Satan And Vatican II At Harvard

 In 1951, political pundit William F. Buckley, Jr. released his best known book entitled God and Man at Yale. Buckley wrote the book based on his experiences as an undergraduate at Yale University, and he forcefully argued that the professors pushed a secular left-wing ideology on the students by breaking down their religious beliefs through their teaching. This week, the Harvard Extension School Cultural Studies Club wanted the Satanic Temple (a group of Satanists) to perform a "black mass" on the Harvard campus as a means of fostering "multiculturalism."

  Harvard's president, Dr. Drew Faust (yes, that is her real name), refused to cancel the event, citing freedom of speech. “The decision to proceed is and will remain theirs,” she said of the student group. Faust added, “It is deeply regrettable that the organizers of this event, well aware of the offense they are causing so many others, have chosen to proceed with a form of expression that is so flagrantly disrespectful and inflammatory.” Notice she did not decry it as evil, but simply "disrespectful." After a petition signed by tens of thousands in Massachusetts was presented to the university (not to mention a public rebuke by "Cardinal" O'Malley of the Archdiocese of Boston), Faust still would not cancel the event, but said she would attend a holy hour sponsored by the Archdiocese  "...to demonstrate that the most powerful response to offensive speech is not censorship, but reasoned discourse and robust dissent.” At the last moment, amid death threats, the event was cancelled by the student group without further comment.

 In order to fully understand what went on, several questions need to be answered: (1) What is the "Satanic Temple" and what do they believe? (2) What did they plan to do at the "black mass"? (3) What is the true Catholic teaching to be applied and how does it compare with the teaching of Vatican II?

 I. What is the "Satanic Temple"?
According to their own website:

"The Satanic Temple seeks to separate Religion from Superstition by acknowledging religious belief as a metaphorical framework with which we construct a narrative context for our goals and works. Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfless revolt against tyranny, free and rational inquiry, and the responsible pursuit of happiness.

In theological terms, the mythology translates thus:

God is supernatural and thus outside of the sphere of the physical. God’s perfection means that he cannot interact with the imperfect corporeal realm. Because God cannot intervene in the material world, He created Satan to preside over the universe as His proxy. Satan has the compassion and wisdom of an angel.  Although Satan is subordinate to God, he is mankind’s only conduit to the dominion beyond the physical. In addition, only Satan can hear our prayers and only Satan can respond.  While God is beyond human comprehension, Satan desires to be known and knowable. Only in this way can there be justice and can life have meaning.

The Satanist harbors reasonable agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. The cultural narratives through which we contextualize our lives must be malleable to conformity with our best scientific understandings of the material world… Those understandings, in turn, must never be so rigidly codified as to themselves be inflexible to advancements yet unknown. Thus, Satanism is an evolving religion, unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Belief must reconstruct itself to fact, never the other way round. This is the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, even (and especially) when to do so irretrievably dissipates blissful and comforting delusions of old.
That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise."

Most Satanists do not claim to worship Satan, rather they claim to be agnostics and/or atheists who seek to satisfy their pleasures and cling to "science" while uniting around a "mythology" which unites them in a formalized setting. They further claim as their beliefs:

"There are seven fundamental tenets:
1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
3. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word."

 One could rightfully ask, "Why does a group that claims 'reason' and 'science' want to go around offending people with something they consider mythology?" They would be better off joining the Ethical Humanist Society if "reason and science" were their main concerns, and drop the whole "myth-schtick." Satan is the Father of Lies and it seems more than likely, there are some (even most) who do buy into the actual worship of the devil. This is the same group that wants to donate a Satanic statue to the Oklahoma State Capital, to get "equal time" with a monument of the Ten Commandments.  The statue of the Baphomet, or Sabbatic Goat, a figure that has been used to represent Satan for centuries, is to be made of bronze, poured over a clay mold. Images in the news show the hideous figure on a throne, with smiling children at each knee.

Look again at the seven fundamental tenets. don't they seem to be the same subject matter Antipope Francis talks about, and the themes of most Vatican II clergy "homilies"?

II. What did the Satanic Temple plan to do at the "black mass"?

  According to Joseph Laycock: "Had the black mass proceeded as planned, it would have been about two hours long, with the first hour devoted to an educational lecture and the second half to a performance. There would have been a short speech by Harvard ethicist Christopher Robichaud about how we define such ideas as hate-speech and tolerance" Then, "The second half would have been a performance of a black mass based on descriptions from the nineteenth-century French novel La-bas. Two actors dressed as a nun and a priest would have performed a ritual in liturgical Latin. A prop representing a communion wafer would have been stepped on or otherwise defiled. It was this last detail that became the focus of the controversy."

Deo gratias, the Novus Bogus Vatican II service is null and void, so a real Host could not be defiled. Interestingly, when the Satanic Temple was asked about this, they said the host would be unconsecrated, but when the University group suggested stepping on a piece of broccoli instead, they refused! (See
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/7878/black_mass_hysteria_at_harvard__the_real_story/)

III. What is the true Catholic teaching on such matters and how does it compare with Vatican II?

 Just as William F. Buckley, Jr. deplored the effects of bad teachers on good Faith and Morals in 1951 at Yale, what happened at Harvard (unthinkable even 25 years ago) is the logical outcome of the false teachers at Vatican II.

Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World) §73 states:

"No better way exists for attaining a truly human political life than by fostering an inner sense of justice, benevolence, and service for the common good, and by strengthening basic beliefs about the true nature of the political community, and about the proper exercise and limits of public authority."

Obviously, the text is not concerned with "political life" marked by Christian values, but "political life" marked by human values, that is, by values that are generally characterized by "an inner sense of justice, service for the common good." In fact, in this scheme, it is not a question of intellect and will adhering to principles of "justice" and "charity" and to "service" founded on revealed Truth, principles that are objectively set forth by God and taught by the Church throughout the centuries, and necessitate our adherence to them. Rather it is a matter of values merely heeding to an "inner sense." This is totally foreign to Catholicism, and even mortally contrary to it, but is typical of Modernist thinking. However, it goes along nicely with the tenets of the Satanic Temple, doesn't it?  Let's see what the True Church teaches,"That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. (See Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, #3, 1906).

Even in a society where Catholics are not the majority, to give free reign to the public worship of evil (under a guise of humanitarianism guided by Freemasonic principles, must be condemned as intrinsically evil. It is not merely "disrespectful."  Being bigoted is the ONLY sin the general public acknowledges these days. Even then, if the KKK wanted to re-enact a mock lynching, I doubt they would have gotten the support of the president of Harvard. The satanists claim the analogy is inapposite because what they do is not oppressive to any minority; they are the minority that has been repressed, and they are showing their disapproval by blasphemy. Once you accept the Masonic/Modernist premises, such nonsense starts to sound OK. The fact is, approval of those who deny God and his objective moral order must be condemned and stopped-- whether those who do so are a majority or minority. This is contrary to the Masonic principles of our country and of the Vatican II sect which joins them.


Nostra Aetate (Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions) §2 states:

"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy (vera et sancta) in these religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men."

This means that, for the Vatican II sect, the truth "which enlightens all men" perhaps comes through rules and teachings that differ "in many particulars" from the Church's teaching! (How could an authentic ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church have been inspired to articulate such an idea? Answer: It couldn't!). We get this insanity from the heretical notion of "Frankenchurch"( i.e.that there is a "Church of Christ"  within, yet not wholly contained by the Catholic Church and is present according to how many "elements" are to be had). To have all elements is best, but having just some is good too. So if the Temple of Satan acknowledges the devil as portrayed by the Bible, they have some truth, so why protest? Think I'm making an overstatement?

§18 of Ad Gentes (on missionary activity), states:

"Working to plant the Church, and thoroughly enriched with the treasures of mysticism adorning the Church's religious tradition, religious communities should strive to give expression to these treasures and to hand them on in a manner harmonious with the nature and the genius of each nation. Let them reflect attentively on how Christian religious life may be able to assimilate the ascetic and contemplative traditions whose seeds were sometimes already planted by God in ancient cultures prior to the preaching of the gospel."

Here, "ancient cultures" whose gods were "devils," and whose sacrifices were offered "to devils and not to God" (I Cor. 10:20), are recognized in them a salvific presence of "semina Verbi" of the "seeds of revealed Truth." The devil is thus rehabilitated by Vatican II.

 Finally, isn't the Novus Bogus Vatican II service the blackest of all blasphemous "masses"? The people seek the Food of Angels and are given nothing but bread. It pretends to be of God, but it comes from Hell too.

  In summation, the Vatican II sect protested a "black mass."  It was held to be wrong due to "prejudice" more than being an intrinsic evil to society. They went to worship a piece of ordinary bread for an hour because they have destroyed the True Mass and Sacraments. Worst of all, the teachings of Modernism have led us to a place in history where to permit devil worship (properly so-called or otherwise), despite the protestations of a few, is really nothing more than being offensive to people's sensibilities. How could it be otherwise given the teachings of Vatican II?

 At the "canonizations" of Wotyla and Roncalli, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), lamented the elimination of the devil's advocate. They still can't see Mr. Begoglio and his robber council are the biggest advocates Lucifer ever had.

Like A Roaring Lion

   The news media has reported that Antipope Francis is "cracking down" on nuns who espouse "radical feminism."  It's no secret that Vatican II sect "nuns" are, by and large, politically socialist (if not communist), religiously humanistic (apostates who reject Christianity), and many wonder about their sexual proclivities looking and acting like lesbians. I have often commented that in this age of near universal apostasy, we must learn to discern. Is he really doing anything? He might be throwing a bone to the "conservative" members of his sect, so "Fr" Z and company can rave about him. It's telling that he's doing nothing about "Suor Cristina" the 25 year old Vatican II nun who dresses in a habit and went on the TV show The Voice of Italy,  which is much like American Idol. Sr. Cristina dances and sings to such perverse music as No One by Alicia Keys and Girls Just Wanna Have Fun by Cyndi Lauper. Perverse is too strong a word you say? These songs are not so bad, people protest. As a matter of fact Vatican II "Deacon" Greg Kandra of the Diocese of Brooklyn praises her in his blog (see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/04/shes-back-sister-christina-performs-again-on-the-voice/). Francis approves of this form of "evangelizing."

   Let's get something straight, Francis has made it clear that "proselytism is nonsense." What's really happening is that Sr. Cristina presents the real danger, not the radical feminist nuns. The latter are seen by many for what they are; women who couldn't get real jobs, have no interest in religion, and want to promote left-wing political causes. Sr Cristina makes people accept the unacceptable. She's liked as she attempts to conform Christ to the world instead of vice-versa (her audition video on YouTube received over 48 MILLION hits).  I heard the ubiquitous song Roar by Katy Perry, and it reminded me of that verse in the Bible, "Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour." (I Peter 5:8--emphasis mine). The spirit of Antichrist is present in most of today's music, not in just the blatant rock groups like AC/DC singing Highway To Hell. 

   When discerning music, it's important to pay close attention to two things: (1) the lyrics and (2) the lifestyle of the musician(s) singing it. Good old "Deacon Greg" thinks the Cyndi Lauper song Girls Just Wanna Have Fun was OK to perform, because Sr. Cristina pointed to Heaven when singing the verse "oh, daddy dear, you're still number one, but girls just wanna have fun." Time for a reality check.

• Cyndi Lauper, born June 22, 1953, became famous as a rock icon in the early 1980s. She is a promoter of sodomite "rights."

• Her hits include Time After Time, about sexual encounters, Girls Just Wanna Have Fun about the need of women to be as openly promiscuous as men, and She Bop, about masturbation

• Despite "Deacon" Greg's protestations to the contrary, Lauper is all about sexual perversion. In an interview on The Howard Stern Show, Lauper stated that she recorded the vocals of the song while nude .Lauper said she wanted little kids to think the song was about dancing, and to understand the real meaning as they got older. She never directly stated in the lyrics what the meaning of the song was, so it could receive airplay

• The video for She Bop featured Lauper as a quirky sexual liberator leading the brainwashed masses to their own liberation. (This was done in metaphor showing teenagers as fast-food consuming zombies.) There were many double entendres indicating the song's true meaning, including a magazine that Lauper is staring at titled "Beefcake" and other sexual meanings such as the "self-service" sign and three gas pumps with the signs Good, Better and Nirvana in the cartoon part of the video, the vibrating motorcycle, the "masterbingo" part of the video with "Uncle Siggy" Sigmund Freud as host, and Lauper wearing blackout glasses with a white cane in several scenes of the video. In fact, the video doesn't go as far as the lyrics, as the magazine referenced in the song ("...in the pages of a Blueboy magazine") was a popular gay erotica magazine of the time, whereas the magazine Lauper holds represents the tamer — and somewhat closeted — erotica of an earlier era. Nor did the lyrical reference come out of the blue: Lauper has stated that finding a copy of Blueboy lying around in the recording studio provided the impetus for writing She Bop.

• In a 1985 interview with Newsweek magazine, Lauper stated that "Church, family, and state are the three biggest oppressors (of women) to come along.

• MS magazine (a pro-abortion, pro-sodomite rag) declared her their "woman of the year" in 1984. She has since received numerous awards for promoting "LGBT" so-called "rights"

• And because Sr. Cristina points to Heaven,  Lauper's music becomes a wonderful tool for conversion? (I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell "Deacon" Greg if he's interested).

   Katy Perry is another example of perversity on parade. Born Katheryn Hudson on October 25, 1984, she is seen as wholesome because her father was a Pentecostal minister and she grew up on Gospel music. Her first album was Christian music. Then, she claims in an interview, "When I was 15, because I grew up in a household where all I ever did was listen to gospel music…. I swear I wanted to be, like, the Amy Grant of music, but it didn’t work out, and so I sold my soul to the devil"

Her first big hit after selling her soul was I Kissed a Girl, which is about a lesbian encounter.  Later her own father would break down in tears over her choice to serve Satan.  He would later acknowledge, as she did earlier, that Perry is doing Satan’s work, exclaiming, “My girl Katy Perry is a devil child.”  He stated, "I was at a concert of Katy’s where there were 20,000. I’m watching this generation, and they were going at it. It was almost like church,” Keith said. “I stood there and wept and kept on weeping and weeping. They’re loving and worshiping the wrong thing.” (See http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/4911473/katy-perry-preacher-father-in-devil-child-rant.html). 

   Perry came out as a promoter of Wicca at this year's Grammy awards. She began her performance as a witch, singing within a crystal ball. Then, emerging  from the crystal ball, she danced with revolting-looking "demons" replete with devil horns. She had a Knights Templar cross emblazoned across her torso and turned to pole dancing on a wooden witches broom. She completed her Satanic act by standing before a raging fire like an image straight from Hell itself.  

 This is what we're up against as Satan takes full advantage to deceive as many souls as possible during this time of near universal apostasy. Sr. Cristina's promotion of these wicked songs and the evil people who make money off of it, will not make anyone who is ensnared by them to turn to Christ. Yet how many teens will emulate Sr. Cristina by singing and dancing to these wicked tunes from Hell? How many parents will say it's OK for their kids to do this because if a nun is promoting it as a tool for evangelization (with the support of Antipope Francis) it must be all well and good? How many may lose their soul? 

 Yes, Katy Perry, like her master Satan, goes about "roaring" like a lion seeking those her perverse ways can devour. And we have Francis and the Vatican II sect promoting all these pop music icons with traditionally attired "nuns" telling the masses to be in the world AND OF the world. Why do so many in the Vatican II sect fall for it? I'm reminded of another Scripture verse, "The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite." (Ecclesiastes 1:15).

 

Interviews, Phone Calls, and The Poison Tongue

  Mr. Jorge Bergoglio (Antipope Francis) has made a habit of undermining the vestiges of Catholicism through the mass media. It's as if the Antichrist had his own smartphone (666-HELL, perhaps?). Francis is truly a Modernist fox. By using interviews and phone calls, so-called "conservative" members of the Vatican II sect (e.g., "Fr." Z, Jimmy Akin, Dave Armstrong, etc.) can claim that "it was only an interview (or phone call), and therefore it is only his personal opinion. He was not speaking with his Petrine authority."

  Meanwhile, everyone knows the practical consequences. If you accept this apostate joker as the Vicar of Christ on earth, any opinion he makes public will carry much influence over the Vatican II clergy and laity. His statements are both many and serious:

• Traditionalists are "self-absorbed Neo-Pelagians"
• There is no Catholic God
• Who am I to judge? (sodomites)
• There's no doctrinal security
• Atheists can go to Heaven
• Proselytism is nonsense
• Opposition to abortion and sodomy are obsession with "simple minded rules"
• .....And the list goes on and on

   In his very first interview, Francis hinted at the possibility of giving "communion" (Deo gratias, it's invalid!) to adulterers, i.e. divorced and remarried Vatican II sect members. In retrospect, what he said is downright scary:
“Times have changed and the Church faces many problems,.. I think the time for mercy has come as John Paul II predicted by introducing the Feast of Divine Mercy. Divorced people can take communion, it is those who have divorced and remarried that cannot. Here I must add that the orthodox follow the theology of economics and allow second marriages. When the commission of eight cardinals meets at the beginning of October we will discuss how to proceed. The Church is taking a very close look at pastoral initiatives for marriage. My predecessor in Buenos Aires, Cardinal Quarracino always used to say: ‘I consider half of today’s marriages to be invalid because people get married without realising it means forever. They do it out of social convenience, etc…’ The issue of invalidity needs to be looked into as well.” (Emphasis mine)

On the feast of the false "Divine Mercy," Bergoglio declared the late, un-great heretic Wotyla (John Paul II) a "saint."  In the furtherance of a false notion of mercy and Wotyla's Modernism, Francis is now seeking to give communion to notorious adulterers on or about this October. It began with an interview. Follow that up with a phone call just recently to an Argentinian woman, whom Francis told it was OK to receive the Vatican II communion cracker at another parish! This is the signal that a de facto change is to come. Let's face it, what conservative Vatican II "priest" will have a leg to stand on for refusing communion to adulterers if "Christ's Vicar on Earth" is calling people up and telling them it's alright to do so?

Did the Holy See Press Office immediately denounce the report as false, and declare that communion for the adulterers can never be sanctioned? Of course not!  There was a FOUR SENTENCE press release which would not (and did not) deny that it happened, and leaves everyone wondering what to make of it. According to the blog of Vatican II canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters, it is a serious matter. He writes:
(The sentences of the Holy See's Press Office will be in black; Dr. Peter's response will be in red)

"Several telephone calls have taken place in the context of Pope Francis’ personal pastoral relationships. {Okay}.

Since they do not in any way form part of the Pope’s public activities, no information is to be expected from the Holy See Press Office. {The HSPO has never been limited to commenting only on a pope’s “public” activities, but this statement certainly serves to distance the HSPO from anything related to Francis’ phone calls. The phrase “in any way” strikes me as strong language.}

That which has been communicated in relation to this matter, outside the scope of personal relationships, and the consequent media amplification, cannot be confirmed as reliable, and is a source of misunderstanding and confusion. {Through the garbled syntax of the sentence, I think this says, again, that the HSPO has no intention of trying to parse what might or might not have been said in a papal phone call, so please don’t even ask.}

Therefore, consequences relating to the teaching of the Church are not to be inferred from these occurrences. {The most important sentence in the communique, and a welcome one, first for what it says—though that should have been obvious—and for its not repeating what was said earlier in regard to Francis’ homilies and ferverinos, namely that they supposedly form no part of the papal magisterium. Of course such statements, being liturgical, public, and on points of faith and morals, were part of the papal magisterium. Not a very big part, I grant, but still, a part. Popes cannot switch-off being popes in the middle of Mass, and the HSPO was, I think, wrong to imply otherwise. Anyway, that mistake is not repeated here.}"

So why wasn't it either denied or the authentic teaching reaffirmed? Francis is undermining the last edifices of Catholicism by leaving it like that, and knowing what the practical consequences would be. Bergoglio wants us to think that St. Thomas Moore and St. John Fisher were fanatics obsessed with "small-minded rules" and really gave up their lives for something that actually doesn't matter much. Here in New York, our openly adulterous, baby-killing, pro-sodomite governor, Andrew Cuomo, is given the Vatican II communion cracker by the so-called "bishop" of Albany. Francis just wants to "normalize" this everywhere.

  People must remember the words of Sacred Scripture, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). Just this past week, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, Donald Sterling, was banned for life from the game because of racist statements he made. People were (rightfully) indignant over these hateful and evil remarks. However, no one seemed perturbed that the statements were recorded by his mistress, several decades his junior,  with whom he would regularly sit together to watch the games! He's been married to the same woman since 1955 and flaunts his adultery in front of his wife and the world. No one cares. The wife and mistress are after his money. "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows." (I Timothy 6:10). Francis apparently sees nothing wrong either.

 We must ask ourselves, "Why would anyone be shocked to find racism in the heart of a man who harbors contempt for his marriage vows?"  As Our Lord Himself told us, “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart” ( St. Luke 6:45). What Francis speaks from his poison heart and trips out past his tongue is nothing less than vile heresy and moral aberration.

 Mr. Sterling's remarks got him banned from basketball for life. Mr. Bergoglio's words will ban those who follow them from Eternal Life.

No Mercy For Francis

 This coming Sunday, for Traditionalist Catholics, is commonly known as "Low Sunday;"the Sunday immediately following Easter. In the Vatican II sect two falsehoods will take place; the so-called "canonizations" of Wotyla (Antipope John Paul II) and Roncalli (Antipope John XXIII), as well as the celebration of "Divine Mercy Sunday." The Modernists destroy all things traditional and holy---Low Sunday being no exception.  The whole "Divine Mercy" devotion was CONDEMNED by the Holy Office. (For an awesome article on this fact, please search on www.novusordowatch.org). Not only does this phony devotion detract from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, the last thing the Vatican II sect needs is more emphasis on mercy and less on God's Justice.

  Containing within it the idea of universalism (the heresy that all people, perhaps even the fallen angels too, will be saved), they grant an "indulgence" for going to "reconciliation" and eating the Novus Bogus cracker. Over 90% of the sect's members probably don't even know what an indulgence is since every time someone dies they receive a de facto canonization at the "Mass (sic) of Christian Burial." Ironically, even the false teachings are turning on apostate Bergoglio (Antipope Francis). A phony "seer" known only as "Maria Divine Mercy" has a website claiming she has received visions and messages since 2010. You can (naturally) buy her books on her false messages, too. (See www.thewarningsecondcoming.com).

 Maria has hidden her identity and is located somewhere in Europe. She claims on her site:
"Maria was told by Jesus that she is the 7th Messenger, the 7th Angel sent to reveal to the world the contents of the Seals in the Book of Revelation which can only be opened by the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. He will open the Seals and reveal, in advance, the contents. Maria has to publish them as each Seal is opened. He has told her she is the end time prophet."

 A doomsday prophetess, I'm not sure if she implies that she is an angel in human form, a human turned into an angel, or something equally absurd. Also, if she is the 7th Angel, who were the first six? Obviously a fraud, Maria made a prediction that Ratzinger (Antipope Benedict XVI), would be "forced out." Given his health and the pedophile scandals hanging over his head, it wasn't such an incredible "revelation." What is interesting, is that she claims Ratzinger is the last "pope".

• In Pope Benedict's place, a new antipope will be elected: "The false prophet will now take over the Seat in Rome" . "[T]hey will bring God’s children under the rule of the little horn, who will sit in pompous splendour in the Seat of Peter" .
• This antipope will announce a plan to merge world religions: "Seated in the Chair of Peter, this imposter will shout aloud and proudly proclaim his solution to unite all churches as one.  Hailed as a modern innovator, he will be applauded by the secular world because he will condone sin. He will bring in new laws, which will, not only contradict the Teachings of the Catholic Church, but which will go against all Christian laws".

  Well, Vatican II has had as its goal a one world religion all along, Ratzinger was certainly no exception. But, is it possible that just as she guessed that Ratzinger would resign, we might see Bergoglio ('applauded by the secular world") condoning sin ("communion" by remarried adulterers, praying to heretics like Wotyla) and going against all Christian laws (he's a moral relativist)?  Even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours!

 So on the day Bergoglio declares two heretics as phony "saints" on a  feast of a false apparition, even a false prophetess who adheres to that bogus devotion declares Begoglio a "false prophet" who will "bring God's children under the rule of the little horn"(i.e. Satan).

One can only wonder if Divine Justice can be far behind when even the most absurd Vatican II devotees of Divine Mercy show Antipope Francis  no clemency. 

In Defense Of An Ordination

   To be quite honest, I don't enjoy getting involved with needless controversy within Traditionalist Catholicism. Remember well the words of Galatians 6:10, "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." I especially abhor those with an ax to grind against good clerics. However, times will arise when we must make our Catholic way the best we can with no Magisterium in place during this time of near universal apostasy.

     After putting to rest the unsubstantiated accusations and fallacious reasoning of the boors at the blog Pistrina Liturgica regarding the ordination of Bp.Daniel Dolan, I never thought I would revisit the case of an ordination called into question again. A reader of this blog has recently moved to Cincinnati and wants to attend Immaculate Conception Church run by the Society of St. Pius V (SSPV).  The Church is run by Frs. William Jenkins and Joseph Greenwell. This person does not feel comfortable receiving the sacraments from Fr. Greenwell due to an article written circa 2006 by Fr. Anthony Cekada (for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration). The article, "Bishop Mendez and the 1990 SSPV Ordinations," takes the very serious step of calling into question the validity of the ordination of SSPV Frs. Paul Baumberger and Joseph Greenwell by Bishop Alfred Mendez. I had remarked on another site that I did not believe this to be the case, and the reader of my blog asked if I would write a post explaining my reasons.

   Some preliminary remarks are in order:

1. I am not a theologian, nor have I ever claimed to be such
2. I am not beholden to any Traditionalist order or priest, especially those with a "follow me or die" mentality
3. I'm expressing an opinion which is my own on a matter that is not of Faith, and I would never expect anyone else to hold it because of any authority on my part. I have no authority, and if you agree with me fine, if not, that's OK too.   
4. I hold no animosity against any of the clerics mentioned herein.
5. Some remarks which are aimed at Traditionalist priests are not done with malice; we cannot fall into the trap of treating them as those endowed with Magisterial authority--and worse, treat them as above any/all reproach. Many did just that in the 1950s and it enabled the heretics and perverts to take over at the parish level easily with nary a whimper of protest    

  With all that in mind, I do consider the ordinations of Frs. Greenwell and Baumberger to have been valid. I recommend to all reading this to first read Fr.Cekada's article referenced above at www.traditionalmass.org. In this way I need not rehash any background information, but may proceed directly to the crux of the issue.

The arguments of Fr. Cekada boil down to these:

• There was a change to one of the words of the essential form ("quaesumus") by Bp. Mendez, thereby substantially altering and invalidating the rite
• There were conflicting reports as to mode of pronunciation, number of times the form was pronounced, the grammatical number, and which ritual book was used.

   The SSPV holds to two opinions which I do not share: the invalidity of the Thuc consecrations, and the necessity of using two hands as the matter of the sacrament in the ordination of priests and consecration of bishops (no, Deo gratias, they have nothing to do with the boors at Pistrina Liturgica). Traditionalist priests and bishops can be quite intransigent when it comes to changing an opinion, admitting an error in judgement, and bickering among themselves. Bp. Kelly, a good and holy bishop, is overly zealous when it comes to the sacraments. He has a misguided notion as to what constitutes a "qualified witness" and the SSPV actually cast doubt on the episcopal consecration of Richard Williamson because they couldn't clearly see on the video if Archbishop Lefebvre placed BOTH hands on his head. (When I asked an SSPV priest, "Even if it was one hand, what about the co-consecrator, Bp. Antonio Castro Mayer? He's not to be found on the tape, and he's supposed to use two hands, right?" He quickly changed the subject).  I mention this because scrupulosity will play a role in the instant case. 

 As to the first argument of Fr. Cekada, the word "quaesumus" (part of the form defined by Pope Pius XII) was pronounced as "quae" "sumus" due to a hypenation that occured because the word began on one line and continued on the next. If the word was made into two words, it changes the meaning of form substantially, thereby invalidating it. Bp. Kelly admits to hearing a separation of syllables in his book The Sacred and the Profane (pgs.210-212, hereinafter SP)

Assuming, ad arguendo, that a separation of syllables was made, does that ipso facto render the sacrament null and void? According to theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology Vol.2, #2655: 

"Rules on the Invalid Use of the matter Form of the Sacraments. (b) Since the matter and form are parts of a single composite sign, it is sacrilegious to invalidate a Sacrament by substantial separations, which destroy

the continuity or unity of signification.There is a substantial separation within the form when such long

intervals occur between the pronunciation of its syllables or words that it is not in common estimation

a united sentence or proposition; for example, if the celebrant says, "Hoc est cor -," then sneezes two or

three times, and (instead of repeating the words) concludes "-pus meum," or says "Hoc est. corpus" and

after an interruption of several minutes (instead of repeating) finishes with: "meum." "

   "Long intervals," it says. The separation of syllables startled Bp.Kelly because by his own admission in  SP, he was "being too careful." Fr. Jenkins, and Bp. Mendez said everything was pronounced correctly. Fr. Zapp had no problem with the ordination for over two years! Apparently, he thought everything was said correctly as well. It reminds me of several clerics who brought up a "problem" with Bp. Dolan's priestly ordination fourteen (yes, that's 14) YEARS after working with him and the "problem" was allegedly apparent from the start! If there was a separation, it appears to have been only slight and therefore not a substantial change. 

 Moreover, according to theologian Jone, Moral Theology, # 446: 

"b) Separations of individual words and syllables  constitutes a substantial change if the interval is

long enough to alter the meaning of the sentence. Thus, the form remains valid if one says" Ego te

baptizo," coughs and then completes the form. Similarly, if one interrupts the form by some

incidental remark, as" Turn the page," "Keep quiet,""This water is too cold." The formula of absolution is

likewise valid if the confessor, after saying: " Ego te absolvo," notices the penitent leaving the

confessional and says: "Come back! Always wait till the priest finishes! -a peccatis tuis." 

The form is invalid if interrupted for several minutes, e.g., after saying: " Hoc est enim corpus,"

one has a coughing spell, after which he should add "meum." If individual syllables are separated a shorter

interruption makes the form at least doubtfully valid; thus, if after saying" Hocest enim cor- " one 

should sneeze several times and then conclude "pus meum." In such cases the word begun should be

repeated. c) In judging whether a form has been altered substantially or only accidentally one must consider

whether the minister acted inadvertently, ie., mispronounced the form by mistake or whether he

intended to give the form a different meaning." (Emphasis mine). 

   Please notice that it is shown, in both of these references, that to render a sacrament invalid or

doubtful the "pause" or "interruption" must be more than just a brief one and according to Jone: "one must

consider whether the minister acted inadvertently,ie., mispronounced the form by mistake or whether he

intended to give the form a different meaning." Is there a doubt that Bishop Mendez didn't have the

intention to ordain? Even Fr. Cekada's own citation to theologian Halligan clearly says, "Substantial alteration may also be risked by faulty articulation or by clipping words through haste. In practice, where a complete word is de facto interrupted through a pause between syllables, it is advisable to repeat the word, unless the interruption is extremely slight." (The Administration of the Sacraments pg. 16; Emphasis mine). The interruption was slight enough that Fr. Zapp had no worries, Fr. Jenkins had no worries, nor the Bishop himself. Bp (then Fr) Kelly did, but this comes from someone who looks though video tapes looking for two handed consecrations. In other words, it disturbed him because he was guilty of scrupulosity. 

    What about the second argument of Fr.Cekada, the various conflicting reports? Since I see no merit to the mispronunciation in the first place, and personally spoke with one of the priests who was there, I'm satisfied that I don't need to reach the merits of the attempts (in my opinion) to save face by the SSPV due to an ordination that was done in private and a mistake (albeit non-invalidating) on the part of those who like to admit none. Maybe there was a third recitation of the form, but I'm satisfied with the first two anyway. This much is known:

1. The ordination by Bp. Mendez took place; he would know best if the form was singular or plural, and if the form was pronounced correctly
2. The separation of syllables was slight enough not to worry even a later detractor (Fr. Zapp)
3. Bp. Kelly is know to be overly zealous, so even the briefest pause would give him concern
4. Bp. Mendez had the intention to ordain, and this coupled with a brief pause does not constitute a substantial change 

 For the foregoing reasons, I'm satisfied with the validity of the ordinations of Frs. Baumberger and Greenwell. On a personal note, I believe (with no external evidence) that if any of the SSPV clergy had doubts, they would have performed a conditional ordination in secret with Bp. Kelly or Bp. Santay to avoid the scandal of disturbing the peace of mind of the faithful. Also on a personal note, I'm glad Fr. Greenwell is no longer on Long Island. Validity aside, the joke was that if your arrived  five minutes late when he was offering Mass, he'd be at the Last Gospel. One of the bishops should speak to him about the slovenly and rushed way he offers Mass. He also is the ONLY SSPV priest who refused to answer if he used the name of the Antipope in the Canon. "It's MY Mass" was his response. No, Father, the Mass belongs to the Church, in whose name you offer it--in persona Christi ("in the person of Christ" for validity) and in persona Ecclesiae ("in the person of the Church" for efficacy). We faithful have a RIGHT to know if the name of an Antipope is inserted in a Mass we attend. The Mass is not your personal possession. Contrast this with the devotion and love with which Fr. Baumberger offers the Holy Sacrifice and edifies the faithful. 

   To my inquisitive reader,  I suggest you go to Mass without fear of invalidity, but attend with Fr. Jenkins whenever possible. To all Traditionalist priests and faithful out there, let's be more discreet and charitable with each other whenever possible. The real enemy is Bergoglio and his ecumenical Vatican II sect monstrosity. Let's save our energy, whenever possible, so we can better fight him. 

The Real Walking Dead

 The number one show on television is the drama The Walking Dead. The program is about the "zombie apocalypse." For reasons unknown to the viewer, a disease has broken out infecting the world's inhabitants. Once someone dies, the disease controls the brain, and moves the body in a quest to feed on flesh, living or dead. The show centers on the actions of one group of survivors trying to make their way in the post-apocalyptic world--and make sense as to what has happened. They are lead by former small town sheriff Rick Grimes. Unlike most shows, main characters are routinely killed off, so you never know what to expect. The plot and dialogue, as well as character development, are superior to most of what's out there. I'm a fan myself; it's the only show I watch.

  I bring this up because of an incident that happened this week. Another lawyer I know went on a tirade against belief in God and anything supernatural. His vitriol was such that our exchange started to get heated, and another had to intervene for us to calmly walk away.  Luckily, I don't need to work with Ken, but he is your typical "victim of Vatican II." For a trained lawyer, his research was poor and his argumentation was either weak (at best) and fallacious (at worst).  The Vatican II sect no longer trains the minds of their followers in the things of God. "Draw a picture of what God's love means to you" is the typical Vatican II sect's religious assignment given at one of their schools (now devoid of vocations who teach) and their so-called "CCD" classes. The greatest intellects defending the existence of God today are Protestants (e.g. Dr. William Lane Craig) or even Eastern Orthodox (e.g. Prof. Richard Swinburne).

 Those who believe in the existence of the soul were singled out for ridicule by Ken for not wanting to face the fact that after death we just become "worm food." Until recently, the Novus Bogus service which replaced the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, had eliminated all references to the soul. "The Lord be with you" was met with "And also with you" in place of "your spirit.  Likewise, "Lord, I am not worthy to receive Thee, but only say the word and my soul will be healed" became "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you (sic) but only say the word and I shall be healed." These are but two examples of how Modernists downplay the supernatural. Their "saints" are not more than secular role models, miracles are downgraded or derided as superstitious along with statues, scapulars, holy water, and indulgences. As a matter of fact, Purgatory along with Hell have almost disappeared as "negative theology." Everyone goes to Heaven (just ask Antipope Francis).

 It's become popular in some circles to deny the soul. God will simply sustain your existence somehow in happiness. A few bad characters, like Hitler, will simply be annihilated. Eternal punishment is replaced by a sort of eternal punishing. Many Protestant denominations, breeding grounds for Modernist ideas a long time before Vatican II, have adopted this heretical notion of no soul and no Hell. How many people are aware of the serious practical consequences resulting from a denial of the soul?

 In philosophy of mind, there are two basic positions on how the brain relates to the mind. Physicalism  says that the mind and brain are one and the same. You are your brain. Substance dualism teaches that the mind is distinct from the brain. The brain is the instrumental cause through which the mind (soul) operates, and it survives death. In the first season of The Walking Dead, the final episode has a scientist explaining to Rick's group a video of the inside workings of a live human brain. There are complex webs of what appear as wires and lights flashing around. He then declares that the electrical activity is the real you. When those lights go out, you cease to exist. There is no soul. You are your brain.  

 If physicalism is true, there are some practical consequences, apart from doctrinal ones, that my acquaintance Ken never bothered to consider.

1. Personal Identity. If I were to take a wooden table and replace it, bit by bit, with metal parts, is the final metal table which results the same as the wooden table with which I began my project? The answer would clearly be "no." Humans have all of their cells completely replaced approximately every seven years. Do I maintain a literal, absolute identity throughout the changes? Are my baby pictures of me, or of some "ancestor" of mine? For the substance dualist, the soul is what remains constant throughout our physical changes. For the physicalist, a person is no more than an ancestral chain of successive "selves" which are connected to each other in some way. At each moment a new "self" exists since the body is always losing and gaining cells, and each self resembles the one before it, held together by the passing on of memories. In the 1960s show Star Trek, the transporter would break down the molecules of the persons to "beam down" to a planet. Since there is no soul, the characters were no more than the collection of their cells and memories. Take Mr. Spock apart and put him back together again. If a person suffers from amnesia, they are not really the same person but someone different. Further, why should "I" fear the future? It won't really be me when it arrives. Moral responsibility goes out the window. Why should "I" be held responsible for what another organism did in the past before handing on his memories?

2. Free Will. Simply put, no soul= no free will. If I am matter then my actions are not the result of free choice. They are determined by the laws of chemistry and physics plus boundary conditions. Despite common sense notions of the ability to choose, it is simply an illusion. You had no choice. What does this do to our legal system constructed on the very basis of the notion of free acts? How can anyone praise St. Francis of Assisi or condemn Adolph Hitler? Neither had a choice in what they did.

3. Abortion and Euthanasia. These are a couple of those "small minded rules" Bergoglio says we should not obsess over. Under the idea of no soul it makes sense. We are made in the image and likeness of God. In His image by virtue of an immaterial soul. In His likeness by sanctifying grace. We cannot kill a person who has a soul which makes him special, nor even a body that COULD have a soul (as there were debates as to when the soul is within the unborn baby). With the notion of a soul gone "quality of life" supersedes "sanctity of life." This also ties in with the aforementioned view of some Protestants that there is no soul and the wicked are annihilated. God annihilates the person because his quality of life in a place like Hell  would be horrible. However, God would not annihilate something in His image, so the free will of that person makes eternal quarantine (Hell) and its attendant pains the only (and logical) alternative.

I believe my acquaintance Ken was raised a Vatican II sect member. Not only is he typical of the loss of the True Faith, his lack of knowledge about the things of God results in dire consequences he never even considers. I pray for him and pity him. Like a zombie, the loss of Faith has millions going about with no theological knowledge in their minds and no grace in their souls. They may never (God forbid) come to the life-giving grace of Christ. Bodies with souls devoid of sanctifying grace. The fruit of Vatican II. They are the real "Walking Dead."

 

Will "Ecclesiological Dynamite" Blow The Lid Off The SSPX?

 The Society of St Pius X (SSPX) is once more trying to justify their absurd position of recognizing Francis as "pope" and the Vatican II sect as "the Roman Catholic Church" while refusing to submit to them. There was a theological conference at the formerly Catholic Georgetown University on the first year of Antipope Francis' "papacy." The conclusion was reported by The National Catholic (sic) Reporter. (The conclusion of) more than a dozen academics evaluating Francis, one theme was constant: Francis, the experts said, is a complete break from his predecessors, especially Benedict and John Paul II. The report will be in black and my comments in red. 

 How so, you ask? "In the words of Gerard Mannion, a theologian who helped organized (sic) the one-day event centered on Francis' apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium ("The Joy of the Gospel"): "There is no sugar-coating [it.]"

Calling the exhortation "ecclesiological dynamite," Mannion said "it is difficult for anyone working in fields such as ecclesiology to reach any conclusion other than the simple fact that on so many of the most important issues, there is very, very little substantive continuity with the ecclesial agenda of Pope Francis' predecessors."

This is Modernism at its worst. Wotyla and Ratzinger were heretics. Bergoglio is a complete apostate. He goes so far as to deny an objective moral order.  Pope St. Pius X condemned the proposition of the Modernists: 58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him. Read on. 

The first session, focused on the apostolic exhortation's ecclesiology, or vision of the shape and structure of the global church, brought the most agreement among the experts present.

While they all did not put it in as sharp relief as Mannion, who at one point said Francis "wants to radically change how the church goes about its practice and business," they all agreed the shift in emphasis is real.

"This shift is new and substantial," said Dennis Doyle, a professor of religious studies at the Marianist-run University of Dayton in Ohio, who said Francis is bringing about a new "synthesis" between theological ideas and pastoral practices in the Catholic church.

Doyle said a small but key change you can see in Francis' exhortation is his repeated references to the church as the "People of God" -- the phrase used most frequently during the Second Vatican Council -- rather than the "Mystical Body of Christ," the phrase often preferred by Benedict or John Paul II.


Francis' focus on the "People of God," Doyle said, evinces "a church on a journey ... a church as yet unfinished." It is a church "that includes everyone, not just the clergy and the vowed religious," he said.

There are two important points to note: (1) The Church as "unfinished" and (2) the phrase "the People of God." As to the first, the idea of an unfinished Church should be as alien to the logical Catholic mind as a "married bachelor." According to Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei: "This society is made up of men, just as civil society is, and yet is supernatural and spiritual, on account of the end for which it was founded, and of the means by which it aims at attaining that end. Hence, it is distinguished and differs from civil society, and, what is of highest moment, it is a society chartered as of right divine, perfect in its nature and in its title, to possess in itself and by itself, through the will and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action." (Emphasis mine). 

 As to "People of God" replacing the term "Mystical Body of Christ", theologian Van Noort teaches: "The Roman Catholic Church is not merely the embodiment of the religion of Christ; it is, in a very real sense, the Body of Christ Himself.....This doctrine has been a treasured part of the deposit of faith right from the beginning. It came from the lips of the Master Himself during His earthly ministry." (Dogmatic Theology, II:216). "Feminist theologian" Rosemary Radford Ruether has written about the significance of this change from the "Mystical Body of Christ to the People of God; "Thus the shared baptism of all Christians (including members of non-Catholic churches) became the foundational ground of the church (sic). The ordained hierarchy were situated within the whole People of God as servants of a common mission and call to holiness, [that] they all share, rather than outside and above them as their source." (Emphasis mine). 
Once again from a real theologian (Van Noort): "Members of the Church are all and only those who have received the sacrament of Baptism, and are not separated from unity of the profession of the Faith, or from hierarchical unity." In order to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ which is identical to the Roman Catholic Church you must be (a) validly baptized, (b) not heretics, (c) not schismatics, and (d) not excommunicated.  The People of God is "Frankenchurch." They "subsist" in the "Church of Christ" according to how many "elements" they possess. The Vatican II sect claims to have all the elements, but to have just some is ok too, and leads to salvation. (See Vatican II's Lumen Gentium). According to Pope Leo XIII, "To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God." (op. cit. Paragraph #31). 

 Who but the willfully blind cannot see that the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the Vatican II sect, and Bergoglio cannot be pope? Well, the SSPX, "Fr" Z, and the other Vatican II apologists fall into that category. Antipope Francis gives an "encyclical" which his own theologians admit ruptures with the past--not merely pre-Vatican II--but even with notorious heretics Ratzinger and soon to be "saint" Wotyla. The SSPX has just put out an article entitled "Avoiding a False Spirit of Resistance" in which it is written

That being said, can we really consider this authority ("pope" and his so-called bishops) as working for the destruction of the Faith? It would seem more accurate to call it an authority that does not profess the Faith, or does not confess it in its integrity, and that professes truths that are dangerous or even against the Faith. For there is a distinction to be made between an intention to destroy the Faith and a effect that was not directly wished for. It is clear that this loss of the Faith is a consequence of the conciliar doctrine that has been professed for the past 50 years, but can we say that this was and still is the intention of its promoters? If such were the case, these authorities would no longer have the Faith and would no longer be formally Catholic, and to believe this would be implicitly sedevacantist. Absit. (Latin, loosely translated as "God forbid"). 

 Are they for real? They didn't intend all this destruction? They now seem to want to use a weird "Principle of the Double Effect" to exonerate Bergoglio and the Modernists. Yes, they INTEND to preserve their delusion because they won't face the facts. Bergoglio is pushing for a One World Church and is getting there faster than anyone before. If his "ecclesiological dynamite" doesn't knock some Catholic sense in them, the next explosion they hear will be the last remnants of what was once Catholicism collapsing around them as they negotiate with the devil. Absit.