacantist, he would need to rethink his position, so as to "think in line" with Archbishop Lefebvre! Traditionally, Catholics are supposed to think as one with the CHURCH, but Lefebvre has taken on cultic status with many in (and formally of) the SSPX.

Who can forget his questioning of the exact number of Jews killed in the Holocaust, which would bring him the wrath of Ratzinger, who regretted remitting the so-called "excommunications" of 1988 placed on the Bishops consecrated by Lefebvre. He had long standing legal problems in Germany where "Holocaust-denial" is a crime. Bp. Williamson clashed with SSPX General Superior Bp. Fellay over the latter's attempted wholesale sellout to Modernist Rome. This lead to Bp. Williamson's expulsion from the SSPX.

In a recent e-mail to his supporters, Bp. Williamson was rightfully upset by "Pope" Francis deciding to "canonize" Roncalli (Antipope John XXIII) and Wotyla (Antipope John Paul II) as "saints." Unfortunately, Williamson often takes a correct position while refusing to let logic get in the way. He can't let go of his hero-worship of Lefebvre, and will not therefore allow himself to follow the evidence where it necessarily leads---sedevacantism.

He said that, "as is always the case with Modernism, the words remain the same but the content of the words is quite different. Therefore, Catholics who have the true Faith need not worry one little bit whether these Newcanonizations are infallible or not. They are proceeding from the Newchurch, which is a dummy of the Catholic Church."

His statement is troubling for several reasons:

1. He mentions "Catholics who have the true Faith," thereby implying that somehow you can have the absurdity of "Catholics who DON'T have the True Faith" a contradiction in terms.
2. It is taught by nearly all pre-Vatican II theologians that canonizations are infallible. Therefore, if Francis declares two Modernists as "saints", it is further inconvertible proof that  he is not the Vicar of Christ, but rather a manifest heretic.
3. Notice the terms "Newcanonizations" and "Newchurch." This clearly implies that the Vatican II sect ("Newchurch") is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church (which is correct), yet Williamson still holds Francis to be pope!
4. He desperately wants to hold that the See of Peter has an occupant, so he explains that Newchurch is a "dummy of the Catholic Church." He analogizes to hospitals that kill (abortion) and police that oppress instead of help people. His analogy must fail because hospitals, schools, the police, etc, are all human institutions. The Roman Catholic Church is of Divine origin and is Indefectible!
5. He then claims that Francis is like a father of a family who has lost his mind. You love and respect him, but don't follow him in his insanity.

The problem with point #5 above is that Francis is NOT insane. He's crazy like a fox. He knowingly, willingly, and obstinately proclaims heresy in the public forum. This makes him a heretic, and a heretic can't be pope!! For that matter, neither can an insane man retain the papacy. As theologian Prummer taught  “The power of the Roman Pontiff is lost: …(c) By his perpetual insanity or by formal heresy. (Manuale Iuris Canonci (1927) pg. 95

But Williamson doesn't care about Church teaching. He cares about the thoughts of Archbishop Lefebvre more than drawing logical, necessary conclusions from theological facts. The real dummy is the mannequin Francis, pretending to be the real pope; and the appellation "dummy" fits equally well in describing those like Bp. Williamson whose feeble-minded attempts to rescue the "papacy" of Francis stupidly keeps them from the Truth.

"Pope" Francis: Bringing "Frankenchurch" To The Next Level Of Depravity

The Modernist, ecumenical sect created by Vatican II has been dubbed "Frankenchurch." Just like the monster Frankenstein from the movies (who was made from different parts stitched together), it is composed of a “People of God” and a “Church of Christ” not identical with the Roman Catholic Church and broader than it — a Frankenchurch created from “elements” of the true Church that are possessed either “fully” (by Catholics) or “partially” (by heretics and schismatics).

The National Catholic (sic) Reporter has published an article entitled "Is Pope Francis bringing a new church into being?" by Pat Perriello. The author is obviously oblivious to the fact that a new "church" was already set up by Vatican II called by Antipope John XXIII (soon to be a  so-called "saint")and finished by Antipope Paul VI (who will most likely be declared "Blessed" soon). I read with interest to see why the author thought a "new church" was being brought into fruition by Antipope Francis. Below, I reprint some of the article, with my comments in red after each part.

Pope Francis is back at the Vatican after a whirlwind World Youth Day celebration in Brazil. Not a single doctrine of the Catholic church was altered during this event. Frankly, there seems little likelihood there will be change to any Catholic doctrine in the foreseeable future. Pope Francis even made clear that there will be no female priests during his papacy.

Catholic doctrine has been altered beyond recognition. If there were a time machine and we could bring a devout Catholic from 1958 to any Vatican II sect parish in the world, he would not recognize it as Catholic in any sense of the word! Female priests? With altar girls, scantily clad women reading the Bible and distributing the crackers at the Novus Bogus "mass" they are almost there in a Lutheran "priesthood of all believers."

It is notable that Pope Francis has almost never used the word abortion since his elevation to the papacy. He was asked about this in his press conference. He forthrightly answered that the church's position on abortion was clear and he wanted to present a positive message. In other words, he wanted to change the subject. He understood there are many issues the church needs to talk about, and by limiting itself to commenting over and over on abortion, homosexuality and other sins of the flesh, the church has failed to provide a strong voice on so many other important issues. For Pope Francis, poverty is at the top of that list. These issues also include the excesses and injustices of capitalism, the abuse of power, the repression of the poor and the outcast. In short, the pope wishes to focus on the Gospel values of Jesus presented in the New Testament.

Let's change a word above and see the manifest absurdity that follows. "It is notable that Pope Francis has almost never used the word Holocaust since his elevation to the papacy. He was asked about this in his press conference. He forthrightly answered that the church's position on the Holocaust was clear and he wanted to present a positive message." How well would that go over in the media? The Holocaust was the murder of six million innocent people. Abortion is the murder of approximately 50 million human beings in the U.S. alone since 1973. What is more important (after the salvation of souls) than preventing the murder of the innocent? The Gospel values of Jesus? Didn't Our Lord say of poverty "The poor thou shalt always have with you"? (St. Matthew 26:11) Saving souls and preventing the murder of the innocent take precedence over any other evils.

How does changing the subject change the church? One change, I believe, will be an end to what has essentially become a spy network ready to accuse clergy or other officials of minor liturgical discrepancies or some perceived failure to adhere to official church teachings. Under Pope Francis, such accusations will likely be referred back to the ordinary of the diocese. The fear of being caught doing something wrong will be significantly reduced.

I'm sure that last sentence will bring smiles to the faces of Frankie's pedophile clergy and the "gay mafia" at the Vatican. We have now gotten to the point where "Clown Mass," using tortilla chips as "communion" and the singing secular rock songs with the "punk priest" are described as "minor liturgical discrepancies." To root out what's wrong is "spying," and when Fr. Sodomite assures us homosexuals have a right to "marry" this is merely a perceived failure to adhere to official Church teachings. Please. 

Francis specifically changed the subject on the issue of homosexuality. The church essentially teaches two things regarding homosexuality. Homosexual acts are considered sinful, yet homosexual individuals are to be treated with respect and dignity, as are all human beings. Up to now, the church has focused on sin. What a difference it makes when the focus is placed on the humanity of the individuals involved.


"Hate the sin and love the sinner" has always been the moral stance of the Church (capital "C" not the small "c" Vatican II sect about which the author writes). However, people are born in sin and in need of redemption. To respect the homosexual person is to perform one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy and admonish the sinner!  They must cease their sins against nature. This article stinks of the Modernist notion that all moral and doctrinal aberrations must be "respected" because the propagators of this filth and error are "dignified" and have "rights." As Pope Leo XIII wrote, "About the 'rights of man,' as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God." (Encyclical Temetsi 11/1/1900)
Finally, let me say a word to those who may want more from this new pope. I would place myself in that camp, but let me point out why that would be a really bad move: Any clear break with John Paul II or Benedict XVI would create a backlash that would destroy everything Francis is trying to do. He would be seen as illegitimate, and we could wind up with the first impeached pope in history. Conservative elements in the church would usurp the power of Francis and the church would move into a retrenchment that would likely last for centuries.

A clear break might expose the counterfeit "Catholicism" of Vatican II to the so-called "conservative members of the sect, who might find the True Church, so Frankie backs off. Impeached? No such thing, and even if possible, who would denounce this heretic---his fellow heretics in the Vatican? Retrenchment? No! Only the obliteration of everything Vatican II would do any good, and the Modernists are in complete control, so that will never happen except for Divine Intervention.

The genius of Francis: Although some or even many may be upset with the moves he has made, they really can't complain. How can one object to a pope who speaks out for the poor? Who can object to a message of love and compassion? Announcing a determination to live Gospel values in all simplicity is not up for scrutiny by traditionalists. Can anyone really question a desire to treat every individual with dignity and respect? I believe Francis knows exactly what he's doing and he just may be the person to bring a new church into being.

Evil genius to be sure, and yes, we Traditionalists can complain and scrutinize the actions of His Wickedness. Speaking out for the poor while ignoring the murder of innocents is no virtue. False messages of "love" and "compassion" that preclude admonishing the sinner and saving souls is downright malevolent. Failing to denounce sin under the guise of "dignity" and "respect" ignores the duty and rights of God and His One True Church. Frankie does know exactly what he's doing--taking Frankenchurch to its next phase in Satan's plan.

 Besides, Pope Francis is just getting started. He's not done yet.

Be afraid. Be very afraid---and pray without ceasing that God may save us in this time of near universal apostasy.

Misplaced Outrage: St. Mary Magdalene And The N-Word

It's a truism that society will frown upon expressions they find most offensive. There was a time when talking badly about the American way of life, or approvingly of Communism, would cost you your job and reputation. Anyone who mocked God would be shunned. No more. You can feel free to burn the American flag, and noted atheist Richard Dawkins 2006 book, The God Delusion, was at the top of the New York Times Bestseller list for weeks.

Society, since Vatican II's ecumenism, now looks askance at epithets aimed at certain groups. Hence, Paula Dean (a TV personality) lost her job for using the N-word in reference to African-Americans. No Traditionalist worthy of the name should be a racist, and thankfully, that word is rightfully relegated to a place of strong disapproval. Is the solitary use of an uncharitable word spoken years ago (and for which she apologized) worthy of someone getting canned?

Bishop Richard Williamson dared to question the magic number of six million Jews killed in the Holocaust. As a result, Ratzinger was ready to "re-excommunicate" him based on something which did not touch upon Catholic Faith or Morals! Would he only be so fastidious concerning the rape of children. Carrie Prejean lost being Miss America because she stated that she did not approve of sodomite "marriage" and the "Lavender Lobby" was quick to label her "intolerant" and "homophobic" for refusing to condone legal perversion.

What all this proves is that people used to take pride in belonging to this country (with all its myriad imperfections) and to their Faith (mostly some Christian denomination). Now, it's race, ethnicity, and perversion that define group identity. It gets so extreme that a political aide in Washington DC lost his job for using the word "niggardly" during budget talks and someone who doesn't understand English all too well, thought he was making a racist statement about African-Americans! Because he was a sodomite, they gave him his job back.

What society no longer cares about is Christianity--especially Catholicism (both real and of the Vatican II sect). An opera opened up in (where else?) San Francisco called The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene. It is blasphemous beyond words. It was penned by Mark Adamo, a sodomite who was raised Catholic. This piece of trash depicts the Blessed Virgin Mary as a whore, Our Lord as her bastard Son, St. Mary Magdalene as His lover, and denies Christ's Divinity. Here's how it was described by newmusicbox.org:

"Adamo places Mary and Yeshua’s story within a contemporary framework by opening the opera with five “Seekers” dressed in contemporary clothes who enter the set while the house lights are still up, mirroring the audience members who are entering the house. The mammoth set designed by David Korins, which never moves in the course of the production, evokes an archeological dig site in which the Seekers voice their concern about modern-day religion: namely, that they—or perhaps we, or perhaps specifically Adamo—have been taught that the body is “unholy” and “the very source of sin,” and that this “poisonous” view of the physical and sexual self has caused years of hurt. And yet, the need to find a way to integrate their religion with the rest of their lives remains, and it sets up the rest of the opera as an attempt to “correct” and “complete” the story as it has been told traditionally. For most of the rest of the production, the Seekers remain on stage, often observing and commenting but sometimes interacting, acting as our avatars within the story as it develops.
For such a radical retelling of a canonical work, Adamo’s musical language is notably un-revolutionary; clarity of text delivery is prioritized through lyrical lines and repeated motives that move among various people throughout the opera, musically interweaving the characters’ lives. In the chorus’s frequent appearances throughout the work—the most effective being the crucifixion scene, where they violently deliver a version of the Dies Irae text, in Greek—Adamo often has them sing homophonically or in vocalise, making their pithy commentary clearly understandable. (The most memorable instance of this is when they interject footnotes into the action.)


Adamo has spoken openly of the challenges of his Catholic upbringing, as a gay man whose divorced mother continued to send him to church and Catholic school even after she was denied communion. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is clearly born from the desire to excavate that personal history through looking at the real people buried under two millennia of mythology. In this process of humanizing these characters, however, the holy and spiritual aspects of these figures are often left by the wayside. For this listener, the missing linchpin in this look at Jesus’s life was divinity: in this portrayal, it was hard to understand why Jesus gained the following and devotion that he did. In the scenes where Yeshua is preaching, he is given a fire and brimstone diatribe and a comic theatrical moment referencing circumcision, but holiness is notably absent. Yeshua invokes God only once in the entire production, when he is on the cross, forsaken. Nearly all other references to God are uttered by the women, and not necessarily in a reverential way. At best, the character of Yeshua seems almost a boorish bro; at worst, he might be perceived as a misogynistic and hypocritical charlatan. Even Miriam and Peter seem to mock Mary Magdalene at first for naively falling for Yeshua’s charismatic preaching. When the gathered crowd passionately declares him the Messiah, it is difficult to see what motivates them to do so....In the opera’s version of Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb, taken from the Gnostic Gospel of Mary, the crypt is not empty: the corpse is still there, but Yeshua’s ghost appears behind Mary. "

Were you outraged at such sheer blasphemy? How does THAT compare to using the N-word, questioning numbers of the Holocaust, and denouncing sexual perverts? Query: Where are the so-called "bishops" of the Vatican II sect in denouncing this filth? Of denying "communion" to those who support it in any way? These false shepherds railed at Mel Gibson's beautiful and powerful epic The Passion of the Christ because of perceived "anti-Semitism and the fact Gibson is a Traditionalist who rejects Vatican II!! Few people heard of the blasphemous opera, but if it denigrated Jews, sodomites, or African-Americans, denunciations by both the Vatican II sect bishops and the mass media would be swift and unrelenting.

As Traditionalists, let's not forget that the most important group we belong to, indeed the only one that really matters, is not our race, ethnicity, gender, or any of the preferred groups of the secular world. Our membership in The One True Church of Christ--The Mystical Body of Christ on Earth--is the only membership that will one day (God Willing) bring us to our homeland of Heaven. It is to this Divine Organization that we should be willing to fight to the death, and the blaspheming of Our Lord, Our Blessed Mother in Heaven, and the saints is what should evoke our strongest feelings of outrage and prompt us to take swift action to defend Their Honor.

He Judges Not--And Stands Already Judged As A Result

Got That Francis?

  

"Pope" Francis has dropped another bombshell: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Francis told journalists, as he flew from Rio de Janeiro to Rome. “The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…They’re our brothers.” He said this in response to queries about sodomite "priests."

Modernists are sly and wicked. Frankie can quickly give the appearance of being orthodox by saying that the tendency to homosexuality is not a sin and homosexuals should not be victimized. Remember, however, he said this in the context of the priesthood. There are several pertinent problems with his statement.

• If someone is a homosexual and searches for the Lord and has good will, then he will know that God wills for him to be celibate. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and sinful. They are one of the Four Sins That Cry To Heaven For Vengeance.

• "Who am I to judge"? Ah, aren't you supposed to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth? A "vicar" is one who takes the place of another. Christ is the judge of the universe. Therefore, Frankie should judge homosexual acts as wrong and those who commit them as sinners who need to repent. Then again Frankie doesn't like to be called "pope" (apropos since he's not), he calls himself "Bishop of Rome"; a kind of "first among equals" heresy espoused by the Eastern Orthodox.

• Homosexuality is a personality disorder, and renders the man UNFIT for the priesthood. The Vatican II sect has long abandoned the traditional concept of "occasion of sin." Putting a man with a sexual disorder around other men and children (sodomites are disproportionate child molesters) is an occasion of sin much akin to placing a normal man in the company of women when he has a vow of chastity.

• Even our brothers receive "fraternal correction" (from the Latin "frater" meaning "brother"). He commits a logical fallacy. Frankie claims he shouldn't judge. So that means IN HIS JUDGMENT, it's wrong to judge! Can anyone say, "self-refuting"?

Frankie went on to say, when someone sins and confesses, God both forgives and forgets. “We don’t have the right to not forget.” Not exactly.

•  When someone sins and confesses God does indeed forgive IF the penitent is (a) truly sorry for his sins and (b) has a firm resolve to avoid them in the future. Someone who doesn't recognize a sin for what it is when he has been informed of Church teaching and/or refuses to seriously stop his sinful life  can't be forgiven.

• The priests' vow makes such sins especially egregious and the disordered person has an unusually hard time stopping, which is one of the reasons such men are per se unfit to be priests.

• God, being omniscient, can't literally forget. He simply refuses to hold anything against us as if it never happened and there's nothing to remember.

• As far as humans are concerned, although forgiveness must be given when sought by one who offends us, "Ordinary friends are not obliged to unite the ties of severed friendship" (See Davis, Henry Moral and Pastoral Theology, Volume I, pg. 317, Sheed & Ward !935). If what happened to sever those ties is serious and you can't trust him, you must forgive and have no ill will, but need not take him back as your friend because you want to protect yourself against the wrong done which you must necessarily remember.

And to those who will object that Frankie was merely doing as Jesus commanded in the Gospel of St. Matthew 7:1-5, "Do not judge lest you be judged."

• They fail to take His Words in context. The rest of the passage has Our Lord saying, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

• Notice Jesus is not telling us not to judge--He's telling us how to judge. He commands us to take the speck out of our brother's eye (which requires a judgment), but also commands us to stop committing even bigger sins so we can better help him. In other words, do not judge hypocritically.

• Jesus Christ actually commands us to judge in St. John 7:24, " Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

With all the crimes committed by his sodomite clerics against children, and the "gay mafia" running the Vatican, Frankie tells us "we don't have the right not to forget'? In reality, we have a duty to remember lest we allow the damning behaviors of the past to continue.

Didn't Vatican II Make Enough Of A Mess Already?

Mr. Jorge Bergoglio, aka "Pope" Francis, has been working the crowd at World Jailbait, er, I mean YOUTH Day!! The usual Modernist claptrap was accompanied by this interesting remark, "I want to tell you something. What is it that I expect as a consequence of World Youth Day? I want a mess. We knew that in Rio there would be great disorder, but I want trouble in the dioceses!" I want to see the church get closer to the people. I want to get rid of clericalism, the mundane, this closing ourselves off within ourselves, in our parishes, schools or structures. Because these need to get out!"

He wants a mess? What does he think he has now?  He wants trouble in the dioceses? I would think large numbers of convicts is trouble enough. He wants the "Church" (i.e. Vatican II sect) get closer to the people? There would be less of the aforementioned convicts if they kept their distance. Get rid of "clericalism"? You mean married "deacons," laymen and laywomen handing out the cracker at the Novus Bogus "Mass," reading the from the book, and basically running the entire parish isn't getting rid of the former priesthood? Mundane? That word comes from the Latin "mundus" or "world," meaning "of this earth" rather than Heavenly. The Novus Bogus is a masterpiece of the mundane, as is the Modernist theology behind it.

Kenneth C. Jones wrote a commendable piece in the Latin Mass magazine; too bad he doesn't reach the logical conclusion of sedevacatism, but it is worth repeating some of his words:

"Expected was a great step forward, instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church."  

• Since Cardinal Ratzinger made these remarks in 1984, the crisis in the Church has accelerated. In every area that is statistically verifiable — for example, the number of priests, seminarians, priestless parishes, nuns, Mass attendance, converts and annulments — the "process of decadence" is apparent.

• Priests: After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. And remember that in all of these statistics, the per capita decline has been even worse, because the number of Catholics has continued to increase since 1965. In 1965 there were 12.l85 priests for every 10,000 Catholics, in 2002 there were 7.l0 — a decline of 46 percent. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests — and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests age 80 to 84 than there are age 30 to 34.

 

• Ordinations: In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.

• Priestless parishes: About 3 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

• Seminarians: Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700 — a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2000.

• Sisters: 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000 — and of these, only 21,000 will be age 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers. From 1965 to 2002, per capita, the number of sisters fell from 39.43 per 10,000 to 11.56 — a decline of 71 percent.

• Brothers: The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 predicted for 2020.

• High Schools: Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.

• Parochial Grade Schools: There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.

• Sacramental life: In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms, in 2002 there were 1 million. (In 1965 there were 287 infant baptisms for every 10,000 Catholics, in 2002 there were 154 — a decline of 46 percent.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1968 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.

• Mass attendance: A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.

• The decline in Mass attendance highlights another significant fact — fewer and fewer people who call themselves Catholic actually follow Church rules or accept Church doctrine. For example, a 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing.

•  Only 10 percent of lay religion teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control, according to a 2000 University of Notre Dame poll. And a New York Times poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.

• Religious orders: I'm not being chicken little here, but the religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 389 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.

• If this is renewal, I don't want to be around when the decline sets in."

Well said! He even answers the objection that when people cite these statistics, it's an invalid inference of post hoc, ergo propter hoc.  He writes:

"The final myth I want to discuss is the idea that the crisis we now face was not caused by the Council or the changes imposed in its name. These people would object to Mel Gibson's recent statement in Time magazine, when he was asked about the effects of Vatican II on the Church: "Look at the main fruits; dwindling numbers and pedophilia."  I have a several responses to the post hoc objection, which comes mainly from conservative Catholics.  First, the correlation in time between the holding of the Council and the subsequent decline is just so startling it's beyond reason to deny the link. I won't go through the numbers again, but in every area the numbers flipped almost immediately with the Council — numbers that were on a steep increase immediately before began a precipitous slide.  Second, the most serious declines came in exactly those areas that were most affected by the changes — for example, reform of seminaries and convents led to an immediate decline in vocations; the de-emphasis of the distinction between priest and laity was followed by a dearth of priests; the change of the Mass resulted in plummeting Mass attendance; and the emphasis on ecumenism brought about a decline in conversions and missionary activity. The list is endless.  Third, I think the burden is on those who make the post hoc argument to offer a better reason. If the changes made after Vatican II did not cause the crisis, what did? They offer no other reason. In response to the post hoc objection, I submit another Latin slogan — res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. " Well said once again, and even agreeing with Traditionalist  Mel Gibson!!

Unfortunately, Mr. Jones makes one serious error. He sees the bad fruits that Our Lord tells us can not come from a good tree, yet he writes:

"I have to submit that one of the greatest obstacles to facing the reality of the disaster after Vatican II — and to working toward reversing the decline — is that many think erroneously that you can't criticize the Council or its aftermath because it imposed infallible dogma. Again, as Michael Davies says, a council can do so, but this Council, as acknowledged by popes and bishops, did not. Another obstacle is a misunderstanding of the nature of infallibility — some people don't understand that the protection provided by the Holy Spirit is a negative protection — that a Council together with the pope will not teach error in matters of faith and morals that it proposes for acceptance by the universal Church.  This is not a guaranty that the calling of a Council is divinely inspired or that every word of every line contained in the documents is inspired or even beneficial.  As Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1988: "The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."

Sorry, Mr. Miller, you're totally wrong on this one, and that's why you won't escape that Vatican II sect. Davies, and other "conservative" or pseudo-traditionalists who recognize the post-Vatican II "popes" usually quote from Paul VI's January 12, 1966 audience: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility."

     This proves nothing. "Extraordinary" refers to solemn

dogmatic definitions, which everyone agrees Vatican II did not make. They leave out the rest of his remark, well brought out by Traditionalist priest and author Fr. Anthony Cekada, ""but it [Vatican II] nevertheless endowed its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary (and therefore obviously authentic) magisterium must be docilely and sincerely received by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council regarding the nature and scope of the respective documents."

Ahem!

If you accept Paul VI as a true pope, therefore, Vatican II is part of the universal ordinary magisterium. As a Catholic, you are then bound to adhere to it. And that was my point.

Still not convinced? Here is the typical formula at the end of each Vatican II document: "Each and every matter declared in this Dogmatic Constitution the Fathers of this Sacred Council have approved. And We by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve, decree and establish these things; and all things thus synodally established, We order to be promulgated unto the glory of God...I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church. There follow the signatures of the rest of the Fathers." (AAS 57 [1965], 71)

What part of "Apostolic Authority," "Holy Ghost" and "rest of the Fathers" don't you understand?

Bottom line: The doctrinal buffet is now closed. If Paul VI was a true pope, there's only one dish on your menu: Vatican II."

Yes, indeed! And a dish that will make you sick if you eat it.

Moral of this post: Vatican II made a mess of everything in the Church and in the world. The last thing we need is Bergoglio telling the youth to go and make things more of a mess by spreading the Vatican II poison of Modernism. We need to clean up the mess, and to do that we must (a) recognize the evil fruits of Vatican II, (b) realize that they can not be from the One True Church, and (c) unlike Mr. Miller and Michael Davies, realize that Ratzinger speaks out of both sides of his mouth (like all Modernists do) and Vatican II must not be merely criticized ,it must be forthrightly and entirely rejected along with the post-Vatican II antipopes. As a recent bumper sticker I saw put it, we must, UNDO VATICAN II.

•