Singing For Satan---Part 7

This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.

The Beatles and John Lennon

 Without a doubt, The Beatles are the most influential (and wicked) rock band of all time. They started what became known as the "British Invasion" of rock and roll, when music artists from England came to the United States and started the counterculture of drugs, perversion, and turning away from God. The band was formed in Liverpool, England in 1957 under the name The Quarrymen. In 1960, they changed their name to The Beatles in honor of rock singer Buddy Holly's band, The Crickets. Holly had died in 1959 from injuries sustained in a plane crash. The Beatles or "The Fab Four" as they became known to the world, were comprised of John Lennon (d. 1980), George Harrison (d. 2001), Paul McCartney (b. 1942), and Ringo Starr (born Richard Starkey in 1940).  It is literally impossible to understate the influence they have had upon pop and rock music and-- by extension--the world.

They are the best-selling band in world history, having sold more than 800 million albums. This is not including the successful solo careers of the four as individuals. McCartney still tours and sells out stadiums wherever he goes. The Beatles were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, and are ranked #1 in Rolling Stone magazine's "100 Greatest Artists of All Time." 

Tuning Out God, Turning People On To Drugs

McCartney and Harrison were both baptized in the One True Church, but McCartney was raised without any religious upbringing by his nominally Catholic mother and agnostic father, whereas Harrison was raised Catholic only to forsake it by his late teens. Lennon and Starr were both raised Anglican, forsaking religion by their late teens as well. According to Beatlesinterviews.org, all four had completely turned their backs on God by 1964, the year of the so-called "British invasion" and the year the Vatican II sect was created. Paul McCartney said, "We probably seem anti-religious because of the fact that none of us believe in God." He continued, "In America, they're fanatical about God. I know somebody over there who said he was an atheist. The papers nearly refused to print it because it was such shocking news that somebody could actually be an atheist ... yeah ... and admit it." To which Ringo Starr stated, "He speaks for all of us." Not to be outdone, John Lennon said, "If you say you don't believe in God, everybody assumes you're antireligious, and you probably think that's what we mean by that. We're not quite sure 'what' we are, but I know that we're more agnostic than atheistic."

In 1965, a Hindu presented each band member with a book on reincarnation. Harrison began a life-long association with pagan Eastern religion, as did all the band members for a brief time in the late 1960s. Only Harrison remained openly enamored with paganism until his death in 2001 from lung cancer. His ashes were scattered in India in alignment with Hindu tradition. Harrison's song My Sweet Lord has actually been used at the Novus Bogus "mass" because of its "Christian lyrics":

My sweet Lord

Mm, my Lord

Mm, my Lord

I really want to see you

Really want to be with you

Really want to see you, Lord

But it takes so long, my Lord

My sweet Lord

Mm, my Lord

Mm, my Lord

I really want to know you

I really want to go with you

Really want to show you, Lord

That it won't take long, my Lord

(Hallelujah)

My sweet Lord

(Hallelujah)

My Lord

(Hallelujah)

My sweet Lord

(Hallelujah) 

However, the song is really about the demon "gods" of Hinduism. Harrison repeats part of a Hindu mantra in the lyric when he sings, "Hare Krishna... Krishna, Krishna" in the background. The Hare Krishna movement is a branch of Hinduism, formally known as Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Its name comes from its chant — Hare Krishna — which devotees repeat over and over.  John Lennon proclaimed The Beatles were "more popular than Jesus Christ" in 1966. There was an uproar around the world, and Lennon claimed he was "misunderstood." He gave a half-hearted "apology" which Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) accepted on behalf of the Modernist Vatican. I wonder if he was also "misunderstood" when he called Jesus Christ a "...garlic eating, stinking, little yellow, greasy fascist bast**d Catholic Spaniard." (See Lennon's book A Spaniard In The Works, Simon & Schuster [1965], pg.14; profanity censored by me). What blasphemy!

The Beatles with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a Hindu "guru" who introduced pagan meditation into the West 

To fill the void in their lives when they pushed out God, they replaced Him with drugs and encouraged the world to do the same. 

The song With A Little Help From My Friends openly speaks of getting high:

What would you think if I sang out of tune

Would you stand up and walk out on me?

Lend me your ears and I'll sing you a song

And I'll try not to sing out of key

Oh I get by with a little help from my friends

Mm I get high with a little help from my friends

Mm gonna try with a little help from my friends (Emphasis mine)

The Walrus is a nonsensical song that ends with the refrain "smoke pot, smoke pot, everybody smoke pot." Lennon claimed that it was nonsense words being sung and it just sounded that way because he wanted to "mess with people's heads." However, in his final interview with the pornographic rag Playboy, Lennon admitted in 1980 that "The first line was written on one acid trip [LSD] one weekend. The second line was written on the next acid trip the next weekend, and it was filled in after I met Yoko." 

Their song Strawberry Fields Forever is about the red patch of skin that develops on the arm of a heroin user, called a "strawberry field" in 1960s hippy lingo. Interestingly, part of Central Park, NYC was named "Strawberry Fields" in Lennon's honor after his murder. Most of the public thought the song was just about "peace and love," yet it really is a fitting "tribute" to a drug addicted musician who sang the praises of dope. All of The Beatles were drug addicts and alcoholics for at least most of their careers.Lennon would always try and exculpate himself and the group by claiming their songs were not about drugs. For example, he said Strawberry Fields Forever was about a garden in which he would play as a child growing up in Liverpool, England.

Upon inspection, Lennon's claim doesn't hold up. The lyrics to Strawberry Fields Forever speaks to a hazy, empty-minded drug induced place where "nothing is real:"
Let me take you down
'Cause I'm going to Strawberry Fields
Nothing is real
And nothing to get hung about
Strawberry Fields forever

Furthermore, in the song Glass Onion, Lennon references many of  The Beatles' other tunes. He also perpetrates a fraud upon the public that "Paul [McCartney] is dead." It was a publicity stunt to sell even more records that contained backward masked messages of how McCartney died and was replaced by a look-alike. Such deception to sell records! Now we're supposed to believe this man--- a drug addict--- when he says his songs aren't about the drugs he enjoys so much? From Glass Onion:

I told you about strawberry fields

You know the place where nothing is real...

Well here's another clue for you all

The walrus was Paul. (The opening once again has the idea of a drug induced state, and the lyrics near the end are about the "McCartney is dead" fiasco).

  Other songs that praise drugs:

• Day Tripper (recreational drug use)

• Magical Mystery Tour (marijuana)

• Got To Get You Into My Life (McCartney admitted it was not about a girl but marijuana)

• Happiness Is A Warm Gun ("warm gun" was slang for a hypodermic needle hot with heroin, and the lyrics say to "shoot" as in "shoot up")

• Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds (Lennon claimed it was about his son seeing the Peanuts character Lucy in the stars or "with diamonds." Actually, it is an acrostic for "LSD")

From the Pagan to the Satanic

 Despite their claims of "agnosticism" and disavowal of all religion, the band members never fully severed ties with pagan Hinduism. In addition, the band was an admirer of Satanist Aleister Crowley (born Edward Alexander Crowley in 1875; died 1947). Crowley wrote The Book of the Law which declared that its followers should "Do what thou wilt" and seek to align themselves with their "True Will" through the practice of magick (spelled with "k" at the end, it refers to the occult practice as opposed to slight of hand parlor tricks spelled "magic"). He founded his own Satanic religion called Thelema of which his The Book of the Law was their "Bible." Crowley gained widespread notoriety during his lifetime, being a recreational drug experimenter, bisexual and Satanist. He was banned from Italy in 1923, and described in the press as "the wickedest man in the world." (See Martin Booth,  A Magick Life: The Biography of Aleister Crowley,  London: Coronet Books [2000]). 

The Beatles propelled Crowley to fame, and many rock and pop stars became followers of his teachings as a result. In 1967, The Beatles released their album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band. The cover featured a montage of people; mostly the infamous. There are four Hindu gurus pictured along with the evil Crowley. Below is an image of the album cover with Aleister Crowley's picture highlighted.

Adolph Hitler was also supposed to be on the cover, but for reasons never fully made clear, his image was removed prior to the album's release. Lennon wasn't kidding when he wrote, "I've sold my soul to the devil."(See Ray Coleman Lennon, McGraw-Hill, 1984 ed., pg. 256). 

John Lennon

 Lennon was the most famous of The Beatles, and I remember clearly when he was murdered by a mentally disturbed man, Mark David Chapman, on December 8, 1980. I was in high school, and you would have thought it was the president being assassinated by the way everyone reacted. He was treated as some ersatz "martyr." There were candlelight services that were overflowing in NYC, and other places around the world. I remember people were crying because he was killed violently, yet believed in "peace and love." Needless to say, I do not advocate violence, and Chapman remains (rightfully) in prison over 27 years later. However, the idea of Lennon being some "love and peace" advocate and martyr is just plain lunacy. As we have already seen, Lennon used and promoted drugs, rejected God for paganism and admired Satanist Aleister Crowley. As if that were not bad enough, there's much more sinister things about him.

• Lennon advocated for the rejection of God and Christianity.

In his song God, he claims not to believe in anything, which is itself a lie since he advocated for Hindu "gurus," and promoted the teachings of a libertine Satanist.  Here are the lyrics:

God is a concept

By which we measure

Our pain

I'll say it again

God is a concept

By which we measure

Our pain

I don't believe in magic

I don't believe in I-Ching

I don't believe in Bible

I don't believe in tarot

I don't believe in Hitler

I don't believe in Jesus

I don't believe in Kennedy

I don't believe in Buddha

I don't believe in mantra

I don't believe in Gita

I don't believe in yoga

I don't believe in kings

I don't believe in Elvis

I don't believe in Zimmerman

I don't believe in Beatles

I just believe in me

Yoko…

His song Imagine has been called "an atheist anthem."

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today... Aha-ah...

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion, too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

• Lennon admitted to being a wife beater

In his 1980 interview with porn rag Playboy, Lennon admitted, "...I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her and kept her apart from the things she loved...I used to be cruel to my woman, and physically--any woman. I was a hitter. I couldn't express myself and I hit. I fought men and I hit women." He was also emotionally abusive and a dead-beat dad to his first son, Julian, who stated that Paul McCartney was more of a father to him than Lennon ever was.  

• Lennon frequently lied about his life

Just some of his lies include claiming he was working class poor growing up when he was comfortably middle class. He said he left The Beatles over disputes with McCartney, when the truth was that he became unable to function from his heroin addiction. When he made a comeback before his murder, he said he was looking after his son, when in fact he had been in a drugged up stupor most of the time.

• Lennon was an exhibitionist

He appeared completely naked with his second "wife," Yoko Ono (herself an occultist) on the album entitled Two Virgins. The photo is so pornographic it had to be censored by the record company.

• Lennon's concubine, Yoko Ono, was deeply involved in paganism and astrology

"She seems to blend astrology, eastern philosophies, and mysticism into a meta-religious approach." (See  https://hollowverse.com/yoko-ono/). 

• Lennon was the ultimate hypocrite

While claiming to believe in nothing but himself, he and The Beatles promoted pagan religion and a Satanist. The man who wanted us to "imagine no possessions" was a multi-millionaire. He was anti-war and denounced the United States for acts of violence while beating his wife Cynthia, emotionally abusing his son Julian, and on at least one occasion was filmed making fun of the physically-challenged. 

Conclusion

The Beatles began the evil trend in modern pop and rock music. John Lennon is still spoken about in hushed tones as some great man to be revered, or even a "martyr" for "love and peace." The truth is quite different. Lennon once claimed The Beatles were more popular than Christ. In that same interview, he said, "Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I'll be proved right." Sorry, Mr. Lennon. You've gone to Judgement and now know the Truth. As much as your Hellish companions and you have tried (and as much success as you've had corrupting people and turning them away from God), we have Our Lord's promise, "...behold I am with thee all days, even to the consummation of the world " (St. Matthew 28:20), and "...the gates of Hell shall not prevail..." (St. Matthew 16:18). The One True Church shall remain long after your evil music is forgotten.

The Church Of Oprah

 It's a truism that a person is known by the company he or she keeps. The fact that Jorge Begoglio (aka "Pope" Francis) is always with heretics, infidels and pagans and not trying to convert them, tells you he is not someone who believes in the Integral Catholic Faith. By this standard it should be understood that one of the most evil people today is the much-beloved American media proprietor, talk show host, actress, and producer Oprah Winfrey. Winfrey (b. 1954) has had enormous influence on the world through her TV talk show which began in 1986. She is credited with having helped elect abortionist, sodomite-supporter, and Communist Barak Obama as the 44th President of the United States. She has recently ruled out a run for president herself in 2020, but that's not to say she couldn't change her mind. According to Forbes magazine, she is the richest African-American in the world with a net worth of 2.8 billion dollars.

 Any book Winfrey endorses seems to end up at the #1 spot on the New York Times Best Seller List. Who and what she endorses is most disturbing. She has used her influence to promote occult ideas and personalities that otherwise would have gone unnoticed. While claiming the title "Christian," Winfrey denies Our Lord and promotes evil. This post will expose her true beliefs, and the people she promotes. It is scary to think of this woman any more powerful than she is already.

Helen Schucman

 Helen Schucman (d. 1981) was the author of the book A Course in Miracles, which was taught on satellite radio by Marianne Williamson with the encouragement and support of Oprah Winfrey. In October of 1965, then 56 year old Schucman, a Jewish atheist psychologist and associate professor of medical psychology at Columbia University in NYC, began receiving what she claimed were channeled messages from a "spirit guide" identifying itself as "the voice of Jesus Christ." Soon, Schucman became used to the "voice" which dictated things for her to write down. She acted as a scribe, with her hand moving in what is known as "automatic writing." Popular in occult circles this automatic writing means that the writer's hand forms the words, but the person is unaware of what will be written.

 One of the most infamous "automatic writers" was Helene Smith (born Catherine Muller in 1861) who claimed her automatic writing was an attempt by Martians to communicate with Earth. She also declared that she was able to translate the "Martian Language" into French and was the reincarnation of a Hindu princess and Marie Antoinette. (See http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/1/i_martian.php; See also https://web.archive.org/web/20110606044931/http://www.unicaen.fr/services/puc/ecrire/ouvrages/psychiatries_histoire/11psychiatries_histoire.pdf; and Occult and Supernatural Phenomena, by Donovan Rawcliffe, Dover Publications [1988], pgs. 178-186).  

The result of Schucman's automatic writing was the book A Course in Miracles. The book tells us that our beliefs are unimportant. What is important is the application of the book's ideas which will bring you into a "higher form of consciousness." It further states that what is important is the inner core of our own being that unifies all religions of the world. This is a sample of what the "spirit guide" dictated to Schucman:

Some of the ideas the workbook presents you will find hard to believe, and others may seem quite startling. This does not matter. You are merely asked to apply the ideas as you are directed to do. You are not asked to judge them at all. You are asked only to use them. It is their use that will give them meaning to you, and will show you they are true.

Remember only this; you need not believe the ideas, you need not accept them, and you need not even welcome them. Some of them you may actively resist. None of this will matter, or decrease their efficacy. But do not allow yourself to make exceptions in applying the ideas the workbook contains, and whatever your reaction to the ideas may be, use them. Nothing more than that is required. (See A Course in Miracles: Text, Workbook for Students, Manual for Teachers, Glen Ellen, CA, The Foundation for Inner Peace [Reprint 1977], pg.ix).

This is pure religious indifferentism combined with a blind trust in something that will comport with all beliefs. This garbage didn't take off until it was popularized by a woman whom Oprah pushed to fame, namely, Marianne Williamson.

A Return to Paganism

Marianne Williamson (b.1952), calls herself "an American spiritual teacher" (although what qualifies her for this title remains an enigma). Her life was transformed by reading Schucman's Course. Williamson's first book, A Return to Love, is a popular exposition of A Course in Miracles. The original book by Schucman contains a lesson for everyday, or 365 "lessons" per calendar year. Winfrey pushed Williamson's book on her TV show in 1992, the year of its publication, and it spent 39 weeks on the New York Times Best Sellers List. Williamson then began to teach her lessons, based on those of Schucman, on XM radio to even more millions of people. 

Here are some of the "life lessons to be learned" from Marianne Williamson:

• Lesson #35: "My mind is part of God's. I am very holy."

• Lesson #38: "There is nothing my holiness cannot do."

• Lesson #61: "I am the light of the world"

• Lesson #96: "Salvation comes from my one self."

• Lesson #191: "I am the holy Son of God Himself."

These "lessons" are pure blasphemy from the father of lies himself. A single Jewish mother (who refuses to identify the father of her child), Williamson used to run a "metaphysical bookshop" (occult themes, not philosophy) before Oprah catapulted her to fame and fortune. Williamson is therefore not unacquainted with the demonic, and actually calls herself a witch:

During the wee hours of the morning, both angels and demons take shape...In those hours that I've lain so inconveniently awake, I think I've begun to know at last what awakened means. Noting the witching hour---4:15---at which I awake more often than not, stealing outside to look at the stars and marvel at the moon, I return again to my ancient self. In those hours, I am not a menopausal nutcase, I'm a magical witch, and I can feel it in my bones. (See Williamson's book The Gift of Change, San Francisco, HarperCollins, [2004], pg. 244; Emphasis mine). 

This woman, and the teachings of Schucman would never have ensnared so many people had it not been for Oprah Winfrey. 

Oprah and the Vatican II Sect

 Oprah has made many friends in the Vatican II sect, and pushes the work of "Fr" Richard Rohr (b. 1943) a proponent of the evil "Enneagram" (See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/10/jung-and-restless.html for more on that subject). Rohr pushes many heretical and immoral positions:

Rohr:

• Claims God is androgynous: "God is the ultimate combination of whatever it means to be male and whatever it means to be female."

• Supports sodomite "rights" groups and claims the Church "failed" by "judging" and "excluding" sodomites

• Denies the Crucifixion of Our Lord was necessary for Redemption: "Incarnation is already redemption, and you do not need any blood sacrifice to display God's commitment to humanity. Once God says yes to flesh, then flesh is no longer bad but the very ‘hiding and revealing' place of God."

• Denies the true nature of Original Sin by calling it "the common pain of being human"

• Claims the sacraments have no efficacy if their accompanying ritual does not produce a desired psychological effect

(See "Fr" Bryce Sibley, himself a Vatican II sect "priest," taking Rohr apart; http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6819).

Not surprisingly, there is nothing "Catholic" about the "priest" Oprah endorses; it is more occultism and Modernism.  Consider Oprah's own words:

When a lady in her audience asked, "What about Jesus?"  Oprah defiantly answered her by repeating the question, "What about Jesus?" Oprah went on to explain how she had been a Baptist until she heard a charismatic Pastor make the statement that God was a jealous God.  She told her viewers in her opinion God was simply love and God being described as a Jealous God made her really stop and think. 

On another occasion she stated:

One of the biggest mistakes humans make is to believe that there is only one way. Actually, there are many diverse paths leading to what you call God.

Yet another "gem" from Ms. Winfrey:

Well, I am a Christian who believes that there are certainly many more paths to God other than Christianity.

Conclusion

 In 2015, Bergoglio, upon visiting the U.S., sought advice on  "the Church’s portrayal in Western entertainment" from Oprah Winfrey and movie actor Matt Damon. Is it any wonder Bergoglio, who submits to and promotes the pagan "Reiki healing" would seek advice from this equally pagan woman? Oprah Winfrey has consistently pushed a pagan worldview while claiming the title "Christian" and donating generously to charity. Many are fooled who forget what Our Lord said, "The poor you will always have with you,but you will not always have Me." (St. Matthew 26:11). The purpose of this life is to save our soul. "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" (St. Mark 8:36). 

Winfrey has pushed many pagan ideas and personalities upon the world. A full listing would take another post; I didn't even mention Rhonda Byrne, author of the pagan (and very popular) book The Secret. Beware should she attempt a run for president; I shudder at the thought of "President Winfrey" and her occult driven Cabinet members. Upon meeting Bergoglio, Winfrey had this to say to "Pope" Francis: "Your Holiness (sic) I wanted to take a moment to extend my warmest welcome to you. I hold your life and work in the highest esteem. (Emphasis mine). Need any more be said? 

The Source Of The Problem

 In the more than four years that I have been regularly posting on this blog each week, I have communicated with all kinds of ersatz "Traditionalists." While the large majority of my readers are good people trying to be loyal to the Church in this age of near universal apostasy, there nevertheless remain those that exemplify what was meant by the prophet Zechariah when he wrote, "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered..." In a time of prolonged sedevacantism, people go far astray without a true pope. I have thought quite a bit about the unusual groups that have emerged posing as faithful Traditionalist Catholics in the wake of Vatican II. I have identified the basic groups and what I believe is the underlying source of the problem. Despite their claims that they are the true remnant, most wind up placing themselves outside the One True Church. First, the groups:

• Feeneyites: Those who deny Baptism of Blood (BOB) and Baptism of Desire (BOD), the most infamous of whom are the phony "Benedictine" brothers, Fred and Bobby Dimond of New York's Most Holy Family "Monastery." 

• Vacancy Pushers: This is the term I have coined for those who not only reject the "papacy" of Roncalli (John XXIII)  up to Bergoglio (Francis), but "push back the date of the vacancy" by denying the authenticity of pre-Vatican II popes. They accomplish this by digging up some obscure quote from an encyclical or some other papal document of a prior pope, twist it out of context, and declare him an "antipope." There are three main groups; those who, like Michael Bizzaro, declare Pope St. Pius X (d. 1914) as the last pope; those who recognize Pope Pius IX (d. 1878) as the last pope; and the followers of cult leader Richard Ibranyi of New Mexico, who have the last pope as being Pope Honorius II (d. 1130 AD!).

• Recognize and Resistors: Those who recognize all Vatican II "popes" yet feel free to decide when, how, and if they will obey them. (Groups like the Society of St. Pius X [SSPX] and Bp. Williamson's St. Marcel Initiative, and the notorious Bergoglio-defenders,Robert Siscoe and John Salza). 

• Apparitionists: People who exalt private revelations and apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses) over the teaching of the Church. They obsess over the alleged "true meanings" of messages (as if salvation depended on them), or even accept them to the exclusion of authentic Church doctrines in some area(s). The late "Fr." Gruner falls squarely in this category. 

• Home Aloners: Like an ecclesiastical version of the 1990 movie, these poor souls think that you cannot go to any Traditionalist priest, but must remain "home alone" without the Mass or sacraments because no one (according to them) has been properly "sent" by the Church. As a consequence, Traditionalist clergy allegedly have no authority to offer Mass and administer the sacraments. 

• Conclavists: The men and women who believe that, like in the case of David Bawden ("Pope" Michael), you can run a "conclave" with your mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors, and a self-anointed female "theologian" as "electors" on a Kansas farm, thereby producing a "pope." Some Conclavists, like the Palmar de Troya cult, claim "divine intervention," as when Clemente Dominguez said Christ Himself appeared to him in a vision and declared he would become pope upon the death of Montini ("Pope" Paul VI). 

• Science Deniers: My term for those who think that in order to preserve the faith, they must deny modern science. You must believe that the Earth is exactly 6,000 years old, and/or Earth is the center of the universe. They treat these opinions as "dogma." It is the opposite of some atheists who think that to preserve science you must deny God.   

To make matters more confusing, there are more groups, but these are the vast majority out there. Some people are not easy to pigeon-hole because they can fall into more than one group, such as the former Protestant minister, Gerry Matatics, who used to be both a Feeneyite and a Home Aloner, but is now just Home Alone giving "courses" regarding every subject under the sun on Facebook. You could also be a Science-Denier and a Vacancy Pusher, or an Apparitionist and a Conclavist.

So what's causing these pseudo-Traditionalist groups? All of them either do not understand, or willfully reject, the Magisterium of the Church. As a result, they get things seriously wrong, and most place themselves outside the Church. The purpose of this post will be, therefore, to give a proper exposition of what the Magisterium really is, and what we must believe. I will also answer common objections to the proper role of the Church's Magisterium. In so doing, I will also point out how some groups got it wrong. Nothing that will be written below is mine; I take credit for nothing. It is the teaching of the One True Church Herself. It is my hope that by understanding the teaching authority of the Church, you will never fall into these errors, and maybe this post will give you the ammunition necessary to rescue friends and family that have, unfortunately, fallen victim to them.

The Magisterium

1. What is the Magisterium? According to theologian Parente, it is "the power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) is constituted as the unique depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation." (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, [1951], pg. 170). Therefore, the Church is divinely appointed to teach all necessary truths of faith to people, free from error, in order that they may attain Heaven. "Magisterium" comes from the Latin magister or "teacher." Christ told His Apostles "Go therefore, teach ye all nations..."(St. Matthew 28:19). 

2. What constitutes the Magisterium? According to theologian Van Noort: "The subject-matter of divine- Catholic faith are all those truths proposed by the Church's Magisterium for our belief as divinely revealed...The principle laid down above is contained almost verbatim in this declaration of the [First] Vatican Council: 'Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.' [Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith]" (See Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press 3:220-221[1960]; words in brackets and emphasis are mine). 

The Magisterium, therefore, is expressed either solemnly or in an ordinary and universal way. This is clear from both Church history and the dogmatic decree of the First Vatican Council (1870).  The former exercise of the Church's teaching authority is called the Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium and the latter is called the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium ("UOM"). Both are equally infallible. 

3. The Extraordinary Magisterium. As theologian Van Noort writes, the Extraordinary Magisterium is comprised of: "(a) definitions made by the pope speaking ex cathedra; (b) definitions made by particular councils which have either been ratified by the pope in solemn form, or accepted by the universal Church. The term 'definition' covers creeds and professions of faith which have been edited or solemnly approved by the supreme Magisterium of the Church." (Ibid, pg. 221). However, this is not the usual way the Church teaches us, hence it is called "extraordinary." The purpose of infallible definitions made solemnly is to confirm what has already been taught by the UOM when brought under attack by heretics. For example, the heresiarch Arius was already considered a heretic for denying the Divinity of Christ (taught by the UOM) before the solemn definitions at the Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.  Martin Luther was likewise considered a heretic for denying the Mass was a real Sacrifice, and teaching justification by faith alone, before the condemnations of the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Exactly what, then, is the UOM?

4. The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium Explained. According to theologian Scheeben, "The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth may be easily gathered from the principles...nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich." (See A Manual of Catholic Theology 1:89). Pope Pius IX wrote, ""For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683 (Emphasis mine)

Again the Supreme Pontiff writes, "But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that

it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure." Tuas Libenter (1863), DZ 1684.

 Van Noort explains: "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 is unmistakably definitive........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 belonging to faith." (Van Noort, Ibid, pg. 222; Emphasis mine). 

Canon 1323 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law further gives proof of the belief of the Church regarding the UOM and imposes on the faithful the obligation of consent. The eminent canonist Augustine writes, "The universal and ordinary Magisterium consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i.e., all the bishops of the universal Church, dependently on the Roman Pontiff...What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must be believed. And what the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide." (See A Commentary on Canon Law, pg.327)

Finally, a great summary by theologian Scheeben, "Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.'" (Scheeben, Ibid, pg. 83). 

Remember, too, what constitutes an "approved theologian": Clerics of eminent learning, and orthodoxy in doctrine, at least as insofar their writings are used by the faithful and in seminaries, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the hierarchy and the Holy See. (See, e.g,. theologian Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, [1955]). 

The Two Errors Inherent in the Pseudo-Traditionalist Groups

I) Reject all teaching except infallible pronouncements from popes and Ecumenical Councils. Here, they jettison most Church teaching. They even (ironically) reject the infallible pronouncement of the First Vatican Council that the UOM is infallible! This is akin to ripping out more than half the pages of a book and expecting to get the story correct. It's not happening.

II) Only accept those infallible pronouncements from the popes and Ecumenical Councils according to their private interpretations, and reject the teaching of the approved theologians which is how the Church teaches us through Her Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, as infallibly defined at the Vatican Council (1870).Theology, like law or medicine, is a science. As such, it is handled by professionals trained and overseen by Holy Mother Church. A layman attempting to interpret a dogma is like a non-physician trying to "diagnose himself" on WebMD or a non-lawyer attempting to defend himself in court. Would you want to entrust your possible loss of liberty to a non-lawyer's advice? Would you let a non-surgeon operate on you and risk death? Of course, no rational person would do this, yet some Traditionalists will risk their eternal salvation by trusting in wannabe "Benedictines" with no formal ecclesiastical education and training, or a "pope" who was "elected" by his parents on their Kansas farm.

Objections Answered

• Theologians are not infallible. Yes, individual theologians can be in error, but not as a corporate body. What kind of teaching authority would that be? It is blasphemous to suggest that Christ's One True Church could allow error to go unchecked for almost two millennium, as in the case of BOD and BOB. The Church would have defected, but this is impossible. St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Thomas Aquinas taught both the absolute necessity of water baptism and BOD/BOB. This would imply that two of the greatest theologians and Doctors of the Church--brilliant men--were contradicting themselves in their own writings if what the Feeneyites teach is true. This smacks of a mental disorder being attributed to two of the greatest saints in Church history. Notice too, the hypocrisy and irrationality of the Dimond brothers who state that these saints made "innocent mistakes" regarding BOD and BOB, yet everyone else who believes it is of bad will and damned to Hell. Consider the countless popes and saintly bishops and priests who scrutinized the works of Aquinas and Liguori for hundreds of years. Their works were especially scrutinized for heresy and error when they were considered for canonization and again when being considered for the title of "Doctor of the Church." Yet not one pope, bishop, or priest caught the "innocent mistake" until an excommunicated Jesuit from Boston came along in the 20th century. Please.

• We only need to believe infallible teachings of the popes and Ecumenical Councils. The Church has condemned this very idea. Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches, "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith." Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, 1794, condemns: ''...the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, could impose a disciplinary law that would be not only useless and more burdensome for the faithful than Christian liberty allows, but also dangerous and harmful."  Pope Gregory XVI in Quo Graviora (1833) states, "The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, all of which truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. Should the Church be able to order, yield to, or permit those things which tend toward the destruction of souls and the disgrace and detriment of the sacrament instituted by Christ?" Pope Pius XII condemns the idea popes need not be given assent in their teachings that are not ex cathedra: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." (Humani Generis [1950]).  Hence, not adhereing to this principle, "recognize and resist" folks can claim Bergoglio is pope because he was "not speaking infallibly" when he allowed adulterers to receive the Novus Bogus "communion" or Wojtyla was not infallibly speaking when he wrote Ut Unam Sint. It is impossible for the pope to approve that which is erroneous or evil. You must either accept what they do, or reject their claim to the papacy! 

•  The information on the UOM is incorrect. No, I cited the infallible teaching of Vatican Council I (1870), and the Code of Canon Law which was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV. The Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws, such as the Code. The approved theologians likewise echo what the Council and the Code teach regarding the UOM. 

• You reject the popes from John XXIII to Francis, so we can apply the same rule to past popes and reject them. No, you are not "applying the same rule." I reject Vatican II and its so-called "popes" based on the complete irreconcilable ecclesiology taught pre- and post- Vatican II. Everyone realized something was seriously wrong (or at least very different) in the aftermath of Vatican II. No pope or theologian taught that non-Catholic sects are a "means of salvation" as did Vatican II. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite was taught. The errors were notorious and ubiquitous; there for all to see and the rejection of Roncalli to Bergoglio is based on the loss of papal office taught by the theologians. This is not the same as claiming, e.g. Pope Pius IX was the last pope because of some obscure quote pulled out of context written by Pope Leo XIII which allegedly makes him a "heretic." There was no huge movement claiming the Church had changed from Pope Pius IX to Pope Leo XIII, who kept Tradition intact, condemned Freemasonry, and declared Anglican orders invalid. To say otherwise is just plain false. 

• We must elect our own pope right away to end this confusion. Easier said than done. I agree that we need to work towards such a state of affairs, but that's very different from having your mommy, daddy, and some nice neighbors "elect you to the papacy." It has all the validity that should come with a tinfoil tiara. 

Conclusion

 The Feeneyites, and the other pseudo-Traditionalist groups suffer from what a friend of mine called a "sickness of soul." I agree. The sickness comes from a rejection of the authentic Magisterium. They fall into every imaginable error and, unfortunately, make Traditionalists look strange (at best) and deranged (at worst). Almost all of them (with very few exceptions) are uncharitable boors. I could retire a wealthy man right now if I had a dime for every time they resort to ad hominem attacks calling me (and anyone else who does not agree with every jot and tittle they profess) "liars," "apostates," etc. Then again, when you don't have facts or logic on your side, name-calling is all that's left to do. Please remember how the Church teaches us, and avoid the source of the problem that makes you "Traditionalist Catholic" in name only. 

The Center Of Attention

Prayer is the raising of the mind and heart to God. Unfortunately, for some members of the Vatican II sect, prayer is going deep within yourself! Many parishes, schools, and retreats of the sect push what is known as "centering prayer," which is defined as a technique that concentrates on emptying the mind of thought through the repetition of a single word, known as a mantra. If this sounds pagan to you, that's because it is based on Eastern pagan religions, and is being taught to the unsuspecting as a form of "Christian contemplation." The truth and dangers regarding centering prayer will be explored in this post.

Apostate Priest of Eastern Mysticism

 The leading proponent of centering prayer is one Fr. Thomas Keating. Born in 1923, Keating entered an austere Trappist monastery in 1944, and was ordained to the holy priesthood in June of 1949. He was the abbot of St. Joseph's Monastery in Spencer, Massachusetts from 1961 until his retirement in 1981. According to Fr. Keating's own website:

During Fr. Keating's term as abbot at St. Joseph's and in response to the reforms of Vatican II, he invited teachers from the East to the monastery. As a result of this exposure to Eastern spiritual traditions, Fr. Keating and several of the monks at St. Joseph's were led to develop the modern form of Christian contemplative prayer called Centering Prayer. Fr. Keating was a central figure in the initiation of the Centering Prayer movement. He offered Centering Prayer workshops and retreats to clergy and laypeople and authored articles and books on the method and fruits of Centering Prayer. In 1983, he presented a two-week intensive Centering Prayer retreat at the Lama Foundation in San Cristabol, New Mexico, which proved to be a watershed event. Many of the people prominent in the Centering Prayer movement today attended this retreat. Contemplative Outreach was created in 1984 to support the growing spiritual network of Centering Prayer practitioners. Fr. Keating became the community's president in 1985, a position he held until 1999.

Fr. Keating is an internationally renowned theologian and an accomplished author. He has traveled the world to speak with laypeople and communities about contemplative Christian practices and the psychology of the spiritual journey, which is the subject of his Spiritual Journey video and DVD series. Since the reforms of Vatican II, Fr. Keating has been a core participant in and supporter of interreligious dialogue. He helped found the Snowmass Interreligious Conference, which had its first meeting in the fall of 1983 and continues to meet each spring. Fr. Keating also is a past president of the Temple of Understanding and of the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue.

Perhaps the biggest testament to Fr. Keating's dedication to reviving Christian contemplative practices is his choice to live a busy, public life instead of the quiet, monastic life for which he entered the monastery. Fr. Keating's life is lived in the service of sharing the gifts God gave him with others.

The site also states, In the 1970s, answering the call of Vatican II, three Trappist monks at St. Joseph's Abbey in Spencer, Massachusetts, Fathers William Meninger, Basil Pennington and Thomas Keating, looked to these ancient sources to develop a simple method of silent prayer for contemporary people.

(See http://www.contemplativeoutreach.org; Emphasis mine).

Centering prayer, therefore, has its roots in pagan religion and Vatican II; most notably that robber council's damnable declaration Nostra Aetate ("The Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions"). In paragraph #2 it states:

Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself. (Emphasis mine).

 This is another example of the heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II. All religions contain some "ray of Truth" (often referred to as "elements of truth") and are to be "respected." The Church of Christ ( heretically considered distinct from the Catholic Church) is present "partially" in every religion according to how many "elements" it has, but is present "in its fullness" in the Catholic religion which has all the "elements." To have all the truth/elements is best, but to have some truth/elements is also good and can lead to salvation. By this insanity, you could "respect" Satanism because it teaches "some element of truth" such as the existence of fallen angels. Vatican II then pays lip service to Christ as "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" after having effectively denied His One True Church and its absolute necessity for salvation.

Fr. Keating and Vatican II stand condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (1928), para. # 2:
For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion. (Emphasis mine).

Likewise, Pope Leo XII in Ubi Primum (1824), para. # 14:
It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. (Emphasis mine).

Turning to the (False) God Within

 According to Fr. Keating's website: Centering Prayer is a receptive method of silent prayer that prepares us to receive the gift of contemplative prayer, prayer in which we experience God's presence within us, closer than breathing, closer than thinking, closer than consciousness itself. This method of prayer is both a relationship with God and a discipline to foster that relationship. Here we see the Eastern gobbledygook at work. What, exactly, does it mean to be "closer than consciousness itself"? 

 Centering prayer actually isn't prayer at all. Prayer is meant to lift us up in thought to God, Who is totally distinct from us so we can be in a loving relationship with Him. Centering prayer has the person repeat a monosyllabic word ("mantra") to express his "intentionality" of being "one with God." He is to return to this word to prevent any distracting thought (holy or otherwise). The idea is to suspend thinking as much as possible.  Why would you want to do that? The intent of the technique is to bring the practitioner to the center of his own person or being. There he will allegedly experience the presence of the "God who indwells him." You look for God, as if He were a part of you, because in these pagan Eastern ideologies, God and the universe are one. This takes the form of pantheism or panentheism. 

These positions are similar, and in stark opposition of Church teaching that God and the universe are entirely distinct. According to one source that gave what I believe to be an accurate and concise definition:

Pantheism is the belief God and the universe can be equated; that God is the universe. This is different from panentheism (also called monistic monotheism), where all is in God; it says the divine interpenetrates all aspects of the universe and transcends it. So in panentheism the divine is separate, whereas in pantheism the universe itself could be defined as the divine. (See https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-are-pantheism-and-panentheism).

The First Vatican Council infallibly defined:

 1. If anyone shall deny One true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible; let him be anathema. 

2. If anyone shall not be ashamed to affirm that, except matter, nothing exists; let him be anathema. 

3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema. 

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema. 

5. If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema. 

The Evil of Centering Prayer 

•  If centering prayer is to lead us to contemplation, and if contemplation is the experience of the loving presence of God, how can this happen if we reject His grace through loving thoughts of Him by banishing the active thought process? It is more of a hypnotic state than anything contemplative, and cannot be truly thought of as prayer in any Catholic sense of the word.

• It actually goes against the teaching of St. Teresa who warns against suspending intellectual operations on our own (unless/until God gives the grace of infused contemplation): Unless His Majesty has begun to suspend our faculties, I cannot understand how we are to stop thinking, without doing ourselves more harm than good...(See The Interior Castle, fourth mansion, chapter 3). 

• Fr. Keating attempts to defend the practice on his website as follows, Centering Prayer does not "empty the mind" or exclude other forms of prayer.  It is not a "technique" that automatically creates "mysticism" or a means "to reach an altered state of consciousness."It is important not to confuse Centering Prayer with certain Eastern techniques of meditation such as Transcendental Meditation. The use of the sacred word in Centering Prayer does not have the particular calming effect attributed to the TM mantra. Nor is the sacred word a vehicle leading to the spiritual level of one's being as it is in TM. There is no cause-and-effect relationship between using the sacred word and arriving at some altered state of consciousness. The sacred word is merely the symbol of the consent of one's will to God's presence and action within based on faith in the doctrine of the Divine Indwelling. "Sacred word"? "Divine Indwelling"? Not only is this Hinduism dressed up as "renewed Christian prayer," but Fr. Keating lies. His comrade, Fr. Basil Pennington (1931-2005), helped him spread centering prayer. Fr. Pennington approved a Catholic participating in TM, despite the fact that the introductory ceremony to TM, the Puja, involves worship of a dead Hindu guru and that the mantras given those being initiated are in fact the names of Hindu "gods." This is a direct mortal sin against the First Commandment. 

• Fr. Keating, despite his protestations to the contrary, admits that his centering prayer work is based on the false ecumenism of Vatican II. He states on his website, It’s a very dismal scene sociologically for a young person who’s open to spiritual growth.So what can the religions do about this?  I think they will have to give a strong witness of nonviolence, of understanding, acceptance, appreciation and friendship to other religions even though they have personal dislikes of some things they do. What is being understood, in other words, is that we believe now, following Vatican II, that the Spirit is working in them also.  That means that the Word of God is manifesting itself in them without the words that we’re familiar with and is perhaps guiding them and is the source of grace for them.The fact that the Incarnation took place means that Christ is in relationship to every human being.  Hence, everybody is religious just by becoming one and is in relationship – you don’t have to get it – you are in relationship to the Source or Creator.  (Emphasis mine). 

• The emptying of the mind by repeating a mantra is explained by proponents of centering prayer as a preparation for infused contemplation and likened to acquired contemplation. This simply is not Catholic teaching. According to the great theologian Garrigou-Lagrange, "If by acquired contemplation we mean a prayer distinct from simplified affective prayer, in which the intellect is totally absorbed by its object and in which we place ourselves by the suppression of all rational activity, we thereby not only create a degree of prayer unknown to St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross, but we likewise oppose their explicit teaching. In fact, St. Teresa repeatedly opposes the total suppression of discourse and the movement of thought as long as one has not received infused contemplation (Life, chapter 12; The Interior Castle, fourth mansion, chapter 3; The Ascent of Mount Carmel, Bk. II, chapter 15). (See The Three Ages of the Interior Life, St. Louis, B. Herder Book Co. [1948], 2: 311; Emphasis mine). 

• Finally, there is a completely false notion of sin and human nature that comes with centering prayer. At the center of our being is NOT God; rather, we are born in Original Sin and devoid of God. We need the grace of baptism to have God dwell in us. If we are unfortunate to lose sanctifying grace, we must regain it through the Sacrament of Penance, or at least an Act of Perfect Contrition with the intention of confessing as soon as possible to regain the state of grace. Centering prayer claims you receive the experience of God regardless of your sins, by overcoming the "otherness" of God and finding Him "within"--an idea direct from pagan Hinduism. Again, as Fr. Keating states, "The fact that the Incarnation took place means that Christ is in relationship to every human being.  Hence, everybody is religious just by becoming one and is in relationship – you don’t have to get it – you are in relationship to the Source or Creator."

Conclusion

The apostate priest, Fr. Thomas Keating, has been busy spreading Eastern pagan ideology and pagan prayer under the guise of "silent prayer for contemporary people" in much the same way the Novus Bogus "mass" is an "updated version" of worship. Both are based on the heretical ecclesiology and ecumenism of Vatican II. Most frighteningly, people who practice centering prayer are so eager to "hear something supernatural within themselves," that in such an altered/hypnotic state precipitated by a pagan mantra, they open themselves up to suggestions of demons. It is a pagan practice, not some "updated form of monasticism"  for the laity. 

Centering prayer is aptly named if only for one reason: Like the Novus Bogus, it makes humans the center of its focus. People look for "god within" and to be told they are all good, all holy. Humans get the praise. There is no need for One True Religion, or to repent. It is then that those involved will find themselves in the center of the deception from which they may (God forbid) never escape. 

Perversity University

On Sunday, December 17, 2017, while Traditionalists were celebrating Gaudete Sunday (the third Sunday of Advent using the rare rose-colored vestments), "Father" Gregory Greiten of  St. Bernadette parish in the Vatican II sect diocese of Milwaukee said he was "breaking the silence of gay men in the clergy so he could reclaim his own voice." "I am Greg. I am a Roman Catholic [sic] priest[sic]. And, yes, I am gay!" he told worshipers Sunday. He received a standing ovation. (See https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/12/18/gay-priest-comes-out/961960001/).

  According to Vatican II sect priest Donald B. Cozzens, an estimated 23% to 58% of "priests" are in fact sodomites. That would mean that there are anywhere from 8,554 (low) to 21,571 (high) sodomite "priests" in the United States today based on the most recent figure of approximately 37,000. (See The Changing Face of the Priesthood, Liturgical Press, [2000]). How did we get to this point? Even 30 years ago, the thought of giving a standing ovation to a man who is mentally ill and/or morally deranged would have been unthinkable. Timothy J. Dailey, PhD, Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Marriage and Family Studies of the Family Research Council, wrote in his 2004 article, "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse":

The circle of abuse is the tragic legacy of the attempts by homosexuals to legitimize having sex with boys... Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children...The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse:
1. men are almost always the perpetrator;
2. up to one-third or more of the child sex abuse cases are committed against boys;
3. less than three percent of the population are homosexuals.
Thus, a tiny percentage of the population [homosexual men], commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

The Vatican II sect members have not only has lost their faith, but obviously their marbles as well, if they can't link sodomites to the wave of child rape in their sect that has come forth since 2002. Mr. Greiten's "bishop," Jerome Listecki, not only supported his "coming out," but gave his approval for the National Catholic (sic) Register to publish an article that Greiten had written in their next issue, published on the following day. Greiten writes, "...there are no authentic role models of healthy, well-balanced, gay, celibate priests to be an example for those, young and old, who are struggling to come to terms with their sexual orientation." What? Homosexuality is one of the "Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance" along with murder, oppression of the poor, and defrauding laborers of their rightful wages. As politically incorrect as it is for me to write this, it is no more possible to have a "healthy, well-balanced" sodomite, than there is to have a "healthy, well-balanced" murderer. 

 Fr. DePauw, my spiritual father, was in charge of admissions to Mount St. Mary's Seminary for the Archdiocese of Baltimore. He told me he rejected over 75% of the applicants because he suspected they were perverts. He rejected many others on suspicion of Modernism. All this he did with the full support of Archbishop Francis Keough, a prelate he described as "saintly." He also claimed that's why everyone who had the ear of Pope Pius XII did all they could to denigrate him and prevent him from obtaining the red hat of a Cardinal, a dignity expected to be given the Archbishop of Baltimore. When Abp. Keough took ill, Bishop Lawrence Shehan was appointed Coadjutor, meaning he would automatically succeed to the Archbishopric upon the demise of Abp. Keough.

 Shehan had already obtained a reputation in Bridgeport for being a "Modernist dictator" going back to his appointment there in 1953. When Abp. Keough left this world on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in 1961, Shehan's first priority was to remove Fr. DePauw from his position and replace him with a priest who was "pastoral" towards those with "sexuality issues." (Read: a pervert who wanted other perverts to infiltrate the priesthood and destroy it). By the 1980s, St. Mary's was referred to as the "Pink Palace" for its "gay" subculture. Shehan would persecute Fr. DePauw and calumniate him relentlessly for the rest of his life. He was an arch-Modernist at Vatican II, and was given the red hat by Montini in 1965. He tried everything he could to shut down Father's Catholic Traditionalist Movement in 1964, and he just might have succeeded had it not been for Bishop Kurz, Cardinal Spellman and Cardinal Ottaviani. Shehan passed in 1984, never having retracted the calumnies against Fr. DePauw. I shudder to think where he is now. 

I tell this story because this is where the rot began; in seminaries and (formerly) Catholic colleges. It is important to indoctrinate people to accept both heresy and moral perversion under the veneer of "erudition." According to Father Andrew Walker, the situation at the Baltimore seminary was so bad that the vice rector delivered a lecture "in front of at least 150 people when he stated, ‘Yes, we accept openly gay seminarians; that's our policy.’" (See "Homosexual Culture Undercuts Priesthood," NewsMax.com, April 5, 2002). 

The Bizarre and Unnatural Legitimized

  When you send your children to college, don't think that only secular colleges and universities are left-wing, anti-God, and proponents of immorality. The "Young America's Foundation" ("YAF") regularly audits course catalogs, textbook requirements, and other components of today's colleges. According to YAF:

Today’s universities create "diversity and inclusion" centers and joyfully publish statistics on the diversity of race, gender, and sexual orientation of their faculty while remaining entirely homogeneous when it comes to diversity of ideas. As tuition rates increase and students face increasing levels of college-related debt, the value and quality of education plummets. Rather than churning out the next generation of American leaders, so-called "premiere" institutions graduate class after class of adults who are unable to tolerate opposing viewpoints. (See YAF.org) 

The following is an actual list of courses offered in "Catholic" colleges and universities in the United States.  WARNING!! Extremely disturbing content below.

From the Jesuit-run GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY:

WGST 233: Culture, Politics, HIV

This course explores the affects attached to raced, sexed, and gendered embodiment through a comparative reading of discourse written on the bodies infected/affected in the transnational AIDS epidemic. In focusing on the two populations whose images have come to define popular perceptions of the epidemic—urban Western gay men and disenfranchised African women and children—we examine the shared affects of abjection and narratives of triumph attached to these bodies. Using a transnational feminist lens that pays particular heed to the racing and gendering of these bodies in a global context, we will question the ways in which these narratives of embodiment erase other bodies affected by the disease (such as African-American heterosexuals and queer Africans). We will also look at the ways in which people living with HIV/AIDS have crafted a number of transnational links that provide the opportunity for both resistant and complicit performances.

(See: https://myaccess.georgetown.edu/pls/bninbp/bwckctlg.p_disp_course_detail?

cat_term_in=201730&subj_code_in=WGST&crse_numb_in=233; Does anyone even know what this drivel MEANS?--Introibo)

THEO 025: The Bible and Horror

The Bible can be a scary book. From chaos monsters like Leviathan and Behemoth, to God's terrifying nighttime attack on Moses in Exodus 4, to the beast with seven heads and ten horns in the book of Revelation--the Bible often reads more like horror literature than religious literature. In this course we will explore why that might be. That is, what might religion and horror (or the monstrous) have in common, and how finally do they differ? Why does the horror genre draw so often on biblical and religious themes (as in Dracula's favorite quote from the book of Leviticus, "the life is in the blood")? And is the supernatural a necessary part of religion, or can religion exist within the bounds of reason alone? The class will engage in close readings of selected biblical texts, and move on to Gothic literature and modern films. A good deal of writing and reading will be required.

(See: https://myaccess.georgetown.edu/pls/bninbp/bwckctlg.p_disp_course_detail?

cat_term_in=201730&subj_code_in=THEO&crse_numb_in=025)

From the Archdiocese of Newark-run SETON HALL UNIVERSITY

POLS 2351: The Politics of Marriage

This course focuses upon gay marriage as a contemporary political idea, part of an important public policy debate. Gay marriage is bound to a larger historical, religious and cultural narrative. The course focuses upon the European and American experience. Other non-western and indigenous traditions are introduced to assist in examining the diversity and complexity of the topic. Complementary ideas are introduced and evaluated, most notably social construction and essentialism. This endeavor requires careful attention as many important voices here (women and queer individuals in particular) are historically marginalized.

(See: https://www.shu.edu/academics/upload/2017-2018-Undergraduate-Catalogue.pdf)

From the Jesuit-run XAVIER UNIVERSITY

THEO 324: Religion and Hip Hop

This course explores the relationship between religion and hip hop culture. Economic disenfranchisement has always played an important role in hip-hop culture. Similarly, the"religious" is consistently cited within hip-hop culture as a means of identity construction and ethical formation. Given these concurrent themes operating with hip hop, we will examine the various ways in which religious discourse, epistemologies, narrative and meaning constructs, classification schemes, language-worlds, images, ideas, rituals, and overall sensibilities are expressed in the performance of hip hop and concurrent cultural industries. To this end, we will place selected aspects of hip hop culture in dialogue with established religious traditions.

(See: https://banssbprod.xavier.edu:8099/PROD/bwckctlg.p_disp_course_detail?cat_term_in=201801&subj_code_in=THEO&crse_numb_in=324)

And even if not "Catholic," I had to give you an idea of what madness has infiltrated the Ivy Leagues. From COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY here in NYC:

SOCI UN 3985: Queer Practice

Is there a particularly “queer” way to live? Does a queer perspective mitigate for certain forms of social, interpersonal or political action? Are there sets of vocations, engagements or relationship formations that are, in and of themselves, distinctly queer? Or is queerness something that can infuse or transform pre-existing modes of personal or relational action? How does any of this relate to the version of “queer” one learns in college? Is a university education necessary, or even useful, for living a queer life? 

Does academic queer theory have any relevance to "real-world" politics, affects or activisms? Do classroom projects within Gender & Sexuality Studies prepare us to engage in projects of social change, political efforts, or in any meaningful way, to work more closely with others on shared goals related to social justice? Does a liberal arts education prepare us to navigate ideological, intellectual and interpersonal differences? To move from a critical gaze at social institutions into institutional change? To become more robust citizens of a world that includes a multiplicity of viewpoints, perspectives and values? Finally, at its best, what should the university classroom do to prepare students to forge their own social and political perspectives, and to move from gaze and consideration into movement and action?

(See : http://bulletin.columbia.edu/columbia-college/departments-instruction/sociology/

#coursestext)

Conclusion

The Modernists and perverts have turned the seminaries and colleges into cesspools of immorality and heresy. That's why a whole congregation can applaud Mr. Greitan's profession of unnatural desires. That's why Bergoglio tells us "Who am I to judge?" Seminaries are places for sodomites to hook-up while the few that aren't homosexual or bisexual are taught to accept unnatural vice as "normal." Since Vatican II, the Fathers, Doctors, and approved theologians/canonists have all been jettisoned from seminary. No longer will Aquinas, Liguori, Van Noort, Pohle, Prummer, and Regatillo be taught. They are replaced with Karl Rahner, Charles Curran, Richard McBrien, Hans Kung, and Teilhard de Chardin. The colleges and universities that used to prepare people for their God-given vocation now compare the Bible to horror movies, try to show the "interface" between profanity-laced hip-hop music and religion, and make "gay OK." 

 When I graduated college in the 1980s, there was still solid education. Ditto for when I went to graduate school and law school. Since circa 2000, when the first generation of post-Vatican II graduates came into power, all Hell (literally) broke loose. Things will only get worse. Parents, please let this post serve as a warning as to where you send your children to college. Know what they do and what they learn. Earlier, I mentioned the lunacy of giving a standing ovation for a murderer, but can I see that happening in a Vatican II sect parish for someone who works for Planned Parenthood? Yes. Maybe, as some of my readers have suggested, the end isn't too far off. God help us; no One else can. 

Singing For Satan---Part 6

 This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.

U2 and Bono

 One of the most deceptive bands of all time, U2, was formed in Dublin, Ireland in 1976. While many people see them as a "Christian band" or " a band of Christians," because of their philanthropy and the Biblical references to which they sometimes allude, in actuality U2 is very anti-Christian. The band is composed of "Bono" (b. Paul Hewson in 1960), "The Edge" (b. David Evans in 1961), Adam Clayton, and Larry Mullen, Jr. Originally calling themselves "Feedback" and then "The Hype," the group settled on "U2" in 1978 because it was open to interpretation and purposefully ambiguous. 

 The band has sold over 175 million albums worldwide, and were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2005; their first year of eligibility. U2 dominated the music charts during the 1980s and 1990s, and remain very active today, having released their 14th studio album on December 1, 2017 entitled Songs of Experience. They have won an incredible 22 Grammy Awards (more than any other band in history). Rolling Stone magazine ranked them #22 in its list of the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time," and ranked Bono #32 of the "100 Greatest Singers of All Time."  Bono and The Edge share the honor together of being listed by that same magazine as #35 on the "100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time."  

Good Voice, Evil Music

 Paul Hewson received his world-famous moniker "Bono" from his friend Gavin Friday who called him "Bono Vox" an alteration of the Latin "Bonavox" roughly translated as "Good Voice." Hewson liked it and dropped the "vox," hence being known as "Bono" ever since. Bono dubbed his friend David Evans "The Edge" because of his sharp features and sharp mind when helping Bono compose songs. Bono is indeed the spokesman and "face" of U2. 

 Bono was raised by a Catholic father and Protestant mother. His father was a nominal Catholic and (sinfully) agreed with his wife that their first child would be raised Anglican, and their second Catholic. Even though Bono was the second child he was taken to both Catholic Churches and Anglican services growing up. 

Bono has tried to ensnare people into believing that the message of Christ is about philanthropy to the exclusion of necessary beliefs. He professes to believe that Christ is God. As recently as 2013, Bono stated, "And I believe that Jesus was, you know, the Son of God,” Bono said, according to a transcript provided to Religion News Service. “I understand that for some people and we need to … if I could be so bold, need to be really, really respectful to people who find that ridiculous." (See http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/u2s-bono-jesus-is-the-son-of-god/#HBOe17ix1v4ZuzEV.99)

 He also throws some religious songs on albums to further deceive the public. U2's song 40, is a reference to Psalm 40. Here are the lyrics:

I waited patiently for the Lord
He inclined and heard my cry
He brought me up out of the pit
Out of the mire and clay
I will sing, sing a new song
I will sing, sing a new song
How long to sing this song
How long to sing this song
How long, how long, how long
How long, to sing this song
He set my feet upon a rock
And made my footsteps firm
Many will see
Many will see and fear

This is what Bono and U2 want you to think about them. Dig beneath the surface and you'll find the sinister truth. Bono has dressed up on stage as Mr. Macphisto, a play on the name Mephistopheles, a demon featured in German folklore. After the release of their album Achtung Baby in 1991, Bono "thought he needed a character point in the show[concerts], and the character was MacPhisto, the Devil, a very theatrical character. It was the first time he had done a character like that. And then we came up with a gold suit and red lamé, a ruffled shirt, the make-up and the Devil horns. Bono really took on the persona and got into character."  Even his friend The Edge described it as "disturbing."

"It was really a bizarre kind of chilling feeling seeing him," Edge says. "It was everything we discussed. It was very disturbing, very unreasonable, and nothing to do with entertainment. It was something much heavier. I thought the idea of the horns was over the top, I thought it was spelling it all out, but in fact it really works."
(See http://www.canadanne.co.uk/macphisto/who.html).

Below is a picture of Bono as Mr. MacPhisto, poking fun at religion.

Bono Reveals His True Colors

 In his book In Other Words: Artists Talk About Life and Work, author Anthony DeCurtis asks Bono about dressing up as a devil and calling the "Archbishop" of Canterbury on the phone while telling the audience religious leaders were some of his closest friends. Bono replied, "It's true. I often wonder if religion is the enemy of God. It's almost like religion is what happens when the Spirit has left the building." (See above referenced book, Hal Leonard Corp. Pub. [2005],  pg. 282; Emphasis mine). 

Bono is an ecumenist who sees the "three Abrahamic faiths" as equal, and wants them to work together for a world-wide religion. During U2's 2005 tour, Bono had the "Coexist" sign flash in the background while he led the fans in chants of "Jesus, Jew, Mohammed--it's true." (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVoemrstxbI). 

 In their song In God's Country, the band sings that they stand with the "sons of Cain."

Sleep comes like a drug
In God's country
Sad eyes, crooked crosses
In God's country

Naked flame
She stands with a naked flame
I stand with the sons of Cain
Burned by the fire of love
Burned by the fire of love (Emphasis mine)

God doesn't feel the same way. In 1 John 3:12, we read: "Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous."

In the song Peace On Earth, the band tells us they want "Heaven on Earth" and eschew the message of Christ in the Gospel of St. John 14:27, "Peace I leave with thee; My peace I give unto thee. Not as the world gives do I give to thee. Let not thy hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid."

Heaven on earth
We need it now
I'm sick of all of this
Hanging around
Sick of sorrow
Sick of pain
Sick of hearing again and again
That there's gonna be
Peace on earth...

Jesus, in the song you wrote
The words are sticking in my throat
Peace on earth
Hear it every Christmas time
But hope and history won't rhyme
So what's it worth?
This peace on earth

Peace on earth
Peace on earth

Peace on earth

The song If God Will Send His Angels blasphemously asserts that God can't help us, and even if He could, He really doesn't care.

Nobody else here baby
No-one else here to blame
No-one to point the finger
It's just you and me and the rain
Nobody made you do it
No one put words in your mouth
Nobody here taking orders
When love took a train heading south
It's the blind leading the blond
It's the stuff, it's the stuff of country songs
Hey, if God will send his angels
And if God will send a sign
And if God will send his angels
Would everything be alright?
God's got his phone off the hook, babe
Would he even pick up if he could?
It's been a while since we saw that child
Hangin' round this neighborhood (Emphasis mine).

The tune Wake Up Dead Man, contains a profanity as it rips into Our Lord and blasphemously denies the Resurrection by calling Christ a "dead man."

Jesus 
Jesus help me 
I'm alone in this world 
And a f***ed up world it is too (profanity censored by me)
Tell me 
Tell me the story 
The one about eternity 
And the way it's all gonna be 
Wake up 
Wake up dead man 
Wake up 
Wake up dead man 

Bono: Fast (and Gruesome) Facts

• He founded the ONE Campaign, aimed at fighting extreme poverty and incurable diseases especially in Africa. How does Bono envision helping in this cause? Contraception and abortion! U2 performed concerts for the Contraception Action Campaign and the Irish Family Planning Association. Christ said, "For the poor you have always with you..." (St. Matthew 26:11) and "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God..." (St. Matthew 6:33). 

• In the Communist rag, Mother Jones Magazine of May 1, 1989, Bono was asked, "How do you feel, for instance, about abortion?" He responded, "I just have my own ideas. I believe that it’s a woman’s right to choose. Absolutely."

• He urged Ireland to legalize sodomite "marriage" and celebrated when they did make it legal, during a concert back in 2015. He said, "It’s a moment for us to thank the people who brought peace to our country, who had the courage to compromise in Ireland..."We have peace in Ireland today, and — in fact, on this very day — we have true equality in Ireland," he added. "Millions turned up to vote yesterday to say love is the highest law in the land. ...If God loves us, whoever we love, wherever we come from, then why can’t the state?" He also changed the lyrics to their smash 1984 hit Pride (In the Name of Love)--about Dr. Martin Luther King's murder--to say "They could not take away your gay pride" in place of "they could not take your pride." (See https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/26/u2-ireland-gay-marriage-_n_7442984.html). 

• Liberal Protestant sects and their colleges/seminaries are openly considering making U2's lyrics and Bono's ideas part of the curriculum! In the book Get Up Off Your Knees, several contributing authors, including Eugene Peterson, author of The Message Bible translation, praise Bono and U2 as a "prophetic voice." In fact, Calvin College offered a class which analyzed U2′s influence on Christians. (See "Calvin College on U2," Christianity Today, February 23, 2005). 

• While wearing the cross, he will sing the song I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." Not exactly the message you'd expect to hear from one who allegedly follows Our Lord! In that same Mother Jones interview, Bono said, "...we don't have any answers...I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For. How much more clear can you make it?"

Conclusion

U2 and Bono are the most cunning liars and deceivers in today's world of music. They can rant and rave about how they are "Christian," and Bono can talk about his alleged "belief in Christ" until they are all blue in the face. The facts show us a group of liars who promote contraception, abortion, sexual perversion, religious indifferentism, and blaspheme Christ. Don't be taken in by charitable causes and token songs in praise of God. They fail the test set by Our Lord Himself, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them." (St. Matthew 7:15-20).