Shacking Up With Heresy

 The Vatican II sect sees nothing wrong with anything, so it's no surprise that there was no denunciation of a planned movie to be based on William Paul Young's blockbuster "Christian" novel The Shack. The Christian Post has reported that shooting will begin on The Shack film this summer by Lionsgate Films. The headline read: "Oprah, Forrest Whitaker, Idris Elba to Star in Controversial 'Shack' Movie." I suggest that Traditionalists prepare to give answers to Shack movie viewers concerning the Trinity and the nature of God, since the Vatican II sect members will be clueless (at best), or supportive (at worst).

 For those who haven't heard of the book, here is the synopsis given by Amazon.com:

""Mackenzie Allen Philips' youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation, and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness.
Four years later in the midst of what he refers to as 'The Great Sadness,' Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend.
Against his better judgment he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack's world forever.
In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant 'The Shack' wrestles with the timeless question, "Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain?"

This self-published book has sold nearly twelve million copies since its May 2007 release. It debuted at #1 on The New York Times Bestseller List and remained at either #1 or #2 for an astounding 87 weeks. It has also held the #1 position on many other bestseller lists, including Amazon.com, USA Today's Top 150 Books, Barnes and Noble and Borders Books and was the #1 book of 2008 at ChristianBook.com. According to the author, in late 2008 the book was selling at a rate of 87,000 copies a week in the secular book stores alone. All of this has allowed Young and his two publishing partners the luxury of holding out for just the right major motion picture deal as well.

 So, what's the big deal? Isn't it good that a "Christian" book is well-received? Don't be fooled. The underlying theme of the book is "universalism"--the heresy that everyone goes to Heaven. (You can be sure Mr. Jorge "Atheists can go to Heaven" Begoglio keeps a copy by his bedside).

The Most Holy Trinity is blasphemed by Young. God is portrayed in The Shack as a large African-American woman named "Papa," also called "Elousia." (perhaps a play for so-called "LGBT" perverts?).  Jesus is a Jewish carpenter complete with a tool belt, and the Holy Ghost is depicted as an Asian woman named after "Sarayu," a mystical river in ancient India related to the Hindu deity Kali. Clearly, there is a "trinity" in The Shack but it is absolutely not the Most Holy Trinity.

Here's a short list of some pertinent problems:

•  Young's "Papa" character insists that sin is its own punishment. This distorts the reality of Hell and discounts eternal retribution for sin.

•  Readers of The Shack are told that Jesus is only the best way to know God – not the only way.

•  The Shack teaches that, when Jesus went to the cross, God Almighty died there, too. This is a heresy known as patripassianism. 

•  The Shack states that there is no structure or hierarchy within the Trinity and that the three personages of God are all equally subject to one another and to humans as well.

 If all the above weren't bad enough, the whole book reeks of universalism, the tenets of which are as follows:

1) God wills all his creatures, people and angels, to be saved and to acknowledge Jesus as Lord; and God’s will cannot be thwarted  

2) God’s attribute of love limits his attribute of justice(!) It is unjust for a loving God to send people who have lived a short life to an eternal (everlasting) Hell. 

3) God has already reconciled all creatures—all humanity and all angels—to himself by the atonement of Jesus Christ at the cross. 

4) This reconciliation will be applied to all people either before death or after death, and to all the fallen angels, including Satan. 

5) For those who do not accept salvation by faith in this life God will provide salvation by sight after they have died. 

6) Faith is necessary to appropriate reconciliation in this life; God’s love delivers unbelievers (and fallen angels, including Satan) from Hell in the next life. 

7) The sufferings of Hell are not punitive, penal, or eternal, but corrective, restorative, purifying, cleansing, and limited in duration.

8) Hell is not forever, but will cease to exist after all people and the fallen angels, including Satan, have been delivered and enter Heaven.

 

9) God has acted as the Judge of all at the cross; there is not a future judgment for anyone.

 

10) Universalism is the teaching of the Bible. It is the teaching of Jesus. 

11) Universalism was the majority belief of the Church for the first five centuries.

 

12) The Church is an obstacle to universalism. All institutions including the Church and the government are systems of hierarchy that use power to control people. Young in The Shack has "Jesus" say that they are diabolical and that he never created any of them, i.e. there is no One True Church. 

 And isn't this in agreement with Bergoglio's sentiment that "proselytism is nonsense" and "There is no Catholic God?" Sadly, with once beautiful Catholic churches "wreck-o-vated" into looking like a shack, soon they may have some joker "deacon" reading from The Shack, too. (Gotta keep those "readings" at the Novus Bogus relevant, right?). 

In Medio Stat Veritas

 Most of what is wrong with the world occurs when people cling to an extreme on either side of a spectrum regarding behaviors or belief. On a practical level, I have a friend who can tell you the exact day and hour he will retire. He virtually has his entire life mapped out in his daily planner. If something unforeseen changes his schedule, he is visibly upset for days. I have another friend who makes no provisions for his future, doesn't know what he'll be doing from one day to the next, and when life throws him a problem, he runs to me for help. Neither is a good way to live.

 One Protestant preacher, Mr. Barger, recently commented that Antipope Francis' June prayer meeting with the Jews and Moslems was "ecumenism's finest hour." He meant it as a condemnation, and he is correct. Barger later goes on to discuss his "reckless statement" about atheists going to Heaven. ("Reckless" is far too charitable a word). Then, Mr. Barger's own heresy comes forth:

... if I were a Roman Catholic I would be most disturbed by the pope's comments. After all, why should a Catholic strive to carry out all of the works-oriented ordinances that Catholicism demands just to hear their leader, the alleged mouthpiece for God in the world, announce that, like them, the atheists are redeemed (i.e. "saved")? Won't many Catholics take it that, by adding enough good works to their life's portfolio, in reality he or she could have lived like the devil and still have made it through the Pearly Gates in the end? Isn't Pope Francis signaling that Catholics can actually indulge in any and every worldly pleasure, vice, or conceivable darkness and ignore all the RCC rules? Just add enough good works and like the atheists, pagan Catholics can make it to Paradise in the end? Why toe the line in abiding with the many rules and rituals that Romanism has saddled its people with? Though I can imagine that the confession booth might be noticeably empty as a result of the pope's May 22 sermon, let's pray that Catholics abandon the rituals of Rome and come to true saving faith that depends solely on Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice for them.

I can't blame Mr. Barger, a life-long Protestant, for thinking the Vatican II sect is the Roman Catholic Church. His big mistake is thinking that you can "live like the devil" and yet get to Heaven with "good works."Which is it? How can one be a self-serving heathen, yet have meritorious good works? What Mr. Barger doesn't realize is that Francis and his Modernist brethren have emptied the traditional rules of the Church of all their substance. "Who am I to judge" if sodomy is a sin? Let's give "communion" to notorious adulterers. Good works in Francis-speak means being a "nice guy/gal." Nice by the world's standards, so as not to get bogged down with "narrow-minded rules."

Mr. Barger doesn't appreciate that his "justification by Faith alone" (sole fide) is the real licence to sin. He exhorts Catholics (sic) to "abandon the ritual of Rome" and rely on "saving faith that depends solely on Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice for them." If my faith in Jesus as "my personal Lord and Savior" is all I need, I can't lose my place in Heaven no matter what I do. As Martin Luther said, "Sin boldly, but believe more boldly." Here, you can actually know something is evil, choose to do it (the requirements for mortal sin) and yet get to Heaven because you believe in Jesus ("Do I hear Amen, my brothers and sisters?"). Of course, Mr. Barger will counter by saying if someone TRULY believes they would not want to offend God.  Nice try, but if someone is intellectually convinced that Jesus is Lord, they are impeccable? Where does their private interpretation of Scripture teach that doctrine? Since they jettison all distinction between venial and mortal sin, wouldn't the mass murderer be just as "saved" as the one who tells "little white lies" provided they both believe in Jesus?

 One Protestant told me God would "chastise" a Christian who habitually sins by cutting short their life. I asked him, "But they still go to Heaven because they believe, right?" "Of course, once saved always saved," was his response. "How then is that a 'chastisement' since being in Heaven is better than being on Earth? Isn't it a reward? If no sin can cause you to lose salvation, why not commit suicide and get to Heaven faster?" He had no response. The bottom line is that Protestantism, by its heretical notion of faith, gives the green light to doing whatever you please without consequence. Conversely, Mr. Begoglio, by denigrating the True Faith and replacing true morals with "being nice" has the same effect. Having too much sugar in your blood (hyperglycemia) and having too little (hypoglycemia) both have the same end result---death.

 There's an old Latin adage, "In medio stat veritas", i.e. "in the middle is the Truth." In the middle of Mr. Barger's "salvation by faith alone" and Mr. Begoglio's "just be a nice guy" lies the Truth of the Catholic Faith where the role of True faith and role of good works is spelled out in the Council of Trent. Stay in the middle with the Truth or else you will inevitably get pulled into the extremes where awaits the Father of Lies and your eternal demise.

The Primary Problem

 In California, old time Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman (pro-abortion, pro-sodomite politician) decided to retire from office. That's the good news. In the Democratic primary to replace him, one Marianne Williamson ran (unsuccessfully) to take his seat. The fact that she was well received and was a serious contender should send chill's down one's spine if you aren't a total apostate. Who is Marianne Williamson?

 Born July 8, 1952, Williamson is a self-proclaimed "New Age guru." She has published ten books, including four New York Times #1 bestsellers. She has sold more than 3,000,000 copies of her books. A college drop out, Williamson wanted to be a cabaret singer, but when that didn't pan out, she open a "metaphysical bookstore" wherein she became encompassed by New Age  religion and philosophy. In 1990, she had her only child (a daughter named India) by a man whose identity she refuses to reveal, and calls herself an "unwed Jewish mother." Williamson bases her teaching and writing on a set of books called A Course in Miracles, a self-study program of "spiritual psychotherapy", based on universal spiritual themes.These books were "channeled" by the author, Helen Schucman (meaning she was possessed by demonic forces). (Some info from Wikipedia)

 Most recently, Williamson is also the force behind Sister Giant, a series of seminars and teaching sessions that provides women with the information and tools needed to be political candidates. Through these seminars, she encourages women to run for office and align their politics with their decidedly New Age "spiritual values." (Christian values would allegedly violate the First Amendment, but the ACLU is conspicuously absent when New Ageism is espoused).  Williamson was supported and funded by the New Age "queen" Oprah Winfrey.

Not since Shirley MacLaine has any single person done so much to promote and normalize New Age mysticism to the public, as has Oprah. Her biggest venture is promoting Eckhart Tolle, a German "mystic" who resides in Vancouver, British Columbia.
According to Tolle himself, his influences include:

•  Sufism, which is a mystical form of Islam

• Zen Buddhism

•  The Australian turned Hindu mystic, Barry Long whose teaching includes 20 books most of which focus in detail about sexuality between man and woman and its use to purify them both and rid them of personal, human love.

•  Tolle acknowledges that his teachings are a synthesis of the teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, one of the most famous of Hindu Yogi's and J. Krishnamurti. (Krishnamurti was once declared the "Messiah" and was proclaimed as the new incarnation of the Maitreya Buddha by the Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society.)

• The aforementioned A Course in Miracles.

   When asked during a webcast how she has reconciled Tolle's spiritualist teachings with her previous Christian background Oprah responded as follows.

"I've reconciled it because I was able to open my mind about the, ah, absolute, indescribable hugeness of that which we call 'God.' Ah, I took God out of the box, cause, I grew up in the Baptist church and there were you know, rules and belief systems, doctrine. And, I happened to be, ah, sitting in church in my late twenties, and I was going to this church where you had to get there at eight o'clock in the morning or you couldn't get a seat and a very charismatic minister, and everybody was, you know, into the sermon. And this great minister was preaching about how great God was and how omniscient and omnipresent and God is everything. And then he said 'The Lord thy God is a jealous God.' And I was, you know, caught up in the rapture of that moment until he said 'jealous.' And, something struck me, I was I think about twenty-seven or twenty-eight, I was thinking, 'God is all. God is omnipresent and God’s also jealous? God is jealous of me?' Something about that didn't feel right in my spirit because I believe that God is love, that God is in all things. And so, that's when the search for something more than doctrine began to stir within me."

Oprah then asks her guru, Eckhart Tolle, what happens to humans at death. Tolle responds "I don't give it any thought." Oprah further pontificates that "God, in the essence of all consciousness, isn't something to believe. God is! God 'is' and God is a feeling experience not a believing experience. And if your religion is a believing experience, if God for you is still about a belief, then it's not truly God." (See, e.g. Edwin W. Lutzer, Oprah, Miracles, and The New Earth Moody Publishers 2009).

  Now compare what Pope St. Pius X  wrote in his great encyclical Pascendi about Modernist teaching:
"Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated. Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment. Therefore, since God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances, cannot, of itself, appertain to the domain of consciousness; it is at first latent within the consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its roots lies hidden and undetected.

Should anyone ask how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself grows up into a religion, the Modernists reply thus: Science and history, they say, are confined within two limits, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these boundaries has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within in the subconsciousness, the need of the divine, according to the principles of Fideism, excites in a soul with a propensity towards religion a certain special sentiment, without any previous advertence of the mind: and this sentiment possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the reality of the divine, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sentiment to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this it is which they consider the beginning of religion." (para. #7).

  Modernism, like it's cousin, New Ageism, teaches that religion is a search for spiritual feelings - but not absolute truth. For experiences - but without foundation. Now the same people who hijacked the Church are slowly infiltrating all areas of government. The Vatican II sect did nothing to warn people of Williamson's candidacy, and why would they do that? Their end goal is the same, and propelled by by the same Satanic ideology, just repackaged a little differently. Some Protestant preachers warned people about Marianne Williamson, and she came up short--this time. We can never prevail unless and until we realize that the primary problem is not the elections but the false doctrines of Vatican II which unleashed the powers of Hell.

Consecrated To The Service Of God And Ordained To Fight Vatican II

 Traditionalist Catholics are often accused of being members of a "small cult." H.L. Mencken once observed, "A cult is any religion except for my own." While I do not hesitate to call Protestants, the adherents of Vatican II, and any other false system a "sect" (in opposition to the One True Church), I will not call them a "cult." Originally, the word cult signified a means of worship and the Church Herself applied it to the liturgy. Now it is used in a pejorative manner for any religious activity someone doesn't like. The term does, and should, have a restricted meaning for those organizations which use coercion to get and/or keep members.

  According to Janja Lalich, Ph.D. and  Michael D. Langone, Ph.D., there are several characteristics of a cult some of which are:

• The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.‪ Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
• ‪ Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
• ‪ The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
• ‪ The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
• ‪ The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.(See http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm)

 Using this as a guide, we can call Scientology a cult, but not the Vatican II sect. Ironically, some members of the Vatican II sect refer to Traditionalists as a "cult." The reason is clear: We believe in objective truth, and we possess it exclusively.

Is there such a thing as objective truth - truth which has always been and always will be the same - unchanging and constant - hence a truth which is absolute? Now, either words have meaning or they don't. If truth is only a matter of personal taste, if one is convinced that all reality is relative, there is hardly any point in continuing either discussion or search for truth. One is caught in the self-contradiction of proclaiming that the only truth there is---is that there is no truth. Unless we deny all logic and meaning we must conclude that Truth, as such, exists. Such a statement may seem puerile to a Traditionalist, but once an agnostic admits the possibility of truth, he is logically committed to seeking and adhering to this entity.

 Once we accept the possibility of objective truth we can seek it out from only three possible sources. These are 1) the ancient and always constant Truths embodied in the Catholic Religion and demonstrated by right reason; 2) our own or someone else's gut feelings or psychological experiences as to what is true; and 3) some mixture of these two extremes. Either we accept objective criteria, or we accept subjective criteria, or we create a mixture of the two that for some reason or another we find personally satisfactory.  We see here displayed the spectrum between Traditional Catholicism which offers us objectively defined truths, the beliefs of modern man which approach absolute subjectivity and Protestantism which is a mixture of some objective truths combined with subjective opinions. Vatican II, with its novel doctrine on religious liberty, places the post-Conciliar position on the nature of truth in the middle or modern category for it proclaims that man is free to believe anything he wants and that his very dignity lies in this freedom. How can man's dignity lie in his freedom to believe error?

 But, the Vatican II sect will protest, if you're Catholics, then why are there so many splinter groups? Your just like Protestants. I've dealt with this charge before in other posts. It's glib, but it doesn't get you very far. Without a pope, it's only natural that when the Shepard is struck, the sheep will be scattered. We DO agree on far more than we don't agree. The Vatican II sect, which has an alleged pope, has disunity and there should be NONE. Ask any three Traditionalist priests if homosexuality is always wrong, or what is Transubstantiation, and you will get three identical answers. Ask the same of three Vatican II sect "priests" and you will likely get three different answers, depending on whether they are "conservative," "moderate," or "liberal." 

 The reason for my post today is to suggest something bold for Traditionalists. One way we could get more united to see our way through this time of the Great Apostasy, is to have universal recognition of each others Orders. All Traditionalist clergy, ordained after Vatican II obtain their Apostolic Succession from one of three Episcopal Lineages: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (SSPX and SSPX-SO), Archbishop Peter Thuc (CMRI), and Bishop Alfred Mendez (SSPV). 

 Due to bickering and pride, some question the validity of the other lines. The Society of St Pius V (SSPV) will not recognize those ordained/consecrated by Thuc. The Society of St Pius X-Strict Observance (SSPX-SO) will recognize only Vatican II orders (!) and their own. They shun SSPV and CMRI. To their credit CMRI will recognize all three lineages. Rather than get bogged down with the reasons behind the "doubts" that were cooked up, I have a suggestion:

1. Have Bishop Santay (SSPV), Bishop Pivarunas (CMRI), and Bishop Williamson (SSPX-SO) begin talking to each other via Skype to work out some differnces.
2. To prevent any  further aspersions against their Orders, IN AN ACT OF SUPREME HUMILITY FOR THE SALVATION OF SOULS, agree to meet and a designated place and time to conditionally re-ordain and conditionally re-consecrate each other! 
3. In this way, those who only recognize the Lefebvre lineage would now have to recognize the other two. Likewise, the Mendez and Thuc devotees, would have to recognize the other two lines.
4. By achieving mutual recognition, Traditionalists will inch closer to the day when perhaps we can get as close to a unified front until the papacy is restored.
5. Perhaps, in so doing, we would hasten the day when a pope comes to replace His Holiness Pope Pius XII (d. 1958).

 I urge any Traditionalists who read my blog to bring this to the attention of your priests (and even Bishop) to let them ponder the potential good that could come from this act. I also wish to thank my friend Mike at www.dailycatholic.org for discussing this issue with me. He's a man strong in the true Faith. (Please say a prayer for the repose of the soul of his dear wife Cyndi, who recently passed.) There are those who say the fate of the Church is in God's Hands. True enough. But as St. Teresa of Avila observed, "God has no hands but ours." (Lit. "Yours are the hands, with which He blesses all the world.")

A Hunger For God

 On May 23, 2014, Elliot Rodger, a disturbed 22-year-old filled with pent up rage over being spurned by women, went on a rampage, leaving seven dead and several others wounded in Santa Barbara, California. Elliot Rodger was the son of the assistant director for The Hunger Games movies. Ironically, The Hunger Games are largely the glorification of young people killing each other at an annually televised death match, orchestrated by a totalitarian regime. The secular media has been quick to point the blame at misogyny and mental illness as the driving force behind Rodger's murderous killing spree.

   Truth be told, Rodger was sick, but the postmodernist culture which rejects God, and the Vatican II sect which has robbed humanity of our connection to the Creator, only makes good people bad, and sick people worse. I will now explore what I believe led to the tragedy.

1. A Background Of Violence

 Let's consider what we call "entertainment" in this country, and peddled to children.

 In The Hunger Games (a trilogy of books, now movies, which Rodger's father helped to make), we find there are two major themes – rebellion and murder. The story-line is that the post-Apocalyptic Capitol (formerly North America) holds an annual televised event called “The Hunger Games.” Each district must draw the names of a boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18. There were originally 13 districts before the Capitol destroyed one, leaving 12. Altogether, there are 24 youths chosen to become contestants (called “tributes”). They must fight to the death in a vast arena. The lone survivor returns home to wealth and fame.
 Michael Graham, at his blog "The Natural Truth" summarizes the books/movies very well:

"They are ridiculously, and unnecessarily cruel.  If your idea of “escapist fiction” is to watch kids stab, shoot, strangle, poison, chop and bludgeon each other to death—this is the book series for you. If you like reading books about young people getting starved, tortured, burned and maimed—your dream has come true!  If you think your 10-year-old should spend her (tween girls are the target demo for these books) time reading about their “heroine” plotting to murder people—and then doing so, graphically and cruelly—you got it in The Hunger Games.

I talked to the mother of a 12-year-old yesterday who is taking her daughter to see The Hunger Games this weekend. Her daughter read the first book at age 10 and, while Mom acknowledge that, yes, “the books are a little cruel and violent,” she was glad her daughter read them because “she needs to learn what the world is really like.”

Uh, no. No, it’s not.  We live in a stupid and sometimes cruel world, but we don’t kidnap people’s kids, give them axes, bows and swords and then put them on national TV to watch them kill each other.  We don’t watch people have their flesh ripped off by acid or getting ripped apart by backs of genetically-altered dogs for fun.

What we DO do, apparently, is take our 10-year-old kids to movies so THEY can watch all this “fun.”"
(See http://michaelgraham.com/what-is-ldquo-the-hunger-games-rdquo/)

  Think about it: if this garbage were called "The Rape Games" where the contestants have to avoid getting raped in order to win, do you really think it would be popular? NOW would be decrying it as misogynistic and portraying violence against women as acceptable. It escapes them that if torturing someone to death is seen as "entertainment" then rape appears almost tame in comparison. Welcome to the home life of Elliot Rodger.

2. Hate-filled Hearts Without God.

 Rodger belonged to an "Anti-Pick-Up Artists" site called PUAHate.com, where men denounce and deplore the women who rejected them. Last year, Rodger posted this message on the site:

"If you could release a virus that would kill every single man on Earth, except for yourself because you would have the antidote, would you do it? You will be the only man left, with all the females. You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Imagine how satisfying that would be.”

 After the killings, several members called Rodger a "hero." Not surprisingly, over 90% of "MRAs" (i.e. "Men's Rights Activists") are atheists (See http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2014/04/13/but-how-do-you-know-the-mras-are-atheists/)

 3. Satanic-Spawned Lust
   Elliot Rodger’s worldview was shaped by popular media with the constant glorification of “hooking up,” in such movies as Love & Other Drugs (a woman has casual sex with a pharmaceutical salesman and finds "love"), What's Your Number (after hearing a statistic that women who have TWENTY sexual partners will never marry, the "protagonist" Ally, puts a cap on her nineteen sex partners. She goes back and searches for all of her 19 exes, to find "the one."), and Friends With Benefits (two friends decide to have casual sex without the "emotional attachments" of marriage). People who remain celibate and single are ridiculed in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Christianity is mocked as a man gives up casual sex as "penance" for Lent (!) in 40 Days and 40 Nights. Is it any wonder young men and women feel odd and "abnormal" if they're not heathens by the time they graduate college? In contrast, the Bible and Church teaching makes it clear that singleness can be a desirable gift from the Lord. In fact, the apostle St. Paul reveals that the single person is even more blessed than his or her married friends if his or her focus is on the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:6, 8, 25-39). The Council of Trent dogmatically defined that virginity and consecrated celibacy is superior to the state of marriage.

4. A Life Without God

 Rodger left a 137 page "manifesto" entitled "My Twisted World." In Rodger’s thoroughly godless manifesto he mentions, “They took me to church a few times and I hated it.” The only "god" he mentions is himself:

“I am the closest thing there is to a living god…I will truly be a powerful god, punishing everyone I deem to be impure and depraved.”

 Elliot Rodger rejected God and moral absolutes ("Who am I to judge?") and therefore, like every other atheist, had no moral compass based on objective morality to guide his life. He was left with nothing but his  own wicked heart; permeated by  feelings of lust, envy, jealousy and hatred, all fueled by the demonic forces in our world. Elliot Rodger desperately needed Christ, but if he went to the local Vatican II parish, He would not be there. The Real Presence is no more. The Mass and sacraments are gone. Antipope Francis tells us atheists can go to Heaven, so why even bother to look for the only answer that gives life meaning? I'm not suggesting that Rodger didn't have mental health problems, but the evil of  this world, and the lack of Grace from the eclipse of the True Church, is a recipe for making a bad situation a million times worse.
 The hunger for God and His One True Church is no game.

Murder Can Be Fun

   I'm a middle-aged man who has been around the block more than a few times. I have always been a right to life activist and, in my younger days, I took on the world. I really didn't think there was anything left about the horror of abortion that could shock me. I was wrong. My attention was brought to a video made by one Emily Letts; the contents of which are so disturbing, I could only shake my head in disbelief.

   Let me warn my readers that the video is disturbing; it does not show the mangled body of the murdered unborn child, but the mind of a woman who views abortion as "positive" and even "fun." Entitled "Emily's Abortion Video" it can be found here:  http://youtu.be/OxPUKV-WlKw. Ms. Letts is a self-described "patient advocate" who got pregnant and decided to film her own child being murdered---her "positive abortion experience." As I stated before, you will not see the true horror of abortion. Instead, you will view Letts smiling and giggling about getting pregnant, and telling everyone that she "wasn't ready to have a baby."

   The secular media extols the "virtue" of contraception. Here we see the wisdom of the True Church. When sex is cut off from procreation, pleasure comes before---and in place of--- life. Life is cheap, and if your contraception fails (or you don't even bother to use it), you can always have a "nice, safe abortion." It's never safe for the child who gets killed, but that's another story.

   During the actual abortion, all we see is the face of Letts as she thanks her wonderful hired killers ("doctors") and smiles about "how lucky she is" to be there. When the murder is finished she says, "Cool!" and "Yea! I'm done" as she gets wheeled out of the abortuary. You would think she was 13 years old and just got her ears pierced, not taken a human life.

   Then we see Letts a few days later telling us how the murder of her child has positively impacted her life and how she feels no regret nor sadness. The most unsettling part is when she states, “I feel in awe of the fact that I can make a baby. I can make a life. I knew what I was doing was right because it was right for me, and no one else.” Like a true sociopath, she talks about making life and doesn't wince at the logical conclusion that she ended it. Only if abortion is NOT the taking of life can it be moral. Here, like a modern day Hitler, she acknowledges the fact of life and then rejoices in its destruction. It was "right for me and no one else." Was it right for her now dead child? "True for me, but not for you," is the motto of our moral relativists. So if a white man owns slaves prior to the Civil War, it's OK for him, but not for you, so don't try to force "your morals" on him. If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave.

   To those who think Letts is an "extremist," ALL abortion is extreme. Just like slavery and genocide. There is no way to allow "a little bit of murder." The political leftists have all come out in favor of the video and denounced the fact that Letts received large volumes of "hate mail." Imagine that! Maybe I could make a video of myself clubbing a baby seal to death and then claim I'm a victim when people decry my actions as cruelty to animals.

   In reality we are all victims of Vatican II. When the True Mass and sacraments were destroyed, and moral teachings replaced with "feel good about yourself" platitudes, we raised a generation like Emily Letts. A generation that sees nothing wrong as long as you follow your conscience, no matter how misinformed that conscience may be. People who recognize no law above themselves. As Satanist Aleister Crowley stated, "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

   Until recently, the Vatican II sect at least paid lip service to stopping abortion. Now Antipope Francis tells us not to be concerned with those "narrow-minded rules." When murder is no big deal, is it any wonder some sick woman finds it "positive" and even "fun" (giggle, giggle)? Let's turn our attention to the really important moral issues, like youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old, and please disregard the dead  bodies of the aborted babies in the trash can. God help us.

Extra Terram Nulla Salus?

   Traditionalists have been painted by more than a few as being people who are out of touch. They don't conform to the modern world, they are conspiracy nuts, and they are bigoted (usually claiming antisemitism). I must admit, I unfortunately have met a few of my fellow believers who do a disservice to both themselves and the True Church when the obsess over private revelations (i.e., Fatima or some obscure apparition), and see groups of enemies conspiring at every moment against True Catholics.

   Conforming to the modern world, in things contrary to Faith and Morals is something we should avoid at all costs, and hold out our non-conformity as a badge of honor. The charge of antisemitism, when founded upon the Teaching of the Church (i.e., Jews must convert to be saved, they are guilty of Deicide, etc.) is unfounded. Such things are based upon love and concern for the salvation of souls, and firmly rooted in the teaching of Christ. One can see that in an extended period of sedevacante, there will be natural divisions to problems since there is no one in authority to whom we can "kick it upstairs" and pronounce a final, binding judgement.  This explains the excessive theorizing on the part of Traditionalists causing internal strife and the unfounded charge of us being splintered "like Protestants." The Vatican II sect does claim to have a "pope," however, and their desire to link together everything false (even when contradictory) is really strange. You have different groups teaching different, and even contradictory doctrines, and both are accepted as long as they all submit to the heresies of Vatican II.  Frankie, rather than settling matters in favor of one teaching or another, makes things worse.

   Proof came this past week when Antipope Francis claimed he would baptize Martians if they asked for the sacrament. Time magazine was quick to point out that Frankie was saying something "to keep his audience interested" but it was being taken out of context. Or was it? The Vatican’s chief astronomer, Argentine Jesuit "Father" José Funes, explained the possibility of extraterrestrial life in 2008, when he too said that God’s mercy could be offered to aliens if it were needed. He even cited Pope Francis’ namesake to make his point. “This is not in contrast with the faith, because we cannot place limits on the creative freedom of God,” Funes said. “To use St. Francis’ words, if we consider earthly creatures as ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters,’ why can’t we also speak of an ‘extraterrestrial brother?’” (See http://time.com/99616/for-pope-francis-its-about-more-than-martians/)

  There are many problems with what was said from a theological perspective. First, does the alien life form require baptism? What if their ancestors never sinned and they were not in need of redemption like the human race? God may have other designs for them. If they were in original sin, why did Christ die on our planet, and how did He bring the Church to their world?  While these are certainly fascinating theological topics for a hypothetical debate, what Frankie was implying was actually quite sinister.  He used the Martian quip as a metaphor for baptizing the infants of fornicators living in sin, and sodomite "couples."

 According to theologian Schulze, baptism should be withheld from an infant (outside the immediate danger of death) unless there is good reason to believe the child will be raised, educated, and remain in the Catholic Faith (See Schulze, Frederick, Manual of Pastoral Theology, B. Herder Books, St. Louis, Mo., pgs. 11-13, (1931)).  This is the constant teaching of the Church. Now, Frankie doesn't care about the child's eternal welfare. Why should he care? Doesn't he believe that even atheists can go to Heaven? If you can get to Heaven without the integral Catholic Faith how much less necessary is baptism? What kind of instruction--and what kind of example--- will a child receive in the Faith from parents who shack up, or worse, are perverts?

 Ironically, the members of the Vatican II sect Saint Benedict's Center (both the one in Massachusetts and the one in New Hampshire) remain staunch Feeneyites, i.e. adherents of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney who rejected the teaching of the Church of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood and was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1953. Here you have two communities that recognize Frankie as "pope," yet while he denigrates baptism to the point of making it a joke, the Feenyites damn everyone to Hell without water baptism and require submission to the very man who claims you can get to Heaven with NO FAITH at all!
 As a matter of fact, Vatican II sect "canon lawyer," a layman named Pete Vere, has written an opinion (in his capacity as a canon lawyer) that makes a good case that members of the Vatican II sect can hold to the "strict view" of Fr. Feeney without being heretics. He writes:

"In 1988, Mr. John Loughnan, a layman from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine,
wrote the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) requesting clarification on several
controversies surrounding the SSPX. Mr. Loughnan also inquired as to the status within the
Church of Fr. Feeney’s followers.

Concerning this last question, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, replied to Mr.
Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by
the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church
and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not
judge it opportune to enter into this question.”

While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died
in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his
same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly
within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to
oversee the reconciliation and well-being of traditionalists (sic) within the Church.

On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual
descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of
the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical
practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the
good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS(Outside the Church No Salvation), BOB (Baptism of Blood) and BOD (Baptism of Desire)."

 There you have it folks! You can be a heretic at both ends of the spectrum--deny BOD and BOB--or extend it to everyone, and you can be a good member of the Vatican II sect as long as you accept Frankie and the robber council Vatican II. You can get a side chapel in the One World Religion of Antipope Francis as long as you are a heretic, schismatic, infidel, pagan or apostate. We Traditionalists who alone possess the Truth are excluded, Deo gratias! I had the misfortune of getting a nasty missive over my last post from a member of the Vatican II sect. He claimed I had "no authority" to declare the Novus Bogus "mass" invalid. I asked him if he saw a priest attempt to say Mass using milk and cookies in place of bread and wine, could he know that the mass was invalid, or would he need someone in authority to tell him it was invalid and consider it valid until there was such a declaration. He refused to answer, knowing I had just proven his assertion incorrect.

 If he claimed he needed someone in authority to tell him it was invalid, that means that virtually anything, no matter how adverse to Catholic teaching, could be perpetrated on the faithful. If he said it was invalid without being declared as such by someone in authority, he just proved his own contention incorrect. Then he went into a tirade about "joos" and how I'm an "apostate" from "Jew York." When I pointed out that his antisemitism would be roundly condemned by his "pope" who wore a yarmulke in Argentina and prayed with the Jews in the synagogue, thus committing apostasy, he went on another rant about Jews, and how Frankie's soul was not his concern. When I informed him such an individual could not become pope, he denied it. I asked for citations to back up his assertion, and he claimed Pope St. Pius X, but he could not state from whence this alleged teaching came. I even invited him to debate online, and he (of course) refused.

 Once again the insanity of Vatican II is displayed. You can be a real antisemitic person as long as you accept "Pope" Frankie, who prays with Jews in an act directly contrary to the Faith. If you're Bishop Williamson and reject the errors of Vatican II, you will be roundly condemned for questioning the exact number of Jews killed in the Holocaust and the manner in which they were killed.

 What advice would I give to a Traditionalist if an extraterrestrial came to him? Well, DO try to convert him by sending him to a Traditionalist bishop to assess the situation. (Notice Frankie never said he would try to convert the aliens, but give them baptism "only if they ask"). Most importantly, tell him to stay away from the Antipope at all costs. "ET don't phone Rome."