Jung And The Restless

 There are many influences (all bad) which have shaped the Vatican II sect. Twenty-three years ago, a friend of mine wanted me to accompany him to a Jesuit-run retreat house. I would only attend on the condition that it would be a private retreat, I would not participate in any Vatican II sect service or prayers, and he would join me in the traditional Rosary at least once in private. He had just come to belief in Christianity, and I was hoping to get him away from the Vatican II sect in which he was raised. He agreed to my terms. Upon arrival, the "nun" (dressed like a lesbian and standing for everything unholy), gave us information on the Enneagram and how it would be used in all prayers and services. We politely told her we were praying in private and had no interest. She looked at us askance, and walked away. The Enneagram is but one of many gnostic-inspired influences that has a prominent place in many Vatican II sect churches, retreat houses, and prayer groups. It came into vogue through the influence of Carl Jung; the infamous psychoanalyst.  I will examine Jung (pronounced "yung") and his role in the destruction that was Vatican II. (N.B. The Gnostic heretics believed that salvation is not through Christ and His One True Church, but through secret knowledge. They also acknowledge there are two "gods"--one who made the physical world, and the other good "god" who wants us to escape the material world. To find the truth you do not look for external revelation, but within yourself for the "spark of the divine." ---Introibo)

Who was Carl Jung? 

Carl Gustav Jung was a Swiss psychoanalyst (b. 1875) who abandoned the Lutheran sect of his parents for the occult. Jung’s entire life and work were motivated by his hatred of Catholicism, the Faith and Morals of which he considered to be the source of all the neuroses in the world.  Jung’s mentor was psychoanalyst Otto Gross (1877-1920). He was particularly drawn to Gross's ideas about the "life-enhancing value of eroticism" and his concept of "free love." Jung wrote with approval of Gross’s use of sex orgies to promote pagan spirituality, as he did when he wrote: "The existence of a phallic or orgiastic cult does not indicate eo ipso a particularly lascivious life any more than the ascetic symbolism of Christianity means an especially moral life." Jung, absorbed by eroticism and entranced by the occult, sought to provide a holy merger of the two, which is now popularly know as "Jungianism". In 1912, at the age of 37,  he declared that he could no longer be a Christian, and that only the "new" science of psychoanalysis—as he defined it through "Jungianism"—could offer personal and societal rebirth. 

 Many of the apostate clergy in the wake of Vatican II became disciples of Jung, and were eager to spread his errors. As a result, Jungianism has become a great money-maker in the Vatican II sect, by promoting books and seminars on such topics as "analysis of dreams," "archetypes," "Enneagram personality types," and "discovering the god within you." They despise the Rosary as "out of date." The traditional Mass is derided as "patriarchal" and "sexist." God, for Jungians, must be both male and female--incorporating the Eastern pagan notion of "ying and yang." The Mass is a "communal celebration" (sound familiar?) and the Real Presence in the Eucharist is denied since we all have "god within," a form of pantheism. According to Robert Noll's book, The Jung Cult, "...for literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of individuals in our culture, Jung and his ideas are the basis of a personal religion that either supplants their participation in traditional organized Judeo-Christian religion or accompanies it."  

The Enneagram and Deception

The Enneagram was developed indirectly from the Sufi religion (a mystical dimension in the darkness that is called Islam) and promotes "self-knowledge" through the use of traditional theological terms. You are to get in touch with your "true self" and let go of the "false self." This was Jung's goal for transforming religion away from God, and turning it inward to "the divine" in each individual. The Enneagram is a figure composed of three parts. There is an outer circle, an inner triangle and an irregular hexagonal figure containing nine points that touch the outer circle. Each part of it is connected to gnostic spirituality: the circle represents unity, the inner triangle "the law of three," and the hexagon "the law of seven." 

People using the Enneagram will hear Traditionalist Catholic terms, to which Jungians have given new meanings. By discovering your "personality type" (a number from one to nine) you can become "your true self." Here is some of the "Jungian-speak" you will hear; traditional words given new meanings in using the Enneagram.

Sin = personality traits that separate people from God or their true selves.

Original Sin = a person is never at any time in his life undamaged or free, but is always exposed to harmful forces

Prayer = delving into Nothingness to become "one" (pantheism)

Redemption = freedom from one's "false self " to one's "true self "

Faith = having doubts about yourself and overcoming them

Jung and the New "Mass"

According to Stephan A. Hoeller, The Gnosis of the Eucharist (See http://gnosis.org/gnosis_eucharist1.html), 

That great modern representative of the Gnosis, C.G. Jung, had a great interest in the Christian sacraments, particularly in the Mass...Jung emphasizes that those involved in the celebration of the Mass are ministering causes of the divine event. The priest does not cause the mystery; he is merely a minister of grace and power. The same is true of the congregation and of the seemingly inert substances of bread and wine. The Mass is not an action executed by humans, but by divinity.

In addition to the views of the mass discussed above, there is also the notion that this mystery is of the nature of a sacrifice. The sacrifice, in its Gnostic sense, involves the return of the alienated spark to its original flame. Neither philosophy, metaphysics, nor dogma can accomplish this longed-for union, for it is not a matter of concept but of experience. If we wish to join our shining twin in heaven by removing the dichotomy, we must do a work, an opus, as the alchemists of old would have called it. We must offer the bread and wine of our lesser nature to a power from above, so that this human self may be transformed into the likeness and indeed the substance of the wholly other, the alien God, the One beyond and above all the aeons, who in some utterly mysterious way is still our own, true, inmost Self. God in man returns to himself in the sacrificial mystery. (Emphasis mine)

And again:

The mysteries in the pre-Christian era were elaborately devised ritual dramas contrived to intensify the spiritual transformation of the initiate. They were usually patterned after the mythic life, death, and resurrection of a particular deity to whom the mystery was dedicated. The candidate was usually made to symbolically undergo certain events in the life story of the hero. This is still evident in the initiation rituals of Freemasonry, particularly in the sublime degree of Master Mason, where the candidate undergoes the death and rising again of the Masonic hero Hiram Abiff.

The pagans of antiquity were convinced that humans could undergo apotheosis, that they could become gods and goddesses. The Mass is closely connected with this process, since in its mysteries earthly substances are transmuted into divine ones, and, more important, humans may be similarly transformed in their psychospiritual natures. The ancient Gnostics for the most part seem to have held that Jesus was a human being who, very much like a hero in the pagan tradition, became divine as a result of his spiritual virtue. Jesus the hero became Christ the God. (This event is said to have been finalized, as it were, on the occasion of the baptism of Jesus in the river Jordan, which was called the Epiphany, or the manifestation of Christ to the world.) ---(Emphasis mine)

  Conclusion

Gone are the days of The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. The Vatican II sect is brimming over with gnostic heresy--indeed, is not Modernism the "synthesis of all heresies" as Pope St. Pius X taught?

If you ever pick up books that purport to be "traditional" in spiritual exercises, but were published after 1964, please avoid anything that:

• tells you to seek your "inner true self" or says "God is within you"

• has disdain for the traditional Rosary and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament

• wants you to interpret your dreams

• uses the buzzwords and phrases "personal empowerment," "becoming authentic to yourself," and finding "healing and meaning" in your life

Vatican II retreat houses are full of the pagan teachings of Carl Jung derived from gnostics of old. Countless souls have lost their faith. My friend with whom I went on retreat was so confused and disenchanted with the garbage peddled in the Vatican II sect, he became a Protestant. I couldn't convince him it wasn't the Catholic Church but a new sect posing as the True Church. Another case of someone restless for God, and wanting bread, was given a stone instead. I pray for him and feel sorry for him. Jung's influence is even seen in the Novus Bogus, where everyone participates to "become divine." If "god" is in us, we don't need to have a tabernacle to face during Mass. It's about the people and their self-importance.  The psychoanalyst's name may be Jung; but the heresies he peddles are very evil and quite old. 

The Dr. Seuss Of Ecclesiology

 Bishop Richard Williamson has become a joke. He's been a joke for some time now, and it just keeps getting worse. His "St. Marcel Initiative" (a version of the Society of St. Pius X [SSPX] with no desire for union with Modernist Rome) formerly referred to as the "Society of St. Pius X of the Strict Observance" continues to attack the sedevacantist position, even as they attack the SSPX as being "too soft" on Francis. He's "re-excommunicated" from the Vatican II sect after having consecrated two bishops for his "Initiative" in 2015 and 2016. Each Saturday, the baffled bishop sends out his "Eleison Comments" via e-mail, ostensibly to convince everyone that only his organization has the post-Vatican II situation properly figured out, and to warn people to stay away from sedevacantism.

 He begins almost every issue of his "Comments" with some kindergarten-like rhyme. A small sampling should suffice:

• The sacrificial Mass once thrown away, How could poor Catholics not go astray?

• Truth which is true excludes all contradiction. "Truth" which admits of error, is truth-fiction.

• While Menzingen is by Rome’s sirens charmed, To keep the Faith, let forewarned be forearmed

. Shakespeare he's not, but you would expect that an educated man who was a close confidant of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre to understand basic Catholic theology and present a good argument. Such is not the case. During his last attack on sedevacantism, he's long on poetry and short on theology. You will look in vain for any citation to an approved theologian. In typical Feeneyite fashion, he will cite to a decree, and then give his interpretation instead of what the Church has always understood it to mean.

Bp. Williamson Reinterprets the First Vatican Council

 He begins his "Comments" of 9/17/2016 with the title, "Church's Infallibility." (Emphasis in original) Then the following rhyme, "Conciliar Popes I have to 'disobey,'  But that they are not Popes, I need not say." Bp. Williamson arrives at the correct conclusion; that the post-Vatican II "popes" are EITHER really popes and must be obeyed OR they are not popes and are owed no obedience.  Unfortunately, he proceeds to deny that this is the theologically (and logically) correct decision to be made. He cites the First Vatican Council (1870):

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra , that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, 1 by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he 2 defines 3 a doctrine regarding faith or morals 4 to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable." — Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv. (Emphasis in original). 

The bishop goes on to explain that these are the four requirements for an infallible decision. He emphasizes that the fourth so-called requirement of infallibility coming from the Church, means that the pope must "plug in" the requirements to be infallible. He analogizes to a housewife who must plug in her iron to an electric power source or it does't work. His conclusion: If the pope doesn't "engage the four conditions" he can say what he likes without harming the infallibility of the Church. 

Bp. Williamson is correct insofar as a "pope" who teaches heresy is no pope and so no harm can come to the Church in that sense. On everything else, he's completely wrong.

The Teaching of the Church

 According to theologian Tanquerey, "The conditions, all of which must be present at the same time in order that the Pontiff's judgement may be infallible are:

a. The Roman Pontiff may not be speaking as a private doctor, nor as bishop of the city of Rome, nor as a prince of a state, but as the Pastor and Doctor of the universal Church according to his supreme authority;

b. The Roman Pontiff should be teaching a truth of faith or morals;

c. The Roman Pontiff must be defining, that is, he must be determining with finality which doctrine must be held with internal faith;

d. The definition must bind the universal Church" (See Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, 1: 128-129).

The fourth requirement is to "bind the universal Church." It does not mean that the pope can teach heresy, and as long as he does not attempt an infallible definition, all is well. That the Church is infallible means this:

"...the Church can neither deceive or be deceived in matters of faith and morals. It is a prerogative of the whole Church; but it belongs in one way to those who fulfill the office the office of teaching, and another way to those who are taught. Hence, the distinction between active infallibility, by which the Church's rulers are rendered immune from error when they teach; and passive infallibility, by which all of Christ's faithful are preserved from error in their beliefs." (See theologian Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, 2: 102). 

You will notice nothing about housewives, toasters, or "plugging things in" to the Church. Bp. Williamson has distorted this beyond recognition. The Church's teaching office cannot teach error, and the faithful can be secure in their beliefs. If error is taught, it cannot have come from the Church. That pope must have lost ecclesiastical office by the profession of heresy. 

The Extent of Infallibility

Theologian Van Noort assures us that the secondary objects of infallibility include: 1. theological conclusions, 2. dogmatic facts, 3. the general discipline of the Church, 4. approval of religious orders, and 5. canonization of saints. Let's look at just two of these secondary objects of infallibility, and see if Bp. Williamson would go along with being obedient, as a Traditionalist Catholic must. 

The General Discipline of the Church

"The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church. ...But if the Church could make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer be either a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life." (Dogmatic Theology 2:114-115; Emphasis in original)

 "When the Church's rulers sanction a law, they implicitly make a twofold judgement: 1.'This law squares with with the Church's doctrine of faith and morals;' that is, it imposes nothing that is at odds with sound belief and good morals. This amounts to a doctrinal decree. 2. 'This law, considering all the circumstances, is most opportune. This is a decree of practical judgement." (See Van Noort, 2: 115). 

So, Bp. Williamson, the Vatican II sect and their "popes" all of whom you accept as legitimate have infallibly imposed a "New Order of Mass" and a new order in all the sacraments. Why do you reject them?

Canonization of Saints

Mother Teresa of Calcutta was a great humanitarian, but also was a heretic who believed in  ecumenism and participated in false worship. (See my post of 9/12/16, "Putting Unity Before Truth" for more on Mother Teresa). Francis proclaimed the following,

 "For the honor of the Blessed Trinity, the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own, after due deliberation and frequent prayer for divine assistance, and having sought the counsel of many of our brother bishops, we declare and define Blessed Teresa of Calcutta be [a] saint and we enroll her among the saints, decreeing that she is to be venerated as such by the whole Church. In the name of the Holy Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

That's infallible if he's pope. The Church doesn't want us venerating the damned, we need to be sure they are both in Heaven and worthy of emulation.

Bp. Williamson, even if Mother Teresa was saved, do you believe her acts of public false worship and apostasy from the Catholic faith make her worthy of emulation and veneration by all the faithful? Will you pray to her, and offer Mass in her honor?

Conclusion: You Can't "Recognize and Resist" Infallible Decisions 

  According to theologians McHugh and Callan:

"Rejection of a Command or Decision of a Pope Can Happen In One of Three Ways:

• Rejection of the thing commanded. This occurs when one disobeys something ( e.g., a fast or restitution enjoined by the Pontiff) because he considers it too difficult. This results in sin, but not separation through schism because he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the Head of the Church.

• Rejection of the command when you regard the pope in his capacity as an individual. As the pope is not above human weakness, he might make a command moved by hatred, envy, or some other sinful motive involving an individual decision (not one affecting the whole Church). The pope might also command something sinful (e.g., kill someone he dislikes). In such a case neither sin nor schism is committed by this refusal to obey. 

• The rejection is based on his official capacity as pope. The person is guilty of schism and is no longer a member of the Church because he does not wish to submit to the authority of the pope who gave the command. (See theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology 1: 542-543)

 It's clear that Bp. Williamson rejects decisions of the post-Vatican II "popes" that Catholic theology demands we regard as infallible. They were promulgated in their official capacity as "pope." You must either submit or be outside the Church. As a matter of fact, since these decisions are the objects of infallibility, you would be a heretic, not merely in schism. The only alternative is that, as all the pre-Vatican II theologians taught, these men professed heresy in their personal capacity and fell from office by Divine Law.

Bp. Williamson wants to make himself sound "reasonable" and not "extreme." The sedevacantist position is logical and only "extreme" when you don't understand theology. His next "Comments" should begin:

"Theology I understand not, with me don't throw in your lot.
A good argument I cannot make; listen to me not for Heaven's sake!" 

You Shouldn't Always Believe What You See

 Apparitions are a hot topic among Traditionalists. I have, unfortunately, seen the exaltation of  private revelation over public revelation too many times to count. Rather than study what the Church teaches (in public revelation which ended with the death of the Apostle St. John in 100 AD), they seek to quibble over what Our Lady of (fill-in-the-blank) is alleged to have said to the seer (private revelation). Note well that the term "private revelation" has nothing to do with the number of people who witnessed the revelation, but rather that it never needs to be accepted as authentic, unlike the Deposit of Faith which comes to us from Christ and the Apostles (deemed "public revelation"). As a matter of fact, in the comments section of one of my posts earlier this year, a person accused me of sin/heresy for stating that private revelations need not be accepted!

 I will attempt to demonstrate Church teaching on apparitions, and how we must not let devotion to them (even when approved by Holy Mother Church), obfuscate what is really of the Faith. The apparitions most talked about involve the appearances of the Mother of God, Mary.

Apparitions, Visions, and Their Causes

 In Catholic theology, "visions" (when authentic) are of an internal nature; i.e., God produces a concept or image in the seer without anything external to the person. An "apparition" (when authentic) occurs when God causes something external to the person to be seen through the senses--it is usually, but not necessarily---seen by people present other than the seer. Notice I mention authentic visions and apparitions, because in the words of theologian Farges, "True visions are rare, but visionaries are legion ..." (See Farges, Mystical Phenomena,Burns, Oates and Washbourne, London, [1926], pg. 323). All apparitions are caused by one of three things, God, people, or demons. 

 People who see authentic apparitions (i.e. "seers") are usually children, because of their innocence and due to the fact that visions usually occur in the saintly to whom God can act more directly on the soul as they have grown close to the Almighty. According to Farges, "Amongst sinners ... visions are always very rare, and therefore must always seem suspect and attributable to illusion or the devil, unless there is a proof to the contrary." Since most of us adults in the world fall into "the sinner" category, it follows that apparitions that come from God are very rare. From the sixteenth century until the Great Apostasy at Vatican II, only nine (9) apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary have been approved as "worthy of belief" by the Church. 

The vast majority of "seers" are either charlatans or have mental illness. Hallucinations, whether from schizophrenia, drugs/alcohol, brain tumors, or highly suggestible states, comprise most false apparitions. Mass hysteria, whereby a group of people exhibit similar physical or emotional symptoms, can manifest itself in shipwrecked people all apparently seeing a rescue ship, and can equally explain how some people "see" what the false seers "see." Some, such as in Medjugorje, are perpetrated by individuals who never cease to have these so-called apparitions. They even operate an online store and pilgrimages costing thousands of dollars "not including tips" to the tour guides of the numerous "holy places." A sure case of charlatan-ism. 

Demonic Apparitions

 In discussing the diabolic origin of some apparitions, it is important to know what demons and Satan can and cannot do. They cannot:

• Raise the dead, since this would entail allowing the soul back into the body after final judgement by God. God can suspend such judgement and raise the dead (Lazarus, etc.), but Satan and his demons cannot. They can make it appear as such, perhaps by allowing a demon into the corpse, but this is doubtful.

• Create anything, because substances can only be created by God.

• Know the future or read minds. According to theologian  Delaporte, the devil does not know the future as God does. However, "A pure spirit, not subjected to ...know only through the medium of corporeal organs, sees more things at once, and sees more than we do. He may, besides, thanks to his potent intelligence and long experience draw better from the present, what he knows by conjecture of the future. Finally, he may announce things he counts on accomplishing himself, or having accomplished by those who willingly receive his inspiration." (The Devil pg. 70).Therefore, Satan can "know the future" and "read minds" in that sense. However, he does not know the future as God does, and is not infallibly sure of what will transpire, unlike God Who is omniscient. 

 They can:

• Produce corporeal or imaginative visions.

• Falsify ecstasy.

• Instantaneously cure sicknesses that have been caused by diabolical influence. Tertullian writes, "First of all, they [the demons] make you ill; then to get a miracle out of it, they prescribe remedies either completely novel, or contrary to those in use, and thereupon withdrawing hurtful influence, they are supposed to have wrought a cure." (Apology of the Christian Religion, 22)

• Simulate miracles (i.e. walking on water, levitation, etc.)

• Make people or objects seem to disappear by interfering with a person's sight 

• Cause a person to hear sounds or voices.

• Cause a person to speak in tongues.

• Have someone reveal a fact which is hidden or distant.

Whatever nature or science can cause, the demons can cause, according to what God may permit by His Will. (See e.g., the Book of Job, and Exodus 7:11-12; 7:22; 8:7; 8:18-19; 9:11 N.B. The magicians of Pharaoh were able to replicate only some of what was done by Moses and Aaron). With this impressive arsenal, it wouldn't be too hard for demonic forces to produce an apparition.

How to Discern the Real from the False/Evil

My advice is to stay away from apparitions other than the nine approved by the Church since the 16th century and prior to Vatican II. There are six (6) "warning signs" you need to beware when hearing of an "apparition" of Our Lady, Our Lord, or any angel or saint. In the case of the first warning sign below, it is a clear indication that the apparition is a fraud and must be rejected, as God cannot contradict Himself; He is Truth itself. The second warning sign below means the apparition should be rejected, or you may wind up a heretic. Warning signs three through six indicate you should have (at the very least) suspended judgement regarding said apparition. Here are the warning signs:

1. Any apparition that states something against Traditional Faith and/or morals must be rejected as false. (e.g. Palmar de Troya declared Our Lady "Irredeemed"; meaning "not redeemed." This is a total misunderstanding of the Immaculate Conception and rank heresy.)

2. Any apparition that states something contrary to the unanimous (or even common) teaching of the approved pre-Vatican II theologians.

3. A fulfilled prophesy being claimed as automatic proof of authenticity. Demons could be responsible.

4. Apparitions that contain mundane (and even strange) matters (e.g. in one apparition, it was stated that the so-called Blessed Mother "played hide-n-seek" with the seers).

5. Apparitions where novel doctrines (not incompatible with Church teaching) are introduced, a definitive date is given (or strongly suggested) for the Second Coming, or the "Blessed Mother" either "blesses" objects or demands that only un-blessed sacramentals be brought to the site (as was the case regarding the "apparitions" in Bayside, NYC).

6. The seer is neither a child nor an adult known for great sanctity and mental stability. Also where the apparitions never end, and there is profit to be made by the "prophet" (think: "Medjugorje"). 

Tried and True

 Rather than obsess over unapproved apparitions (and we have no hierarchy with authority to approve new apparitions since 1958 when the last known pope, Pius XII died) stick to the nine major apparitions that have the solemn approbation of Church authority:

1. Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531): The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared four times to Juan Diego in 1531 at Tepeyac hill near Mexico City. She proclaimed herself the Spiritual Mother of all humanity and left her miraculous image on Juan Diego's outer garment, his tilma.

2. Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (1830): The Mother of God appeared to St. Catherine Labouré, in the chapel of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, at Rue du Bac in Paris, three times in 1830. She showed her the design of the the medal of the Immaculate Conception, the "Miraculous Medal." This medal, when propagated, helped to renew devotion to Our Lady throughout the world. 

3. Our Lady of La Salette (1846): Our Blessed Mother appeared to two children, Maximin Giraud, aged 11, and Mélanie Calvat, aged 14, in 1846, while they were looking after their animals high up on the mountain. She asked for penance, an end to work on the Sabbath (Sunday), and an end to blasphemy.

4. Our Lady of Lourdes (1858): The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to St. Bernadette Soubirous, aged 14, a total of eighteen times at Lourdes in southern France, at the Grotto of Massabielle. She called herself "The Immaculate Conception" as Heaven's delight in (and affirmation of) Pope Pius IX's infallible decree Ineffabilis Deus of December 8, 1854 defining the Immaculate Conception of the BVM a dogma of the Faith. A miraculous well sprung up there, and has been the occasion of many miraculous cures. 

5. Our Lady of Hope (1871): Our Lady appeared in the sky over the small town of Pontmain in north-western France to a group of young children for about three hours in January 1871, as the Franco-Prussian war was threatening the area. Slowly, a message appeared beneath her: "But pray, my children. God will hear you in time. My Son allows Himself to be touched." The crowd prayed and the Prussians, for reasons unknown to secular historians, abandoned their advance on the little town. The Prussian general is reported as having said, "We cannot go farther. Yonder, in the direction of Brittany, there is an invisible 'Madonna' barring the way."

6. Our Lady of Knock (1879): The Blessed Mother appeared at Knock, a small village in County Mayo, Ireland, in August 1879. A number of villagers of diverse ages saw a silent apparition, which lasted about three hours, outside the gable end of the local church. They saw three figures, Mary, St. Joseph, and St John the Apostle, as well as a lamb on an altar and angels. Many speculate the silence of the apparition was to show the future silencing of Fatima as well as the destruction of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. 

7. Our Lady of Fatima (1917): Our Blessed Mother appeared to three children, Lucia de Santos, aged 10, and her two cousins, Francisco Marto, aged 9, and Jacinta Marto, aged 7. Our Lady asked for recitation of the Rosary, prayers and penance for poor sinners, the Five Saturdays Devotion to Her Immaculate Heart, and the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. There were three secrets given (one never revealed in 1960 by Roncalli), and a Miracle of the Sun witnessed by thousands.

8. Our Lady of Beauraing (1932-1933): The Immaculate Mother of God appeared thirty-three (33) times to a group of children in the winter of 1932-33 at Beauraing in Belgium. She called herself  "the Immaculate Virgin" and "Mother of God, Queen of Heaven," while asking for prayers for the conversion of sinners.

9. Our Lady of Banneux (1933): The Ever-Virgin Mary appeared eight times to Mariette Beco, aged 11, outside the family home at Banneux, a small village, in Belgium. She called herself "The Virgin of the Poor" and promised to help the poor, sick and suffering who turn to her. She said, "If you believe in me, I will believe in you." 

Conclusion

 No one must believe in any apparition; even those approved by the Church. If you have a devotion to an approved apparition, please do NOT let it become some kind of "dogma," and do not waste valuable time and energy debating with others over the "true meaning." Instead, read the approved theologians and learn about what the Church really teaches, since we live in this time of near universal apostasy. As far as "new" apparitions, my advice is to stay away. Some are obvious frauds (Medjugorje, Bayside) and others are highly dubious because we have no hierarchy in the aftermath of Vatican II which can make a definitive judgement. Don't let a dangerous curiosity of the spectacular detract from your spiritual life. The next time someone wants you to read about "the true meaning" of an apparition, or believe in some alleged new apparition of Our Lady or Our Lord, remember the warning of Our Savior Jesus Christ Himself, "If therefore they shall say to you: Behold he is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold he is in the closets, believe it not." (St. Matthew 24: 26). 

The Ninety-Sixth Error

 The year 2017 will mark the 500th anniversary of the so-called Protestant "Reformation." It began with the nailing of the heretical "95 Theses" on the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg by the heretic priest Martin Luther. He was condemned by Pope Leo X in the decrees Exurge Domine (June 15, 1520) and Decet Romanum Pontificem (January 3, 1521, which excommunicated him vitandus, i.e. "to be avoided"). On June 26, 2016, "Pope" Francis said on an interview, "I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct. But in that time…the Church was not exactly a model to imitate. There was corruption in the Church, there was worldliness, attachment to money, to power...and this he protested." (Emphasis mine). The Church is always a model to imitate, the Holy Bride of Christ. The clergy are not always to be imitated; that's a huge difference.

 Those who read my posts regularly, know that I do not consider the Vatican II sect to be a false man-made religion based on the unnatural vice that plagues a large number of its clerics, but on the heretical doctrines it teaches. Francis wants us to think the Reformation was little more than an attempt to reform abuses, as in the days of St. Francis of Assisi, and not a matter of heresy. Mr. Bergoglio even plans on going to Sweden to join in the "celebration" of this infamous quincentenary. Rather than review the 95 errors of Luther, let's look at the 96th error introduced by Vatican II--the Church is somehow "wounded" and "incomplete" because of "divisions in Christianity."

  The Primary Error of Vatican II is a False Ecclesiology

As I've stated many times, Vatican II introduced the novel and heretical teaching that the "Church of Christ" is not the same as the traditional Roman Catholic Church. The new ecclesiology (i.e. the teaching on the nature of the Church) states that the Church of Christ "subsists" in its "fullness"  in the Catholic Church because it has all of the "elements." Other sects are part of the Church of Christ according to how many elements they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good and leads to salvation. Vatican II even states that Christ uses false sects as "a means of salvation." This destroys the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in Latin).  

The post-Vatican II "popes" (especially John Paul the Great Apostate and Ratzinger/Benedict) have advanced the idea that we need to "join all the elements together" in some loose fitting One World Sect where everything is permitted except the truth. If we don't, the Church is "wounded" and "incomplete." This is rank heresy of the worst kind.

The Teaching of the True Church On Her Nature and Unity

 The unity of the One True Church of Christ is perfect and complete in and of Herself, and is completely unaffected by heretics, apostates, and schismatics who leave. According to theologian Scheeben, "Anything like a vague agglomeration of different bodies is absolutely excluded. 'There is one God and one Christ,' says St. Cyprian, 'and His Church is one, and the Faith is one, and one the people joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts.'" (See A Manual of Catholic Theology 2:347; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius XI:  "This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their [Protestant] assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?" (See Mortalium Animos, # 8, 1928; Emphasis mine).

" So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it."(Ibid, # 10, Emphasis mine).

"They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers." (Ibid # 7; Emphasis mine).

Pope St. Pius X: "The Church alone is the depository of the truth." (Address on the Beatification of Joan of Arc, 1909). 

Pope Pius XII: "They shall take particular care and shall firmly insist that, in going over the history of the Reformation and the Reformers the defects of Catholics be not so exaggerated and the faults of the Reformers be so dissimulated, or that things which are rather accidental be not so emphasized, that what is most essential, namely the defection from the Catholic faith, be scarcely any longer seen or felt...Therefore the whole and entire Catholic doctrine is to be presented and explained: by no means is it permitted to pass over in silence or to veil in ambiguous terms the Catholic truth regarding the nature and way of justification, the constitution of the Church, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, and the only true union by the return of the dissidents to the one true Church of Christ." (See "De Motione Oecumenica, On the "Ecumenical Movement"; Instruction of the Holy Office approved by Pope Pius XII, #2, 1949; Emphasis mine)

The Teachings of John Paul The Great Apostate and Ratzinger/Benedict

John Paul II: "Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church. To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian Communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them. For this reason the Second Vatican Council speaks of a certain, though imperfect communion. The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium stresses that the Catholic Church 'recognizes that in many ways she is linked' with these Communities by a true union in the Holy Spirit." (See Ut Unam Sint # 11, 1995; Emphasis mine).

John Paul II: "Ecumenism is directed precisely to making the partial communion existing between Christians grow towards full communion in truth and charity." (Ibid, # 14; Emphasis mine). 

John Paul II: "The 'universal brotherhood' of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out..."(Ibid # 42; Emphasis mine). 

John Paul II: In Oct. 1983, John Paul II, speaking of Martin Luther on the 500th anniversary of his birth stated in a Lutheran Church,"Our world even today experiences his great impact on history." (L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 14, 1983, p. 9; Emphasis mine)

Benedict XVI: "The Catholic Church has no right to absorb other Churches. A basic unity of Churches, yet remain Churches, yet become one Church--must replace the idea of conversion." (See Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Paulist Press: NY, 1966, pg. 61, 68--before "election" as "pope"; Emphasis mine). 

Benedict XVI: "I would respond by saying that the first and most important thing for ecumenism is that we keep in view just how much we have in common, not losing sight of it amid the pressure towards secularization – everything that makes us Christian in the first place and continues to be our gift and our task. It was the error of the Reformation period that for the most part we could only see what divided us and we failed to grasp existentially what we have in common in terms of the great deposit of sacred Scripture and the early Christian creeds. The great ecumenical step forward of recent decades is that we have become aware of all this common ground and that we acknowledge it as we pray and sing together, as we make our joint commitment to the Christian ethos in our dealings with the world, as we bear common witness to the God of Jesus Christ in this world as our undying foundation." ( See "Pope" Benedict XVI's address to the representatives of the German Evangelical Church , September 23, 2011; Emphasis mine)

Martin Luther Speaks for Himself

 Let's remember that besides the glaring contradictions above, Luther was himself quite evil. His idea of "justification by Faith alone" (aka "sola fide") replaces the Catholic dogma of interior justification (sin is really wiped out) with exterior justification (people remain sinners, but God covers them with the grace of Christ when they believe like "snow on dung."). As a consequence he said some pretty bad things. With which quotes below would Francis be in agreement?

Martin Luther: "Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.  We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides...  No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day." (See Let Your Sins Be Strong, from 'The Wittenberg Project;'  'The Wartburg Segment', translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521. - Cf. Also Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier [Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13], VOl. II, pg. 404; Emphasis mine).

Martin Luther: "Good works are bad and are sin like the rest" (See Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), VOl. III, pg. 47)

Martin Luther: "He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away". (See Luther, Martin, On the Jews and Their Lies, translated by Martin H. Bertram, Fortress Press, 1955)

Conclusion

Bergoglio (aka "Pope" Francis) wants us to think the Church is "wounded" or "lacks full unity" and it can only be "healed" by a One World Sect because "proselytism is nonsense." The elements of sanctification and truth are present in these Protestant sects and will grow to full communion with Catholics in this new World-Wide Ecumenical Sect. Bergoglio will go and "celebrate" the corruption of faith and morals that began in Protestantism and evolved into Modernism. He will rejoice over a man who broke his priestly vows to marry an apostate nun while encouraging all manner of evil with his false teachings. Luther had a near pathological hatred of Jews. (Funny how the Modernists accuse Traditionalists of being anti-Semitic, while ignoring the real deal when it suits their purposes). 

We don't need to worry about a "wounded" Church that needs healing; only be concerned with falling for Bergoglio's poison ecumenism. It's celebrating a phony "reformation" which encourages an already sick world that needs the One True Church of Christ to "let your sins be strong." 

Exorcise In Futility

 On September 16, 2016, Fr. Gabriel Amorth passed on at the age of 91. Fr. Amorth was the exorcist for Rome and wrote two books, An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories. Fr. Amorth claimed there were "members of Satanic sects" in the Vatican including some "cardinals." Why a man who performed so many exorcisms (and ordained in the 1950s) didn't see the devil as the post-Vatican II "popes" baffles me. He was a very controversial figure, but one thing he said (and with which I completely agree), was his contention--supported in sound theology--that the new Rite of Exorcism imposed by John Paul the Great Apostate in 1999 was "useless" in battling demons. This post will demonstrate why this is so.

The New Rite Of Exorcism Examined

In January of 1999, "Pope" John Paul II promulgated De Exorcismis et Supplicationibus Quibusdam, a new Rite of Exorcism, supplanting the venerable and traditional Rite of 1614 AD. 

I.  A New (and false) Definition of Exorcism

The new Rite is based on the Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church of 1992, which defines exorcism as, "When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called exorcism." (#1673; Emphasis mine). An exorcism is NOT a prayer asking God to release someone from the power of the devil.  Exorcism is a command issued to Satan in the name of God. The very word exorcism tells you that – exorcizo, I adjure. The Traditional Rite states, "Exorcizo te, immundissime spiritus…in nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi" – "I exorcize you, unclean spirit…in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." It is a command issued to the demon in the name of Christ. The new Rite gives the Vatican II sect "priest" a choice of "deprecatory" and "imperative" exorcisms. The "deprecatory" is simply a prayer to God asking for His help. The "imperative" is commanding the demon in the name of Christ. According to the new Rite's rubrics, the deprecatory must always be used, and the imperative is an "option" rarely, if ever, to be used.

II.  Twelve (12) of the Twenty-one (21) Directives to the Exorcist are Omitted in the New Rite

Here are the old directives (with their former numbers) that are totally omitted:

4. In order to better test these signs [of possession], the priest should question the demoniac after one or other exorcism as to what he feels in his mind or body, so that in this way he can also learn which words more greatly disturb the demons, so as then to bear down on them and repeat them all the more.

5. The priest should stay alert for tricks and deceptions that demons use to mislead the exorcist. For they will give false answers as much as possible, and show themselves only with difficulty, in order that the exorcist at length become worn out and give up the exorcism; or the ill person might appear not to be harassed by the devil.

6. Occasionally, after they appear, the demons hide and leave the body almost free of all disturbance, so that the ill person might think he is completely freed. But the exorcist should not stop until he sees the signs of liberation.

8. Some demons point out an act of witchcraft which has been done [to cause possession], by whom it was done, and the way to undo it; but the demoniac should be careful not to have recourse to sorcerers, fortune-tellers, or other such persons, on this account, but should go to the ministers of the Church rather than use any superstitious or otherwise illicit means.

9. Sometimes the devil grants the sick person relief and permits him to receive the Holy Eucharist so that he might seem to have departed. In short, there are countless devices and tricks of the devil to deceive man, which the exorcist should beware, lest he be deceived.

13. …Also relics of Saints, where available, safely and properly fastened and covered, may be reverently applied to the chest or head of the possessed. Care must be taken that the sacred objects are not improperly handled or harmed in any way by the demon. Because of danger of irreverence, the Holy Eucharist should not be placed upon the head of the possessed person or elsewhere on his body.

14. The exorcist should not engage in a great deal of talking or ask unnecessary or curious questions, especially concerning future or secret matters not pertaining to his task. But he should command the unclean spirit to be silent, except to answer his questions. Nor should he believe the demon if he pretends to be the soul of some Saint or deceased person or a good Angel.

15. However, there are necessary questions, for example, concerning the number and names of the possessing spirits, the time and reason they entered, and other things of this sort. The exorcist should restrain or spurn the rest of the devil’s nonsense, laughter and foolishness, and advise those present, who should be few, that they must not pay attention to these things nor question the possessed person, but rather humbly and earnestly pray to God for him.

16. The exorcist should read and carry out the exorcism with strength, authority, great faith, humility and fervor, and when he sees that the spirit is especially tormented, then he should persist and bear down all the more. And whenever he sees that the possessed person is being disturbed in some part of his body, or stung, or that a swelling appears somewhere, he should make the sign of the cross on that area and sprinkle it with holy water which should be on hand.

17. He is also to observe at which words the demons tremble more, and then he should repeat these words more often. When he reaches the threatening words, he should say them repeatedly, always increasing the punishment. If he sees that he is making progress, he should continue for two, three, or four hours, or even longer if he can, until he obtains the victory.

19. If he is exorcising a woman, he should always have persons of integrity with him to hold the possessed person while she is agitated by the demon. These people should be close relatives of the suffering woman if possible. Mindful of decency, the exorcist should be careful not to say or do anything which could be an occasion of an evil thought to himself or the others.

20. While he is exorcising, he should use the words of Sacred Scripture rather than his own or someone else’s. He should command the demon to tell him if he is held in that body because of some magic, or sorcerer’s signs or devices. If the possessed person has consumed things of this sort orally, he should vomit them up. If they are elsewhere outside his body, he should reveal where they are, and once found, they are to be burned. The possessed person should also be advised to make known all his temptations to the exorcist.

III.  Other Omissions

The Traditional Rite of Exorcism had a three-fold sequence of exorcisms, which is now a single "prayer for relief."

Compare:
Traditional Rite Of Exorcism (1614):
Exorcism #1
151 words (in the Latin)
6 Signs of the Cross
13 negative appellations for the devil
7 commands
4 Old/New Testament references

New Rite of Exorcism (1999):
Exorcism #1 (optional)
193 words
4 Signs of the Cross
9 negative appellations for the devil
9 commands
4 Old/New Testament references

Traditional Rite of Exorcism (1614):

Exorcism #2

442 words 

23 Signs of the Cross 

Signing of breast and forehead 

14 "Imperat tibi" (direct commands)

3 "Adjuro te" (I adjure you)

Mention of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary 

Biblical images of demon-animals being trodden upon

New Rite of Exorcism (1999):

Exorcism #2 (the only one mandated by the rubrics)

162 words 

3 Signs of the Cross 

No signing of breast and forehead

0 "Imperat tibi" references

3 "Adjuro te" (I adjure you)

No mention of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary 

No Biblical images of demon-animals being trodden upon

Traditional Rite of Exorcism (1614):

Exorcism #3 

389 words

12 Signs of the Cross 

11 Old/New Testament images 

14 commands (Give place-Depart-Be gone)

Eject-Expel-Repel sequence

Threat of Hell-fire

New Rite of Exorcism (1999):

Exorcism #3 (optional)

142 words 

1 Sign of the Cross 

1 mild New Testament image

8 commands

No Eject-Expel-Repel sequence

No threat of Hell-fire 

Conclusion

 As you can see, the New Rite of Exorcism is really no exorcism at all. Just as the sacrament of Extreme Unction has become a "spiritual get-well-soon card" in the Vatican II sect's "Anointing of the Sick," exorcism is little more than asking for God's help while downplaying all the sacred signs of our Faith. Even when a validly ordained priest uses it, like the late Fr. Amorth, it proves useless. Not satisfied with the elimination of the priesthood, Wotyla had to destroy the Rite of Exorcism itself. After all, why would the Modernist Vatican want to keep those traditional prayers asking their new and infernal master to leave them? 

Putting "Unity" Before Truth

 With the "canonization" of Mother Teresa, false "Pope" Francis has given the world yet another example of ecumenical adoration. Mother Teresa performed many and wonderful acts of mercy. However, she exalted the Corporal Works of Mercy over the Spiritual Works of Mercy. Her ecumenism was all pervasive. She is quoted as having said, "I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic." She also participated in Buddhist worship. These horrific examples of her apostasy could be multiplied, but I have no need to belabor the point. No Traditionalist is in position to say if she (or anyone else except Judas) is in Hell or not, as she may have repented in the last moments of her life and achieved Heaven. "But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8). However, canonization is not merely a declaration that someone "made it to Heaven," but that they are worthy of emulation by the Faithful. As she denied the One True Church and its absolute necessity for salvation, she is not so worthy.

This latest act of ecumenical insanity does provide me an opportunity to show (a) what the Church taught about false religions and praying with false sects prior to Vatican II, (b) that Catholic dogma cannot change, (c) that the Vatican II sect promotes the very things the Church always condemned, (d) that it is the teaching of the Church that the pope can lose his office by Divine Law should he become a manifest heretic as a private theologian (and further, that the Divine Law prohibits heretics, schismatics, and apostates from obtaining the papal office). Ergo, it is morally certain that there has been no pope since at least November 21, 1964 when Paul VI signed Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.

I. What the Church Has Always Taught About Communicatio in Sacris

 Communicatio in sacris is Latin for "communion in the sacred." It refers to the active participation by  members of the True Church with adherents of false sects in non-Catholic functions. Here is what was taught:

1. 1917 Code of Canon Law

Canon 1258 sec. 1: "It is unlawful for Catholics to assist actively in any way at, or take part in, the religious services of non-Catholics. sec. 2: A passive or merely material presence may be tolerated, for reasons of civil duty or honor, at funerals, weddings, and similar celebrations, provided no danger of perversion or scandal arises from this assistance. In doubtful cases the reason for assisting must be grave, and recognized as such by the bishop."

According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, the reason for this canon is because:

• It is founded  in the natural and Divine positive Law

• The Catholic Church is the only Church in which, by Divine ordinance, worship may be rendered to God

• Such communication with non-Catholics in their services involves a threat of perversion to Catholics or at least the danger they will become indifferent in religious belief

• Catholics who observe it may take scandal

• Non-Catholics may see in it a quasi-approbation of their services or their erroneous belief

(See The Sacred Canons, B.Herder Book Co. [1952], pg. 512; Emphasis mine)  Note: That which is of natural law and Divine positive Law may never change and admits of no exceptions.

2. Theologians

St Thomas Aquinas: ""...if anyone were to...worship at the tomb of Mohammed, he would be deemed an apostate." (See Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2)

St. Alphonsus Liguori: "It is not permitted to take part at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them." (Theologia Moralis, Lib. 5, Tract. 1, Cap. 3)

Theologian Prummer: To worship with non-Catholics in their manner is a denial of the Catholic Faith. (See Manuale Theologiae Moralis, Tomus I, Tract. VII, art. III)

3. The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office

In 1729, the Holy Office stated that participation in heretic and schismatic worship is "universally prohibited by natural and Divine Law" and that "no one has the power to dispense" and "nothing excuses."

4. Pope Pius IX

"They should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings...They should avoid them as strangers and thieves who come only to steal, slay, and destroy. For the Church's children should consider the proper action to preserve the most precious treasure of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, as well as action calculated to achieve the goal of faith, that is the salvation of their souls, by following the straight road of justice." (See Graves ac Diuturnae, #4, 1875; Emphasis mine).

II. Catholic Dogma Cannot Change

Propositions of Modernism CONDEMNED by Pope St. Pius X:

 58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.

62. The chief articles of the Apostles' Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.

64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.

65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism. (See Lamentabili Sane, 1907)

III. The Teaching of the Vatican II Sect

1. Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism):

8. "This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name, 'spiritual ecumenism.'"

2. DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM
(1993)

108. Where appropriate, Catholics should be encouraged, in accordance with the Church's norms, to join in prayer with Christians of other Churches and ecclesial Communities. Such prayers in common are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which still bind Catholics to these other Christians. Shared prayer is in itself a way to spiritual reconciliation.

111. Representatives of the Churches, ecclesial Communities or other groups concerned should cooperate and prepare together such prayer. They should decide among themselves the way in which each is to take part, choose the themes and select the Scripture readings, hymns and prayers.

118. In liturgical celebrations taking place in other Churches and ecclesial Communities, Catholics are encouraged to take part in the psalms, responses, hymns and common actions of the Church in which they are guests. If invited by their hosts, they may read a lesson or preach.

137. Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.
(Emphasis mine)

IV. Church Teaching On Loss Of Ecclesiastical Office

1. The First Vatican Council (1870):

(Rather than list the long citations from myriad canonists and theologians about this topic, (all teaching that heresy deprives a pope of his office by Divine Law), I will cite from the discussion on the topic at the First Vatican Council--definitive proof that a heretic can't be pope).

"The question was also raised by a Cardinal, 'What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?' It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself...If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy." [Address at the First Vatican Council by Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the infallibility of the pope as defined at the Council]--See The Life and Work of Pope Leo XIII by Rev. James J. McGovern, D.D., pg. 241)

This teaching at the Council was confirmed by theologian Iragui: "In the First Vatican Council, the following question was proposed: Whether or not the Roman Pontiff as a private person could fall into manifest heresy? ...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head." (See Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], 371). 

2. No need for a declaratory sentence:

According to canonists Wernz and Vidal, "Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church..." (See Ius Canonicum, Rome: Gregorian [1943] 2: 453).

3. Heretics and Schismatics Barred from Obtaining the Papacy

Pope Paul IV--Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio February 15, 1559:

" In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;"

V. The Actions of Wotyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio

1. Wotyla ("Pope" "St." John Paul II)

• Prayed with African witch doctors August 8, 1985

• Actively participated in a Zoroastrian ceremony in India February 5, 1986

• Took part in a Jewish worship service at the synagogue April 13, 1986

• Held the Assisi abominations where all the false sects were invited to pray for peace to their false gods (1986 and 2002) --this included Hindus, Buddhists,  and Voodoo practitioners along with every heretic and schismatic to boot!

2. Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI)

• Held his own Assisi abominations in 2006 and 2011

• Prayed in a mosque with Mohammedan infidels facing Mecca November 30, 2006

• Worshiped with a female Lutheran "bishop" on September 23, 2011

3. Jorge Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis)

• "Canonizes" Wotyla on April 27, 2014 

• Kneels before a Protestant minister to be "blessed" on June 19, 2006

• Asks Jews for Passover prayers and wishes them well in their false religion:

"To the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Doctor Riccardo Di Segni,

In remembering with renewed gratitude our meeting on 17th January, when I was cordially welcomed by you and by the Jewish Community of the city in the Great Synagogue, I wish to express my most heartfelt wishes for the feast of Passover. It points out that the Almighty has released his beloved people from slavery and brought them to the Promised Land . May God also accompany you today with the abundance of his Blessings, protect your community and, in His mercy, bestow peace upon everyone. I ask you to pray for me, as I assure you of my prayers for you: may the Almighty allow us to be able to grow more and more in friendship. 

Franciscus, PP.21st April 2016." (Emphasis mine; no mention of conversion and tacitly admits efficacy of Jewish prayers--he has also participated in Jewish services)

• "Canonizes" Mother Teresa September 4, 2016. She participated in Buddhist worship and declared "I love all religions."

Summary and Conclusion

• Members of the One True church are barred by natural and Divine Positive Law from active participation in non-Catholic worship.

• Catholic dogma cannot change into something other than what it was always understood to mean. To say otherwise is the heresy of Modernism.

• The Church has always taught that praying with non-Catholics at their services constitutes heresy.

• Divine Law teaches that heretics cannot become or remain pope.

• John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have all participated actively in non-Catholic worship.

• The Vatican II sect teaches the opposite of what the Church always taught about active participation in non-Catholic worship.

• Francis "canonizes" ecumenical  heretics (apostates) John Paul II and Mother Teresa

Can the Vatican II sect be the Roman Catholic Church of all time? Can the post-Vatican II leaders be truly "popes"? The facts speak for themselves. Mr. Bergoglio, the phony pope, makes two phony saints (John Paul II and Mother Teresa) to promote the heretical Vatican II ecumenism as an ideal for all to follow. Christ wants us all to be one in the Truth which leads to eternal life. Frankie wants everybody to join his One World Ecumenical Sect that makes all one in falsehood; lies that can only lead to eternal damnation.

A Sensation Of Reincarnation?

 St. Paul tells us in Hebrews 9:27, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:"
Since the advent of the Vatican II sect, the world is becoming increasingly pagan. I can't even count the number of times I've heard people who profess to be "Catholic" say "It's karma" when someone who had done evil, gets what he deserves (or someone does something good and a good action comes their way). I wince, and interject, "No, it's Divine Providence. Karma is a pagan Hindu concept." Also, I will frequently hear, "Maybe I'll be a (such and such) in my next life." This is a clear reference to the pagan doctrine of reincarnation, whereby people's souls go through cycles of birth, death, and re-birth until they achieve Nirvana (which means to be "blown out" like a candle) so as to escape the cycle and achieve "oneness" with the universe (a type of pantheism).

 Reincarnation is in vogue like never before. The list of people who believe in reincarnation is getting longer and gaining more prominent names. In the past, General George S. Patton, Mark Twain, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, Henry Ford, and Albert Schweitzer all believed in a cycle of rebirth. More recently, the late Robin Williams was a believer in reincarnation as well (See my post of 8/17/14 for more on that topic). "Conservative" Vatican II sect member and actor Martin Sheen believes in past lives and has stated, "Our children come to us to make up for indiscretions in past lives. They are hold-overs from lifetimes we have not solved." Other contemporary "reincarnationists" include Steven Seagal, Sylvester Stallone, Jerry Springer, and Phil Collins, to name only a few.

 In England and Wales, a survey from the Von Hugel Institute at Cambridge University in 2008 reported that 10% of "Catholics" (i.e. Vatican II sect members) do not believe in Satan or Hell, while nearly 40% said they believed in reincarnation. In 2010, a survey of the  Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life stated that 28% of Vatican II sect members in the United States believe in reincarnation--more than one in four. Stafford Betty, a professor at Cal State has commented on why so many "Catholics" believe in reincarnation. He presents two reasons:

1. "Many Catholics think that a single life of anywhere from a few seconds' duration to 110 years is not enough time to determine the destiny of a soul for all eternity. They feel that God would be unloving if He (excuse the conventional pronoun) were to condemn a sinner to hell, but irrational if He rewarded a baby born dead with heaven. Some of these Catholics see the wheel of rebirth as a more plausible form of purgatory. "

2. "The other main reason that Catholics -- and other Americans -- adopt a reincarnational worldview turns on evidence. Much, perhaps most, of what passes as evidence comes from the popular media. Stories about people who have seeming memories of a previous life or mysterious phobias or obsessions or talents that cannot be explained by events in this life abound, and they often set people to wondering. The History channel serves up occasional stories of apparent rebirth, and these are based on research by paranormal investigators. 

There is also some reputable academic research being done on reincarnation that trickles down into public awareness. This is the work of Ian Stevenson, the famous reincarnation researcher affiliated with the University of Virginia who died in 2007. Stevenson and his associates traveled over the world tracking down little children, usually aged between 3 and 5, who claim to have memories of past lives. In hundreds of cases from all over the world their memories would match actual events that happened to the adult they remembered being." (See http://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/-why-do-so-many-catholics-believe-in-reincarnation-/10313.html)

With solid theological formation destroyed in the Vatican II sect, it's no wonder people will get taken in by these reasons. This post will give a brief explanation of reincarnation and show why these reasons don't support belief in past lives.

What is Reincarnation?

 Reincarnation is the belief among both Hindus and Buddhists that you will be "incarnated" (given a body) again ("re-") in order to progress and work out your karma (good and bad deeds) and ultimately escape the cycle of rebirths by attaining Nirvana (a state of perfection which usually, but not always, involves the extinction of the self into "Oneness"). There are seven themes that are common in all variations of reincarnation:

1. A goal of ultimate perfection for humanity.

2. An evolution towards perfection that is achieved through reincarnation.

3. Your karma will affect the type of reincarnation you have; a bad karma will mean a rebirth in a worse or lower state, while a good karma will mean rebirth to a better or higher state.

4. Your self survives death in successive afterlives.

5. You get multiple chances to make amends for the wrongs you've committed.

6. You will always be reincarnated in a body susceptible to die until you reach Nirvana.

7. There are multiple planets, universes, and dimensions upon which you can be reincarnated; it is not limited to Earth.    

Faulty Reasons

It's obvious that reincarnation is incompatible with Church teaching. However, I wish to respond to the reasons most commonly given above for belief in this false doctrine. It is based on feelings and sensation more than anything else, which is why an appeal to the teaching of the Church or quoting the Bible will usually hold no sway over such believers. Deja vu (from the French for "already seen") is the sensation that something you are experiencing (usually for the first time) has been experienced by you in the past. This is then attributed to having done the particular experience "in a past life."   There are sound arguments to reject the reincarnationists' reasons in addition to Church teaching; these I offer below.

1. One lifetime is enough to decide your eternal fate. What difference does it make if a person lives 7,000 years in various incarnations or 70 years in one lifetime when compared to eternity? Are not both infinitesimal when compared to eternity? Everyone is given ample opportunity to get to Heaven, and no one goes there unless they choose it! Not all experiences admit of second chances. Reincarnationists are fond of comparing life to a test that a kind teacher lets you retake if you fail. I could just as easily analogize to someone committing suicide by shooting himself in the head. There is no "do over," and the result is permanent. Provided that the person was of sound mind, the choice was freely made. Purgatory is for getting rid of imperfections; the person has already decided to choose God within their lifetime, so reincarnation is nothing like the dogma of Purgatory.

2. Reincarnation does nothing to explain evil and is unjust unlike Hell. Children can be baptized because they did nothing wrong in contracting Original Sin. It is simply the deprivation of sanctifying grace caused by the Fall of the first man. In a similar way, if a wealthy couple squanders millions of dollars, their children will be born into a poor state through no fault of their own but those children can work their way to wealth. Children who die without baptism are generally thought to enjoy some natural happiness (Limbo) because of no personal fault. Contrast this with reincarnation. In what sense does your self continue? If you have no memory of what you did in a past life (and you may not even exist as the same gender or on the same planet/dimension), in what sense do you survive death? If there is no bodily continuity, memory, or intellectual awareness, it seems like you're suffering for what someone else did, which is unjust. 

Reincarnation also offers no solution to the problem of evil. For example, if someone is born with no arms because they assaulted people in a prior life, and they assaulted people in a prior life because before that life they couldn't control their temper, whence did evil originate? It's an infinite regress of past lives with no explanation. How did suffering begin in the first place if each life of suffering was caused by past bad karma? Moreover, there would be no free will in the view of reincarnation. Eventually, everyone will come to some "Nirvana." So it doesn't matter if you're Hitler or St. Francis of Assisi, you both get to the same place regardless of what you do. On the other hand, Heaven and Hell are freely chosen with the wicked punished and the good rewarded.

3. Deja vu, hypnotic recall of past lives, and "spontaneous recall" are easily explained without reincarnation. 

According to a 2012 study in the peer reviewed journal Consciousness and Cognition 21 (2) 969-975, it was suggested recognition based on familiarity can cause a sensation of deja vu. Using virtual reality technology, it was found that similarity between a scene's spacial layout and the layout of a scene previously experienced (but not recalled) can lead to a subjective feeling of "having been there before despite knowing otherwise." This is also known as "cryptoamnesia." In simple terms it means that the subconscious relates a present event with a previous one that the conscious mind does not remember. One event is similar to another and the mind fuses them together, giving the sensation that this "happened before." 

So-called "past lives" brought out under hypnosis are fraught with difficulties. According to hypnosis expert James E. Parejko in an article published in the Journal of the American Institute of Hypnosis (Jan. 1975), he listed four factors of subconscious intervention during hypnosis: (a) Expectations of the hypnotist, (b)  diminished critical thoughts in the mind that accompany deep trance states, (c) a triggering idea by the hypnotist, and (d) the ability of the mind to hallucinate.

A case in point of inherent unreliability was that of Bridey Murphy. Through hypnosis, a woman allegedly regressed to 18th century Ireland. She suddenly spoke Gaelic, described the coastline where she lived, discussed the customs and spoke like a life-long Irish native. Upon further investigation, "Bridey Murphy" (the name of the person she allegedly was in this "past life") never existed but was a figment of the woman's imagination. She was raised by her grandmother who spoke Gaelic and kept history books on Ireland which she related to her granddaughter. The hypnotic subject had forgotten the language and history as she got older, but it was brought back under hypnosis with the mind giving life to the memories by manufacturing a name. (Let's not forget that some of these subjects, who dabble in the occult, could be under demonic control).

In the famous cases of Dr. Ian Stevenson, who investigated children claiming to have "spontaneously recalled" a past life, the doctor himself admits of bias in his study due to cultural conditioning. He wrote, "...the principal sites of abundant reported cases are: northern India; Sri Lanka; Burma; Thailand; Vietnam; western Asia, especially south central Turkey, Lebanon, and Syria; and northwest North America, among the natives of that region. The peoples of these areas (of the groups among whom the cases occur) believe in reincarnation." (See Stevenson, Ian, "The Explanatory Value of the Idea of Reincarnation," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Sept. 1977, 308).  He further admits, "Neither any single case nor all the investigated cases together offer anything like a proof of reincarnation." (Ibid, 325). So much for  the most reputable research they have to date.  

Conclusion

Reincarnation is dangerous on many levels. It makes people complacent that they can do wrong and get "multiple chances" to do it over until they get things right. People "deserve" their fate from a previous life, so why go out of your way to help? The Church makes clear that this life is the only one we will ever have, so get things right the first and only time you're here. Don't talk about "karma" and "your next life," as these are false, pagan ideas. As G.K. Chesterton wrote, "Hell is God's great compliment to the reality of human freedom and the dignity of human choice."