Our Father...Who Wasn't There

 Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens, are known collectively as "The Four Horsemen of The New Atheism." Their self-anointed task isn't simply to convince people in the 21st century that God doesn't exist, but that faith is useless, detrimental, and even irrational. Dawkins, an English biologist, wrote a book entitled The God Delusion that went to #1 on the New York Times Bestseller List in 2006 and remained there for a long time. The idea that God is irrational gets its roots in the theories of Sigmund Freud. (That's not to say all psychologists/psychiatrists are atheists or subscribe to his ideas). Freud's criticism of the belief in God is called The Projection Theory. According to this theory, God is a projection of our own unconscious desires. As Freud wrote in his book The Future of an Illusion, "...the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection...which was provided by the father...Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fears of the dangers of life."

 It certainly doesn't help matters with Jorge Bergoglio telling us "Atheists go to Heaven," as these "New Atheists" seek to rob as many people of Faith as possible. The Vatican II sect is too busy spreading their own Modernist errors which lead to atheism; most of the credible challenges to atheism come from conservative Protestants. One notable exception is Dr. Paul C. Vitz, a Vatican II sect conservative psychologist. He published a book in 1999 and revised/expanded it in 2013 to address the New Atheists entitled Faith of the Fatherless, The Psychology of Atheism. His thesis (and book) is nothing short of brilliant.

Dr. Vitz, a retired professor of psychology at New York University and Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences at Arlington, Virginia, received his PhD from Stanford University, and was himself an atheist until his late 30s. He performed an extensive study on all the major atheists, and came to a startling discovery; they had dysfunctional fathers! Freud's Projection Theory commits the genetic fallacy in logic. This occurs when you try to discredit an idea based on its origin. Even if belief in God came from an unconscious desire for a father-figure, this doesn't prove God non-existent. Perhaps the very reason we have such a desire is because Our Creator made it innate within us to seek Him out.

Dr. Vitz flips the Projection Theory on the atheists. He suggests to them that perhaps the reason they don't believe in God is precisely because He is seen as a loving Father, and they resent their own earthly fathers. This doesn't logically prove atheism false, but it certainly takes the wind out of the sails of their argument. Maybe it's not God that comes from a psychological "defect," maybe it's atheism! Nothing I could write in a short post could do justice to this book, which I hope you will seek out and read. Dr. Vitz develops a theory of his own, but too extensive for the purpose of this post. I will set out what he has to say about the New Atheists and give a brief snapshot of The Defective Father Hypothesis. 

Defective Father Hypothesis

 1. Dr. Richard Dawkins. Born in 1941, Dawkins is a retired biology professor from Oxford University in England. He hates all religion, but has an especially intense hatred of Christianity. He was an only child, born in Kenya to a father who worked in colonial agricultural service. Richard was happy in Kenya, but his father uprooted him while young to return to England. Dawkins was placed in a boarding school called Oundle, which was run by the Anglican sect. He was a good student with an interest in biology, and claims he was a "typical" Anglican until his twenties when he found a better explanation for the world in the teachings of Charles Darwin. Significantly, Dawkins had little contact with his parents, especially his father, once he began Oundle. He was sexually abused by one of his teachers; a pedophile with strong ties to the Anglican sect. This strong negative association with religion and fathers would set him up for his "atheistic conversion." 

2. Dr. Daniel Dennett. Born in 1942, Dennett is a philosopher and cognitive scientist. He is co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies and professor of philosophy at Tufts University, having obtained his undergraduate degree from Harvard University, and a doctorate in philosophy from Oxford. Dennett is perhaps best known for his book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomena (2006). He considers God as a meaningless idea generated by the human mind. 

 Born in Boston, Massachusetts, young Daniel and his family moved to Lebanon during world War II, where his father was a counter-intelligence agent for the United States government. His father died in an unexplained plane crash in 1947, when Dennett was only five years old. Shortly thereafter, he moved back to the U.S. with his mother. Dennett has written in his autobiography, "In my youth some of my friends were the sons of eminent or even famous professors at Harvard or MIT, and I saw the toll it took on them as they strove to be worthy of their father's attention. I shudder to think what would have become of me if I had to live up to my father's actual, living expectations and not just those extrapolated in absentia by my friends and family." Dr. Vitz comments that this is odd. There is no sense of loss, and Dennett "shudders" to think what it would be like if he had a father growing up! Psychologically speaking, Dr. Vitz terms this an act of rationalization and denial. 

3. Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was born in 1949 and died in 2011 from complications due to esophageal cancer. He was an English-born journalist (later a U.S. citizen) best known for his attacks on religion, most notably, his work God is not Great; How Religion Poisons Everything (2007). He hated God because he despised the idea of a Supreme Being in control of everything. Hitchens was a libertarian, and considered God an obstacle to liberty. He came to reject God for other reasons as well. His father was cold, and aloof. He rarely spoke and was a Naval officer in England. Hitchens refers to his father as the "Commander," ostensibly due to his being head of the household, as well as his military rank.

 His father sent him to boarding school from age 8 to 18, after which he attended Oxford. He had little interaction with his father, and the few positive words he had for him were his admiration for his military record fighting the Nazis. Hitchens' father admired athletic prowess, and Christopher disappointed him as he was small in stature and an intellectual. Hitchens was very close to his mother, Yvonne. When he was a twenty year old student at Oxford, his mother told him she was bored with his father and was having an affair with a former Anglican "priest," Reverend Timothy Bryan. Both had become followers of the 1960s New Age "guru" Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Shortly thereafter, for reasons not entirely clear, Hitchens' mother and Timothy Bryan had made a suicide pact, and died together at a hotel in Athens. Hitchens blamed his father and the religious ex-Anglican minister for the death of his beloved mother. 

4. Dr. Sam Harris. Little biographical information is known of this neuroscientist born in 1967. He grew up in a secular home with a non-practicing Quaker father, and a non-practicing Jewish mother. He was an English major in college, and became famous when his book The End of Faith became unexpectedly popular. He went back to school and received a PhD in neuroscience to try and prove God a product of the human mind. Harris despises Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, but has an affinity for Buddhism. Harris may be an exception to the hypothesis of Dr. Vitz. However, if Harris has a "dismissing personality style" (which would account for his detachment from his past), he would be more prone to "impersonal force" religions (like Buddhism) as opposed to traditional forms of monotheism. 

Conclusion

There is nothing new about the New Atheists in terms of real arguments, only in terms of their hostility towards God, and their quest to extirpate Him from society. Dr. Vitz writes a compelling account of abusive, weak, or absent fathers in the lives of most prominent atheists. Remember this the next time someone wants to attribute your faith to some "psychological defect." While the "Defective Father Hypothesis" and the "Projection Theory" do not refute or prove atheism from a logical viewpoint, Dr. Vitz gives us much food for thought. 

 How we are raised will have an impact on our inclinations towards right and wrong, good and evil, God and atheism. St. Joseph was held up as the standard for fathers to follow prior to Vatican II. Now, look at what the Vatican II sect has brought upon the world. Divorce and "remarriage" are at an all-time high, with adulterers allowed to receive the Novus Bogus "communion" cracker. Sodomites are getting "married" and raising children, while Bergoglio says, "Who am I to judge?" So-called "single mothers," once a social stigma, are now common place and are allowed to function as "lectors" and "Eucharistic (sic) Ministers." Those of us who were born during Vatican II have seen more dysfunction arise in families and society than ever before. I cannot bring myself to think what those who are raised in the current culture prepared by Vatican II (and moved forward by Frankie) will turn out to be.    

A Living Faith Needs A Dead Language

 The Latin language has gotten a bad reputation from Modernists. I studied Latin for two years in high school, and during college. Fr. DePauw also helped me. I can read, write and speak Latin, but not as an expert. I can understand many of the propers at Mass. I wish I knew it more and understood it better. It has helped me greatly in building my vocabulary in my professional life, and has brought me much joy in my spiritual life. (I also wince when other lawyers butcher the Latin pronunciations of legal phrases, but I let that slide!). The Vatican II sect has done all it can to extirpate Latin. It is derided as a "dead language" and "out of touch with the people." It doesn't "meet the needs of modern times." All of these alleged reasons obfuscate the real rationale for eliminating Latin; it is a weapon of orthodoxy against the sectarian spirit.

False Accusations Against Latin By The Modernists

 1) Christ and the Apostles spoke the language of the "common people."

In the words of the great liturgist Fr. Gueranger, "It is completely false to claim that the Liturgy was celebrated in the vulgar or spoken tongues of the peoples to whom the Faith was initially proclaimed in the time of Christ...the Liturgy was celebrated in the three languages which were nailed to the cross of the Savior, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and for over one thousand years it was only celebrated in those three tongues or dialects of them...up to the fourth century it was only in these three languages and not even in their dialects." (See Liturgical Institutions, "The Anti-Liturgical Heresy"; Emphasis mine) 

 In the True Mass we have words of Hebrew (Alleluia, Amen), Greek (Kyrie and Christe eleison), but mostly Latin. The True Mass is linked to Calvary as it is the unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross. The Novus Bogus is humanity's celebration of itself, entertaining itself, and having a "happy meal" in the vernacular. 

2) The Church has approved the vulgar tongue in the Eastern Rites.

Not really. The recognized liturgical languages of Slavonic, Coptic, Ge'ez, and Armenian are not "spoken" languages, just like Latin. The Church wants languages which are both objective and stable. 

3) The people cannot have "full, conscious, and active participation" if they don't understand the language used at Mass. 

The following proposition of Quesnel (d. 1719) was CONDEMNED in the Apostolic Decree Unigenitus of Pope Clement XI: "To refuse to the simple folk the consolation of joining their voices to that of the whole Church [by praying in the vernacular] is a practice contrary to that of the Apostles and is against the will of God." The Council of Trent, Canon IX, "If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema."

 Besides a basic Modernist spin on what is meant by "active participation," I'm reminded of one Sunday at Mass with Father DePauw when I had kneeling to my left a Spanish gentleman, and to my right a Haitian lady. His missal was in Latin and Spanish, hers was in Latin and French, mine was in Latin and English. We were all following along just fine! A Universal Church needs a universal language, welcoming all, but belonging to none!

Latin Endorsed from an Unlikely Source

Angelo Roncalli ("Pope" John XXIII) wrote an "Apostolic Constitution" published February 22, 1962 entitled Veternum Sapientia, on the promotion of the study of Latin. Modernists are devious insofar as they will promote something orthodox to avoid the charge of heresy in other places. I'm reminded of John Paul the Great Apostate who (correctly) condemned abortion at every chance he got, so as to convince people he was "Catholic" and hoping they would overlook all his heretical statements and actions, such as the Assisi abominations of 1986 and 2002  when he prayed with all the false religions of the world. Below are quotes from Roncalli. He spoke the truth here, but never enforced his own rules regarding the study of Latin. He knew his fellow Modernists would have their day at the Council, and Latin would be overthrown. The Modernists made Roncalli a "saint," but these are words from him they will never quote and hope all will forget! 

The reasons for Latin:

"Of  its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all. Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin for malstructure. Its 'concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity' makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression.

'For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular.'

'The wisdom of the ancient world, enshrined in Greek and Roman literature, and the truly memorable teaching of ancient peoples, served, surely, to herald the dawn of the Gospel which Gods Son, 'the judge and teacher of grace and truth, the light and guide of the human race,' proclaimed on earth.

Such was the view of the Church Fathers and Doctors. In these outstanding literary monuments of antiquity, they recognized man's spiritual preparation for the supernatural riches which Jesus Christ communicated to mankind 'to give history its fulfillment.'

Thus the inauguration of Christianity did not mean the obliteration of man's past achievements. Nothing was lost that was in any way true, just, noble and beautiful."

Venerable languages

"The Church has ever held the literary evidences of this wisdom in the highest esteem. She values especially the Greek and Latin languages in which wisdom itself is cloaked, as it were, in a vesture of gold. She has likewise welcomed the use of other venerable languages, which flourished in the East. For these too have had no little influence on the progress of humanity and civilization. By their use in sacred liturgies and in versions of Holy Scripture, they have remained in force in certain regions even to the present day, bearing constant witness to the living voice of antiquity."

A Primary Place

"But amid this variety of languages a primary place must surely be given to that language which had its origins in Latium, and later proved so admirable a means for the spreading of Christianity throughout the West.

And since in God's special Providence this language united so many nations together under the authority of the Roman Empire -- and that for so many centuries -- it also became the rightful language of the Apostolic See. Preserved for posterity, it proved to be a bond of unity for the Christian peoples of Europe."

The Nature of Latin

"Of its very nature Latin is most suitable for promoting every form of culture among peoples. It gives rise to no jealousies. It does not favor any one nation, but presents itself with equal impartiality to all and is equally acceptable to all.

Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin for mal structure. Its 'concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity' makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression."

Preservation of Latin by the Holy See

"For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority 'as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws.' She further requires her sacred ministers to use it, for by so doing they are the better able, wherever they may be, to acquaint themselves with the mind of the Holy See on any matter, and communicate the more easily with Rome and with one another.

Thus the 'knowledge and use of this language,' so intimately bound up with the Church's life, 'is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons.' These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church's nature. 'For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."

Universal

"Since 'every Church must assemble round the Roman Church,' and since the Supreme Pontiffs have 'true episcopal power, ordinary and immediate, over each and every Church and each and every Pastor, as well as over the faithful' of every rite and language, it seems particularly desirable that the instrument of mutual communication be uniform and universal, especially between the Apostolic See and the Churches which use the same Latin rite.

When, therefore, the Roman Pontiffs wish to instruct the Catholic world, or when the Congregations of the Roman Curia handle matters or draw up decrees which concern the whole body of the faithful, they invariably make use of Latin, for this is a maternal voice acceptable to countless nations."

Immutable

"Furthermore, the Church's language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic.' It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed 'a treasure ... of incomparable worth.' It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church's teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity."

Educational Value of Latin

"There can be no doubt as to the formative and educational value either of the language of the Romans or of great literature generally. It is a most effective training for the pliant minds of youth. It exercises, matures and perfects the principal faculties of mind and spirit. It sharpens the wits and gives keenness of judgment. It helps the young mind to grasp things accurately and develop a true sense of values. It is also a means for teaching highly intelligent thought and speech."

Conclusion

 As Fr. Gueranger said, "Hatred for the Latin language is inborn in the hearts of all the enemies of Rome." Indeed, it is so. Latin prevents innovations of language from harming doctrine. It unites us in a universal Church, rather than a "Tower of Babel." It lifts the mind and heart to God. Those who want to understand more, must research and know the Faith better. How does the majesty of the True Mass in B minor compare to the vernacular Novus Bogus with everyone singing "Michael Row the Boat Ashore"? The Vatican II sect also does not want their clergy to read the theology books prior to the Council and perhaps wake up to the truth about the Great Apostasy!

 As G.K. Chesterton once aphoristically noted, "...the choice between Latin and a modern language is not between a dead language and a living one, but between an immortal language and a dying one." 

The Elect

 When someone hears the word predestination, they almost invariably think of the heretic John Calvin, and the Protestant sects that ascribe to this error. There is a correct teaching on predestination faithfully taught by Holy Mother Church. In these evil times, people quote from St. Matthew 24: 24, "For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." "The elect," are those who are "chosen" to be saved. The context makes it clear they cannot be deceived by falsehood so as to be condemned eternally. Much of predestination remains a mystery. In this post I will explain the true notion of predestination along with heretical ideas about it, and offer possible solutions for some controversial questions surrounding the issue.

Predestination: True and Heretical Teachings Distinguished

  

 1. Heretical teaching. John Calvin revived and gave a resurgence to heresies going back as far as the fifth and ninth centuries (e.g. that of Lucidus, Gottschalk) which taught God does not Will all humans to be saved, but only those God had chosen or "elected." Consequently, Christ died only for the elect. (In the words of consecration over the wine at Mass, it is stated that Christ's Blood was shed for "many"--those who would cooperate with God's grace and attain Heaven. However, Christ did die for "all" in that His sacrifice was sufficient to save everyone, but only for some [many], would it be efficacious. The Catechism of the Council of Trent clearly explains that Christ was referring to the efficacy of His Bloodshed, not its sufficiency. Hence, for years, the Novus Bogus implied universal salvation, by substituting "all" for the word "many.")

 The error of Calvin developed into two groups. The Antelapsarians (i.e., "before the Fall") who maintained that before the Fall of our First Parents was foreseen and considered by God, He randomly chose some to be saved and others to be damned simply to manifest His Mercy and His Justice. The Postlapsarians (i.e., "after the Fall") claimed that in view of the Fall, God destined some for glory and the rest to perdition as a consequence and punishment for Original Sin. All theories of Calvin are heretical and stand condemned as such. 

 2. The Teaching of the Church

 All the pre-Vatican II theologians agree that God sincerely desires the salvation of all people and does not positively predestine anyone to Hell. Anyone who is damned stands condemned by the misuse of their free will. The decision of Christ at the Last Judgement manifestly supposes that the reprobate are to be condemned only because of their evil works, not because of the arbitrary Will of God or because of Original Sin. For thus will Christ address the damned, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire...for I was hungry and you gave me not to eat...(St. Matthew 25). God's salvific will is seen in 1 Timothy 2: 3-4, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 

 There is a division among the theologians (upon which the Church has not taken sides) as to whether God decrees predestination to glory, with or without taking the merits of humans into consideration. 

The Thomists: The theologians of this school (along with some others) teach that God gives to the predestined effective graces and then rewards them for the merits which flow from their free cooperation with these graces.

The Molinists: These followers of the great theologian Fr. Luis de Molina teach that God infallibly knows what use each person will  make of the graces bestowed on him. He then elects for Heaven those who, by virtue of their foreseen merits, persevere in cooperating with grace. Conversely, He determines damnation upon those whom He foresees will accrue demerits and refuse to cooperate with grace, choosing evil.   

St. Francis De Sales: Although not a Molinist, this great Doctor of the Church said that the Molinist theory was more likely true than the Thomist. 

3. Objection: Unbaptized babies

 It has been objected that God's will cannot be said to be universal because of the fate of babies who die without baptism. The objection does not hold because (a) God's salvific Will does not require miraculous intervention to baptize every baby. In some cases, He would have to frustrate the free will of other agents. For example, parents who have apostatized refuse to have their baby baptized, and then the child dies in infancy. God would need to override the free will of the parents to have the baby baptized, which He is not required to do. It would further entail His interference in much of the natural order He created and the free will of humanity. God desires the salvation of all, but all impediments which arise in the world order He created, especially involving (directly or indirectly) the free will of others, need not be removed by miraculous intervention. (b) The babies not baptized will not suffer the pain of the damned, but will be consigned to Limbo, where they will have a degree of natural happiness. Those who die in Original Sin alone are subject to the separation from God, but not the positive infliction of pain (Hell fire) This conclusion, which is taught by nearly every theologian in the past eight hundred years, is in accordance with a pronouncement of Pope Innocent III (III Decr. 42:3): "The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell."

The Number of the Elect and the Fate of Infidels Who Never Knew the Church

 1. The Number of the Elect. Only God knows the number of the elect. Will more people be damned or saved? The more common teaching is that when the human race is taken as a whole, there will be more damned than saved. "Many are called but few are chosen." (St. Matthew 22: 14). However, there are theologians who reject this claim based on the salvific Will of God, and Christ's universal act of Redemption. They claim it is repugnant to think the Kingdom of Satan will be more populous, and thereby larger, than the Kingdom of God. 

 In the matter of True Catholics alone, the great theologian Suarez teaches (with the majority of theologians) that more will be saved than damned because of the sanctity of Holy Mother Church, the salvific Will of God, and the parable of the wedding banquet, at which only one person was found without a garment (i.e., sanctifying grace). 

As to True Catholics combined with schismatics and heretics, the majority of theologians declare more will be damned than saved because of the deprivation (in regards to the schismatics and heretics) of the efficacy of the Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments which are only efficacious unto salvation within the Church. However, a significant minority hold that more will be saved than damned in this scenario.     

2. The fate of Infidels. What of infidels who never heard the Gospel? (By the term infidel it is to be understood all the unbaptized; principally Jews, Mohammedans, and pagans). In 1690, Pope Alexander VIII condemned the propositions that Christ died for the faithful only and pagans, Jews and heretics receive no grace from Him. If they cooperate with grace they can receive the great grace of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and be saved within the One True Church. However, this is a rare miracle of God. It would make the Great Commission a farce, if they need not convert because of miraculous intervention. 

 What are we to make of the billions who did not have the opportunity to believe through no fault of their own? A possible solution is God wants as many people as possible to be saved and he wants as few as possible to be lost. So what God has done is to create a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost. A world that involves the maximum number of saved for the minimum number of lost people. And he gives sufficient grace for salvation to everyone whom He creates. Everyone can be saved if they want to be saved. Perhaps God has so ordered the world that those who never hear about Christ and the Church and are lost are only people who would not have believed in Him even if they had heard about it. In other words, anyone who would have believed and entered the Church to be saved if he heard it, is born at a time and place in history where he does hear it. 

 The logical objection would be, "So isn't it more merciful not to create such a person in the first place if God knows they freely choose damnation?" To this it can be replied that if you change one thing in this world, it will have repercussions on everything else. Who knows how the absence of those people would affect the salvation of others? Remember too, people are only lost through their own fault.

Signs of Predestination

No one can be certain of having the greatest grace; Final Perseverance. To die in the state of sanctifying grace is to achieve Heaven. We can not earn it, but the theologians teach that God will not turn away someone who prays for it unceasingly. Even that, however, does not guarantee it; no one can be certain if they are among the elect except by special revelation from Almighty God.  There are signs that salvation is probable, and gives rise to great hope while we "...workout Thy salvation with fear and trembling."(Philippians 2:12). The Calvinists falsely taught that if you were predestined by God, he would give you rewards on Earth. Therefore, if you were rich, it would be a sign of predestination--hence, the so-called "Protestant Work Ethic." Work and become rich, and it's a sign of predestination! 

The teachings of the theologians of the One True Church outline eight (8) signs of probable predestination:

• a conscience that fears danger
• contempt for the things of the world
• patience in adversity
• zeal for the salvation of souls
• constant practice of the Eight Beatitudes
• devotion to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus
• devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary (and her Rosary)
• frequent and fervent Holy Communion

(Most of the above post was condensed from theologians Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1; Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 7; Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma; and Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology). 

Conclusion

 This post was but a brief sketch of the dogma of predestination. We will never fully understand its mystery. "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways!For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor?" (Romans 11:33- 34).

 Two things are certain; our salvation is in the Hands of God, as well as our own. God wills for us to be saved, but we must do our part. Pray for Final Perseverance, and cultivate love of the Blessed Mother and the Sacred Heart. Make frequent and fervent Holy Communions. To sum it up, there's the old aphorism, "Pray as if everything depends on God, then work as if everything depends on you." 

They Want Your Children

 Just twenty years ago, the idea of sodomite "marriage" was unthinkable. It now appears it is here to stay. Legal battles are currently being fought over "transgender bathrooms," and the former athlete known for his masculinity and endorsement of Wheaties brand cereal now goes by the name "Caitlin." Just as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, sexual perversity is ubiquitous. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (sometimes referred to as the "Fathers of the Gay Rights Agenda") co-authored a book together entitled After the Ball - How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s, published in 1989. The book set out the plan for sodomite "rights" in detail. Pages 147 to 157 talk about the "conversion" of "bigots" (read: those who correctly regard homosexuality as unnatural vice and one of the Four Sins That Cry to Heaven for Vengeance).  Here's what they wrote:

The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths and a**holes--people who say not only "faggot" but "nigger," "kike," and other shameful epithets--who are "not Christian." (Censoring of vulgar word mine)

It isn't enough that anti-gay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us--we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this.

We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. (Emphasis mine).

Television shows that promote and glamorize homosexuality are too numerous to list, but in the last couple of years shows like Degrassi, Grey’s Anatomy, Pretty Little Liars, and Glee are at the top of the list. Since sodomites cannot reproduce normally ("breeders" is the pejorative term they use for heterosexuals), they need to indoctrinate children directly or indirectly into either acceptance or joining in their sin. They do this through "gay adoption," and now the subtle brainwashing present in children's movies. The homosexuals' continued acceptance and normalization in society requires recruitment of the young, now more than ever. Let this post serve as a warning to all parents to be extra vigilant as to what "harmless" movies their children watch.

It's "Super" to be "Gay"

 When I was growing up as a little kid in the early 1970s, Spiderman, Batman, and other superheroes were very influential. I loved Spiderman comics, as well as the re-runs of the campy 1960s Batman TV series starring Adam West. (I often wondered why Bruce Wayne (Batman) and Dick Greyson (Robin) lived not only with Alfred Pennyworth--the faithful butler--but with a ditsy "Aunt Harriet" who never appeared in the comics. It was revealed many years later by Adam West that the producers wanted a woman in the house so as not to give the impression that the three men were homosexuals). I loved superheroes, and what little boy didn't? They made the imagination soar! They also taught such great moral lessons as being faithful to your friends and your promises, self-sacrifice, and "with great power comes great responsibility" (the "motto" of Spiderman). 

 I didn't just want to be like Spiderman, I wanted to become the webbed wonder! Unfortunately, I had no superpowers (although my mother said I had the uncanny ability to drive her up the wall!). Now these former pillars of what was moral and masculine have become tools for sodomite propoganda. 

1. The X-Men Movies (2000-2016; 7 so far)

This comic of the 1970s was about a team of super-powered mutants. Openly gay X-Men Movie Director, Bryan Singer, has not only directed most of the X-Men movies but recruited openly gay activist actor Ian McKellen, to star as villain Magneto, by convincing him that mutants were comparable to struggling gays. McKellen stated "I think he expected that I was going to consider it a not posh-enough job," but revealed that he was told that X-Men is really about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people. "I thought he was right," says McKellen. "It’s not just a fantasy story. It’s a parable." McKellen is a co-founder of the so-called "LGBT gay activist" group Stonewall.

McKellen further stated "[The producers] will tell you one of the demographics that X-Men appeals to is young gays…. There are enough people in this world who think that the answer to the ‘problem’ of being gay is to be ‘cured’ of your abnormality." Thus in McKellen’s mind, rather than view sex between two men as immoral behavior, why not portray it as positive genetic mutation, on the level of the fantastic powers of a superhero?

Homosexual William Earnest in his article "Making Gay Sense of X-Men," admitted "Singer and his screenwriters equipped X-Men and X2 (another X-Men movie) with the rhetorical stealth needed to fly below the gaydar of many critics and audience members." (See http://web.archive.org/web/20140605071703/http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/17549_Chapter_11.pdf)

X-Men's Northstar, the first openly gay character from either DC or Marvel Comics, was introduced in the comics in 1992--how far (or, more appropriately, how low)--things have gotten in the past 25 years.

2. LEGO Batman (2017)

According to Life Site News:

I think Michael Hamilton over at PJ Media had it right when he summarized the movie with "orphan adoption by two dads, homoerotic attraction, and penis jokes." He writes:

"Gender identity, gender roles, and gender neutrality are all over the story board like so many LEGOs,” he said. “These topics hide in plain sight, because they are the foundation. Few parents and fewer kids will question any of it, because there’s a way to interpret all of it as technically innocent. That’s what makes these messages subliminal (and potentially powerful). LEGO Batman makes them seem plain as vanilla and American as apple pie."

Hamilton continues:

For example, two men adopting a son together sounds like a dream come true to Richard, the orphan Bruce Wayne adopts without telling him he’s Batman. That’s why, when Richard hesitates to board a bat vehicle without Bruce-Dad’s permission, Batman tells him he and Bruce-Dad share custody of him. Richard doesn’t need Bruce-Dad’s permission; he has Bat-Dads!

This solution thrills Richard, who unblinkingly climbs aboard (and later becomes Robin). The bubbly young man is tickled as he spells it out for viewers: Yesterday, he didn’t have a dad, and now he has two dads! Viewers may laugh, because they know it’s a farce: Bruce-Dad and Bat-Dad are one. Richard doesn’t learn the truth until the end, when Bat-Dad pulls off his mask to reveal Bruce-Dad’s face and tells Richard to call him "Dads."

3. Power Rangers (2017)

According to hollywoodreporter.com:

During Power Rangers' second act, there's a scene in which the titular heroes learn that the Yellow Ranger, Trini (Becky G), is coming to terms with her sexual orientation, with one character assuming she's having "boyfriend problems," and soon realizing that perhaps she's actually having "girlfriend problems." It's a small moment, but one director Dean Israelite calls "pivotal" for the entire film.

"For Trini, really she's questioning a lot about who she is," Israelite tells The Hollywood Reporter. "She hasn't fully figured it out yet. I think what's great about that scene and what that scene propels for the rest of the movie is, 'That's OK.' The movie is saying, 'That's OK,' and all of the kids have to own who they are and find their tribe."

Conclusion

 Virtually everything in the media isn't fit for kids anymore. Parents, please review all materials your children read, and all movies and television you allow them to watch. (Kudos to you if you threw the TV--Satan's tabernacle--out the window). Sodomites want your children. They want them to think that being a pervert isn't merely acceptable, it's downright "super," like having superpowers. Even movies more aimed towards young girls are infected.  Disney introduced it's first ever sodomite character in this year's non-animated Beauty and the Beast. I can't stress enough that it's not just the United States, but everywhere in entertainment, including Europe, Africa, etc. "Who am I to judge?" Bergoglio, and his "gay mafia" in the Modernist Vatican will do nothing to try to stop it or even denounce it; and what more could you expect from a sect whose clergy are largely perverts themselves? The agents of evil are doing all they can to make perversity seem good. The Bible tells us in 2 Corinthians 11: 14, "And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light." Or, in these times, a "superhero" for kids. 

Resisting Heresy

 I'm a sedevacantist and proud of it. I wanted to make that clear from the outset because the subject matter of this post might provoke ire (hopefully not). On my post "Defending The Indefensible" of March 20, 2017, the question arose in the comments regarding the SSPX, namely, does the "recognize and resist" (R&R) position constitute heresy for those who hold it? I am not a theologian, nor have I ever pretended to be one. Having devoted time and research to this topic, I'm comfortable with my position before God. I will set forth the reasons for my opinion, and you may certainly disagree with me. I'm just a layman trying to make his Traditionalist Catholic way the best he can in this time of near universal apostasy. The question raised is a delicate one with many considerations. To the question, "Is the R&R position per se heretical?" my answer is in the negative.

Types of R&R

 1. There are those who claim to recognize and resist Bergoglio as pope while being in actual union with the false pope. The members of the Fraternal Society of St. Peter fall into this category. They assent to the legitimacy of Vatican II and its errors and heresies, as well as those of the post-Vatican II "popes."  They are outside the Church. If you belong to the Vatican II sect, you are not a member of the Church--your status is the same as a Protestant. These people are not the subject of this post as it is clear they are members of a false sect.

2. There are those who R&R Bergoglio as pope but are not in actual union with him. They reject the errors and heresies of Vatican II either by claiming that they are misinterpreted and can be understood in an orthodox sense, or they simply claim the teachings as non-binding because Vatican II was "only pastoral and not dogmatic." Some simply say the Council was null and void. They equally reject the errors and heresies of the post-Vatican II "popes" as non-binding because Bergoglio (or Wotyla, etc) was "not speaking in his official capacity as pope," etc. As Fr. Anthony Cekada might say, they have "a cardboard pope for display purposes only." These are the subjects about whom I am writing. 

What is the Definition of Heresy?

 According to theologian MacKenzie, the sin of  heresy is "an offense against religious faith. More precisely it is the rejection of one or more truths which must be believed with Divine and Catholic faith...They indicate the two doctrinal authorities whose testimony precedes an act of Catholic faith, viz., God revealing, and the Church authentically proposing." (See The Delict of Heresy, pg. 18) Therefore, when the Church's Magisterium proposes a truth to be believed as Divinely revealed, we must accept it or cease to be Catholic by committing the sin of heresy. 

 Furthermore, according to theologian Van Noort, "A proposal of revealed truth by the Church...can, according to the Vatican Council [1870 A.D.--Introibo] take place in either of two ways: either by solemn decree, or by the Church's ordinary and universal teaching." (See Dogmatic Theology, 3: 221; Emphasis in original). The second way is also called the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium ("UOM"). 

 The question is now more refined; "Is the recognition of a heretic as pope, by one who rejects his heresies and Vatican Council II, a matter which would constitute the rejection of an article of Divine and Catholic Faith?" That a heretic cannot be pope is true, but is holding the opposite view heresy? The proposition "a heretic cannot be pope" has never been the object of a formal ex cathedra definition by a pope or an ecumenical council. We must now turn to the question of the UOM. Has the proposition that a heretic cannot be pope been defined in that manner?

What Constitutes a Proposal of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium?

 According to theologian Van Noort, "The major signs of such a proposal are these: that the truth be taught throughout the world in popular catechisms, or, even more importantly, be taught by the universal and constant agreement of theologians as matter belonging to faith." (Ibid, pg. 222). No popular catechism such as the Baltimore Catechism, or the Catechism of the Council of Trent has ever treated of such a profound theological matter. As to the theologians, the overwhelming majority agree that a heretic cannot be pope, and it was virtually unanimous since the First Vatican Council. However, theological giants such as  Cajetan, Suarez, John of St. Thomas, Bouix, and Journet all held that a heretic could retain the office of the papacy.

 While most certainly false, the Church has never formally condemned the opinions of those theologians as heretical. (Needless to say the SSPX trots them out while ignoring the development of doctrine since). St Thomas Aquinas teaches, "Anything is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son, and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves heresy, especially if it be held obstinately.  A thing is of faith, indirectly, if the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows that the divine Scripture would be false. Concerning such things anyone may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy be shown; whereas when it is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy.  For this reason many things are now considered as heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their consequences are now more manifest." (See S. Th. I., Q. 32, Art. 4;Emphasis mine).

 The argument could be made that a formal definition was developing in favor of the proposition "a heretic cannot be pope." However, I don't believe that it meets the criteria for being dogmatic via the UOM because as Van Noort teaches, "Clearly if a truth is capable of being declared an object of divine-Catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal as is unmistakably definitive...and, consequently, as something necessarily to be believed by every Catholic." (Ibid, pg. 222; Emphasis in original).

If it were that clear, sedevacantism would have been the majority position from the beginning of the Great Apostasy, but it was not. There was great confusion about the sin of heresy (which causes automatic loss of office) and the crime of heresy as laid down in Canon Law. The very founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, was confused. So too were Bishop Kurz, Archbishops Thuc and Lefebvre, and Bishop Mendez. None of them were unclear as to Baptism of Desire and Blood being taught by the UOM, but not so with heresy and loss of papal office in this unprecedented time of near universal apostasy. I don't believe we can say that the UOM teaches "a heretic cannot be pope" as an article of faith, the denial of which constitutes heresy. We may know this NOW, but there is no pope and hierarchy with jurisdiction to formally declare it such.

The Lessons of the Great Western Schism

From 1378 to 1417, there were three men who claimed the Throne of St. Peter, and no one knew who, if anyone, was the true pope. De facto the Church was sedevacante for nearly 40 years until Pope Martin V was recognized by all. This proves (1) the Church can be without a pope for many years, (2) the Church can endure a long time without a pope, (3) in time of confusion we must be careful about what we do and say regarding calling those who want to remain in the Church "schismatics" and "heretics" (think: Fred and Bobby Dimond in today's crisis). No one wanted to be outside the Church, and no one wanted to deny the Faith. There are several reasons to be even more cautious in this post-Vatican II era, which makes calling anyone who id R&R a "heretic." 

1. Sedeprivationism. I'm a "garden variety" sedevacantist if you will. The Throne of St. Peter is vacant. Period. There are several theories advanced as to how we get a pope back, but that doesn't make Bergoglio "pope by default." If you look at what the theologians teach, heresy causes the automatic loss of papal office. The great Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches, " If ever a pope, as a private person,
should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232).

 However, there are sedevacantists who hold to the theory of the theological giant Bishop Michel-Louis Guerard des Lauriers, known as sedeprivationism.  This theologian actually drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus which Pope Pius XII promulgated ex cathedra defining the dogma of Our Lady's Assumption both body and soul into Heaven. Bp. des Lauriers taught that a heretic is a material pope, not a formal pope. He holds papal office as a placeholder until he recants his heresy at which time God will bestow upon him the power and authority of the Petrine Office. I am (always) open to fraternal correction, but I find nothing in the writings of the approved theologians that make such a distinction. Does that make sedeprivationists heretics? No. It holds open the possibility that some connection between a heretic and an ecclesiastical office (not Church membership) can be maintained in the case of the papacy.

 This answers the objection, "How can you recognize someone as pope and not obey him?" Answer: You can't. However, sedeprivationists avoid the problem by stripping the office holder of the authority that normally comes with the office. In the case of some R&R (those of good will, not SSPX Bishops or Siscoe and Salza) they recognize Bergoglio on the condition that he is pope, and feel that they may withhold obedience since he may be "declared" not a pope someday. Remember that it is not schism or a denial of the fact that the pope must be obeyed if one suspects the person of the pope. According to theologian Szal, "Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state." (See Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, p.2). For those who do not suspect his person or election, they may be culpable. Abp. Lefebvre definitely made statements showing he was open to the idea of sedevacantism.

2. No abjuration of heresy is required on the part of an R&R priest who becomes sedevacantist.

Bishop Mark Pivarunas, General Superior of the sedevacantist CMRI has declared the following:

"Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer "una cum" Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.

"Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.

"This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.

"Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church."

Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General
The Priests of C.M.R.I.
August 10, 2002

Likewise, the SSPV has virtually the same position in regard to those who attend SSPX or independent R&R chapels and Churches.

3. The lack of desire to separate from the Church.
Many R&R priests recognize Bergoglio conditionally,if he is pope, because they fear being schismatic and out of communion with the Church. They are afraid of "getting it wrong" and maintain the faith while mistakenly recognizing a heretic as pope.

4. The unprecedented confusion in the Great Apostasy.
Unlike any time in the past, members of the Vatican II sect may think they are Catholic since the entire hierarchy fell. Lutherans knew they broke away from the Church, but not so today. Top theologians and canonists got it wrong at first. There are many things that cannot be resolved, and many things we have yet to fully understand.

Conclusion

I do not endorse the R&R position. It is dangerous and illogical. It is wrong! Some are of a bad will. I strongly suspect John Salza is still a Freemason, preventing people from leaving the SSPX as they move towards actual (and, yes, then heretical) union with Modernist Rome. The R&R need to see the light and join with us to end this apostasy and hopefully get a pope back.It doesn't per se make them heretics.It also, in my opinion, drives some away and they refuse to hear us if we call them "heretics" as opposed to informing them they are seriously mistaken, and the mistake could lead them to jeopardize their souls.

Remember the words of St. Peter, our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect," (1 Peter 3: 15; Emphasis mine)

 Didn't even Fr. Cekada refer to the R&R as "sedevacantists who just don't realize it yet" ?  I mentioned this topic to a Traditionalist friend of mine, and he had sage words of advice, "There are a number of things in our time where we will probably not be able to have clear certitude but only opinions. In such a case it is advisable to remember that 'indoubtful things, liberty' (St. Augustine). Which is not to say that we ought to accept certain things, but only that they perhaps need to be tolerated." Let's hasten the day when the R&R will join us. Point out their errors, but let's not declare those of good will "heretics." Let's save our energy to fight all those in actual communion with the Vatican II sect. 

The Nephilim

 Much is spoken on the topic of angels, but little in the way of true doctrine is understood. Many who call themselves Christians have drunk deeply from the well of New Age paganism. Since the Great Apostasy, people get their ideas from all the wrong places. New Agers teach that angels reside within us and are waiting for us to use them to tap our human potential, enhance creativity, provide psychological fulfillment, and spiritual self-enlightenment. Thus promoters of "angel contact" offer people what they want and need in troubled times: assurance, love, and guidance. It is a warped view of Guardian Angels. A couple of years ago, a gentleman at my Church told me about a time when he saw large bones he claimed belonged to beings conceived of angels and human females called the "Nephilim." There are some Protestant sects that actually believe this to be the case. It is based on a misunderstanding of Genesis 6:4. I didn't have time to discuss the issue with the gentleman that day (and I haven't seen him since). This post will give the Church's teaching on angels, and explain the so-called Nephilim.

Church Teaching on Angels

Except where expressly stated otherwise, the teaching of the Church is taken from the writings of theologians Ott and Pohle. 

1. In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences out of nothing. It is a dogma declared by the Fourth Lateran Council and the First Vatican Council that "simultaneously at the beginning of time He created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creation, angelic and mundane." The creation of the angels is directly attested to in Colossians 1:16, "For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him." (Four of the angelic choirs are mentioned; Emphasis mine).

2. The number and hierarchy of the angels. There is no definitive teaching on how many angels exist, although it is certain they are very numerous. Apocalypse 5: 11, "I heard the voice of many angels...and the number of them was thousands of thousands." The so-called "orders" or "choirs" of angels are not an article of faith, but the theologians hold it to be a theologically certain truth. The theological schools have put them into three hierarchies with three choirs in each hierarchy. The supreme hierarchy has the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones. The intermediate hierarchy is composed of the Dominations, Virtues, and Powers. The lowest hierarchy is made of the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. It is speculated that the difference in rank is due to the supreme hierarchy assisting at the Throne of God and getting their orders directly from Almighty God Himself. They then hand these orders down to the intermediate hierarchy which, in turn, hands them down to the lowest hierarchy, and the angels bring messages (when necessary) to men. The name angel means "messenger."

3.  The angels have an intellect superior to men and are endowed with free will. The angels were given a test, like humans, to earn the Beatific Vision. They were subjected to a probation which a number failed and became demons in Hell. The angels are vastly superior to humans, but cannot produce a true miracle which is something only God can do. The leader of the rebellious angels became known as "Satan" or "adversary" and it is conjectured that approximately one third of the angels followed his rebellion against God, Who created and condemned them to Hell. What was the test? We don't know for certain. Most theologians agree it was a sin of pride. Some theologians speculate that they did not want to serve God. Other theologians, most notably the great Suarez, teach that the sin of pride was in refusing to obey and worship God the Son when it was made known He would take on a human nature (Hypostatic Union).

4. Every human being has a Guardian Angel who should be venerated and invoked. There are four points on this:

• Angels have a general guardianship over the human race. It is good and salutary to pray to them and venerate them. All humans, not just members of the One True Church are given a Guardian Angel upon conception. Theologians agree that even the Antichrist will have a Guardian Angel, but all his efforts to turn him from utter wickedness will be in vain because of the sheer perversity of his will.It is to be rejected that every person also has a demon to tempt him. It is impious to even think God, Who wills the salvation of all, would permit it. 

• Guardian Angels ward off dangers of body and soul consonant with the Will of God.

• They inspire good and salutary thoughts and covey our prayers to the Throne of God.

•  They assist us at the hour of death and bear the souls of the elect to Heaven. 

The Nephilim

 Genesis 6: 2-4 reads, "The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown." 

From this verse, comes the idea of a "race of supermen" half-angelic, and half-human. According to theologian Tanquerey, there are many errors concerning angels. Their very existence is denied by atheists, and some Protestants who claim that the angels in the Bible are either good inspirations sent by God, or men sent by God to enlighten others. On the other hand, Some of the Fathers and early theologians were in error regarding the nature of angels, thinking they were united to special bodies. They were led astray by either Platonic philosophy or the verse at hand which they misinterpreted. It is certain that angels are entirely spiritual. (See Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology (1:372)). Thus the angel Raphael says to Tobias, " I seemed indeed to eat and to drink with you: but I use an invisible meat and drink, which cannot be seen by men." From this we may infer that angels do not have a body but only an apparent body.

Since angels do not have bodies, how does the Church interpret the passage? According to theologian Haydock, "sons of God" refers to the godly line of Seth (from whom the Redeemer would come; see Genesis 4:26) who intermarried with the godless line of Cain. At that time, people were preserved by God for long lives; some more than 900 years. God would now shorten their lives to 120 years for them to repent before He would send the great deluge. As far as size is concerned, is it possible that men who lived so much longer, could also have been much bigger in stature? Think of Goliath. It is pagan, and illogical, to think spiritual substances can have carnal relations with humans producing "heroes" much like the pagan Greeks believed about Hercules. Christ said, "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." (St. Matthew 22:30). 

Conclusion

 As with all things theological, we must always consult the teaching of the Church. Those who do not seek out the true doctrine as taught by the Church's theologians on any given issue will fall in error (at best) or into heresy (at worst). The danger becomes apparent in the case of angels. Modernists and atheists outright deny their existence. New Agers turn them into self-help gurus from within, and promote "contact" with them in what will become contact with demons. Others distort the Bible believing in pagan-like "demi-gods" (Nephilim) derived from the alleged union between angels and humans. Pray to your Guardian Angel and ask him to help you learn, and love, authentic Church teaching on any given subject. 

Defending The Indefensible

  Leave it to the "recognize and resistors" (R&R) of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to try and exculpate "Pope" Francis of heresy by inventing new theological principles. In Amoris Laetitia, Frankie's "Apostolic Exhortation" on the "Joy of Love," he opens the door to "communion" for open and notorious adulterers (i.e., those divorced and "remarried"). It was so bad, even four of his "cardinals" sent him five dubia (i.e., "doubts" or queries) regarding its orthodoxy (or rather, the lack thereof). Frankie has not responded. When the Modernists start to question your orthodoxy, there are no words to adequately express the situation.

 According to the Catholic (sic) News Service, "The first dubium asks whether following Amoris laetitia “it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person 'more uxorio' (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live 'more uxorio'?" 

In a series of articles called "The Question of Papal Heresy," SSPX priest Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, attempts to exonerate Frankie on this (and the other four dubia) with the following:
First, are the five truths demolished by these five doubts so many dogmas? Secondly, does Amoris laetitia negate these dogmas, or at least call them into question formally and explicitly enough? The answer to these two questions is far from obvious and certain. For this new theology of Francis, which extends that of Vatican II, avoids this sort of formal opposition with regard to truths already proposed infallibly by the Magisterium before Vatican II. It sins most often by omission or by ambivalence. It is therefore dubious, in its very substance. And it is dubious exactly insofar as it is modernist, or more precisely: neo-modernist.

His contention is that in order to be a formal heretic, Frankie has to negate one or more dogmas and/or call them into question formally and explicitly enough. Let's cut to the chase, what does the Church have to say?

The Church and Loss of Papal Authority

As St. Alphonsus Liguori, the great Doctor of the Church teaches:  "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). However, at this point, we can ask "Could Jorge Bergoglio ever even attain the papacy in the first place? Accoring to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…"(Jus Canonicum 1:415; Emphasis mine). Again according to Badius, "c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points… Barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…" (Institutiones, 160)

Divine Law prohibits heretics from attaining to the papacy. Was Bergoglio a heretic prior to his alleged "election" four years ago? First, we need to define heresy.  Heresy is defined as "A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church." (See theologian Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, [1951], pg. 123). Let's see what Begoglio did as "bishop" and "cardinal." 

Juan Pablo Bongarrá, president of the Argentine Bible Society, recounts that Bergoglio not only met with Evangelicals, and prayed with them—but he also asked them to pray for him. Bongarrá notes that Bergoglio would frequently end a conversation with the request, "Pastor, pray for me."

Additionally, Bongarrá tells the story of a weekly worship meeting of charismatic pastors in Buenos Aires, which Bergoglio attended: "He mounted the platform and called for pastors to pray for him. He knelt in front of nearly 6,000 people, and [the Protestant leaders there] laid hands and prayed."

Religious leaders in Buenos Aires have stated that it was Bergoglio who "opened up the Cathedral in Buenos Aires for interfaith ceremonies". For example, in November 2012 he brought "leaders of the Jewish, Muslim, evangelical, and other Christian faiths" together in the Cathedral to pray for peace in the Middle East. Leaders quoted in a 2013 Associated Press article said that Bergoglio has a "very deep capacity for dialogue with other religions", and considers "healing divisions between religions a major part of the Catholic Church's mission". (See http://www.religionfacts.com/pope-francis).  In addition, Bergoglio celebrated Hanukkah with the Jews in 2012.

According to theologians McHugh and Callan, "It is unlawful for Catholics in anyway to assist actively at or take part in the worship of non-Catholics (Canon 1258)." (See Moral Theology, 1: 376).  Canonists Abbo and Hannon explain the meaning of the Canon, "Thus is forbidden what is technically known as communicatio in sacris. The reason for this prohibition are founded in the natural and divine positive law. Among them is the following: the Catholic Church is the only Church in which, by divine ordinance, worship may be rendered to God..." (See The Sacred Canons, 2: 512).

 For this reason the Holy Office said that by participating [in schismatic and heretical worship], Catholics give exterior signs of segregation from and disapproval of the Catholic Church  by unifying themselves with those who disapprove or segregate themselves from the Catholic Church, since participation in liturgical actions constitutes a sign of unity.  By coming together with them in unity of prayer, in unity of cult, in unity of veneration and worship, one does so with perverse schismatic and heretical ministers.  In effect, the Holy Office was saying that it is by the very coming together with those who reject the Faith and joining one's prayer and worship to them that one is participating in worship which is done by those who reject the Catholic Church.  To participate with those who reject the faith is therefore forbidden. (See Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus (Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907); Emphasis mine).

How is heresy made manifest? According to theologian MacKenzie, "Words are the ordinary, but not the only means of communication. Complete externalization of thought may exist in signs, acts, or omissions." (The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, pg.35).

Bergoglio could never even attain to the office, let alone fall from it! This explains how he can say, "There is no Catholic God," "Proselytism is nonsense," etc. As a matter of fact, "Cardinal" Bergoglio co-authored a book with Rabbi Abraham Skorka entitled On Heaven and Earth. It's loaded with error and heresy.

1. Atheists don't need conversion and need not be condemned. On pgs. 12-13:  "I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him and I show myself as I am…nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgement about the honesty of that person; even less, if he shows me those human virtues that exalt others and do me good." (Emphasis mine)

The First Vatican Council infallibly declared: "If anyone shall say that the One True God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema."

2. Agnosticism as to the nature of God. On pg. 14, "We can say what God is not, we can speak of His attributes, but we cannot say what He is.” Isn't God a Trinity? Isn't He all-Perfect?

3. Denial of Church teaching on suicide. On Pg. 93, "There was a time when they did not perform funerals for those that committed suicide because they had not continued toward the goal; they ended the path when they wanted to. But I still respect the one who commits suicide; he is a person who could not overcome the contradictions in his life." (Emphasis mine) You respect someone who was either (a) mentally unbalanced and needed help, or (b) committed the act of ultimate despair? According to theologian Prummer, "The direct killing of oneself on one's own authority is a most grievous sin against divine, natural, and ecclesiastical law." (Moral Theology, section 275).

Of course, the SSPX ends with the tired, worn out quotes from theologians Suarez and Cajetan to support the idea that a pope does not lose his office until the Church somehow issues a judgement. They disregard their minority status, and the fact that the theological developments since their time have relegated this opinion to the status of untenable. However, even more than this--they miss the point. It's irrelevant because Bergoglio was a heretic prior to his election, so he could not become the pope in the first place (ditto for every "successor" to Montini, "Pope" Paul VI). There is even papal legislation on this point. Pope Paul IV issued the Apostolic Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The pontiff decreed that if  it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand "deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy," his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, would be "null, legally invalid and void."

But What About Amoris Laetitia in Particular?

 Even if Bergoglio could have become the pope, does his teaching on "pastoral solutions" for adulterers getting the Novus Bogus "communion" constitute heresy? In a word, yes. Let's go by Fr. Gleize's criterion. 

(a) What dogmas are called into doubt or negated? There are two; the indissolubility of marriage and the necessity of sanctifying grace to receive Communion. According to theologian Ott, "From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life. (De Fide)." Also, "For the worthy reception of the Eucharist the state of grace...[is] necessary. (De Fide)." (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pgs. 399, and 467). 

Giving "communion" to an open and notorious adulterer denies either the sin of adultery or the necessity of sanctifying grace in order to worthily receive the Eucharist. For Bergoglio to even consider such an abomination calls both dogmas into question. 

(b) The invented principle of calling dogma into question "formally and explicitly enough." Let's give Frankie a pass and say his exhortation was only "ambiguous." That's enough to condemn him.   The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius VI, Auctorum Fidei (1794), teaches, "Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it...Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged." 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:


"The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on Earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever in tact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men." (Emphasis mine)

Summary and Conclusion

• Bergoglio is too Modernist for even some Modernists. He wants to give "communion" to adulterers. Some of his own so-called cardinals have asked him to clarify his Apostolic Exhortation.

• The SSPX tries to exonerate Bergoglio from heresy.

• The Church teaches that heretics cannot even attain the office of pope, and Bergoglio's ecumenism was heretical. He prays in public with heretics and Jews, the latter is a de facto denial of the Divinity of Christ. He wrote a book with a rabbi when he was a "cardinal." It is riddled with heresy and error.

• Even if Bergoglio were pope, heretics fall from office by Divine Law, and his teaching in Amoris Laetitia alone qualifies as heresy because it calls into question the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and the necessity of sanctifying grace for the worthy reception of Holy Communion. 

• The Church does not teach ambiguously. If She did, the Church would cease to be a teaching authority in any meaningful sense. 

• Interestingly, the SSPX calls Amoris Laetitia "dubious in its substance" and "Neo-Modernist." Yet this does not qualify Bergoglio as a heretic and false pope because it is not "formal and explicit enough"? What a joke. Bottom line: The SSPX believes that a formal heretic, someone who is not a member of the Church, can be the Head of that Church. 

The dubia never cite to the teachings pre-Vatican II. Why would they? Their sect began in the 1960s. Yet Bergoglio makes John Paul the Great Apostate look orthodox in comparison. The SSPX tries to defend the indefensible. Even members of the Vatican II sect know the Church has always taught that marriage is indissoluble, that divorce and subsequent attempted remarriage is a sin, and that those living in the latter situation cannot receive the sacraments--end of story. Does the SSPX wish to forget that on Easter Monday of 2014, Frankie phoned an Argentine woman who had been refused communion by her parish "priest" for living in an invalid marriage? Mr. Bergoglio told her she could "safely receive Communion, because she is doing nothing wrong." What's ambiguous about that, SSPX? They blasphemously make the martyrdom of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More a useless and needless act on their part.